What Is a John Doe Defendant in a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit?

Overview: Why “John Doe” Defendants Exist in Copyright Litigation

In BitTorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits—particularly those filed by adult film studios such as Strike 3 Holdings, LLC—the case almost always begins against an unnamed defendant identified only as “John Doe.” This designation is not accidental, nor is it a mere formality. It reflects a structural limitation of copyright enforcement when the plaintiff’s only initial evidence is an IP address, rather than a verified human identity.

A John Doe defendant is a procedural placeholder for the unidentified person whom the plaintiff alleges committed the infringement. It is not a finding of liability and does not identify any particular individual at the time the complaint is filed. Courts routinely emphasize that a John Doe designation is a legal fiction used solely to allow limited early discovery—most commonly, a subpoena to an Internet Service Provider (ISP)—so that the plaintiff may attempt to identify a real person to name in an amended complaint.

This page explains what a John Doe defendant is, how courts use John Doe designations, when an ISP subscriber may become identified as the alleged John Doe defendant, and why a John Doe cannot proceed to trial absent proper identification and amendment under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

What Does “John Doe” Mean in Federal Civil Litigation?

John Doe as a Legal Placeholder

Federal courts have long permitted the use of fictitious defendants when a plaintiff cannot identify the defendant at the time of filing, but reasonably expects to do so through discovery. See Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980).

In copyright infringement cases involving peer‑to‑peer file sharing, plaintiffs typically know only:

• A public IP address
• A date and time of alleged activity
• The copyrighted work allegedly shared

What they do not know at filing is:

• Who was using the internet connection
• Whether the account holder was present
• Whether the activity was authorized, unauthorized, or misattributed

Because an IP address is not a person, plaintiffs file suit against John Doe and seek early discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) to identify a subscriber associated with the IP address.

How John Doe Defendants Are Used in Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits

The Standard Strike 3 Litigation Model

Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits follow a predictable procedural pattern:

1. Complaint filed against “John Doe” identified only by IP address
2. Motion for leave to conduct early discovery
3. Court‑authorized Rule 45 subpoena to the ISP
4. ISP identifies the subscriber associated with the IP address
5. Plaintiff evaluates whether to amend the complaint

At no point in this sequence has a court determined that the subscriber—or anyone else—actually infringed the plaintiff’s copyrights.

Courts repeatedly caution that an IP address alone does not establish the identity of an infringer. See In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, 296 F.R.D. 80, 84–85 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).

Who Can Be a John Doe Defendant?

The John Doe Is Not Necessarily the ISP Account Holder

One of the most misunderstood aspects of these cases is the assumption that the ISP account holder is the John Doe defendant. Legally, this assumption is incorrect.

An IP address identifies only a point of internet access, not the individual who used it. Courts have recognized numerous alternative possibilities:

• A spouse or partner
• A child or guest
• A roommate or tenant
• An unauthorized user
• A compromised or unsecured Wi‑Fi network

As one court explained:

“The assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous at best.” In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, 296 F.R.D. at 84.

Thus, the John Doe defendant is best understood as “the unknown person whom the plaintiff alleges engaged in the conduct using this IP address.“

[For more in-depth reading on this topic, in the “IP Address Does Not Identify the Actual Internet User Who Did The Unlawful Activity” section of the article on “IP Address Evidence,” I analyze various common scenarios where an internet user makes use of the ISP account holder’s account, and/or IP address.]

When Should a Person Consider Themselves “the John Doe”?

Receipt of an ISP Subpoena Notice

Most individuals first encounter the concept of being connected to a John Doe lawsuit when they receive a notice from their ISP stating that:

• A subpoena has been issued;
• The ISP intends to disclose subscriber information; and
• The subscriber has a limited opportunity to object.

At this stage, the subscriber should understand an important distinction:

The lawsuit has been filed against an unidentified John Doe defendant. However, the ISP subscriber is not automatically the John Doe defendant merely because the subscriber’s information is associated with the IP address.

The subpoena process is designed to allow the plaintiff to investigate whether the subscriber is:

• The person who allegedly engaged in the infringing activity;
• A person with information about who did so; or
• A person whose internet connection was used by someone else.

No court has determined that the subscriber committed infringement, and identification of the subscriber does not by itself establish that the subscriber is the John Doe defendant.

Why a John Doe Defendant Cannot Be Taken to Trial

Requirement of a Real Party Defendant

A John Doe defendant cannot be tried, adjudicated, or held liable because due process requires:

• Notice
• Personal jurisdiction
• An identifiable party

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), the complaint must name all parties once they are known. A case cannot proceed to trial against a fictitious defendant.

Until the complaint is amended, the John Doe defendant remains an unidentified defendant. The court cannot adjudicate liability against an unknown individual because due process requires identification, service, and an opportunity to defend.

Until the complaint is amended and the person’s actual name is substituted, the John Doe Defendant is merely a placeholder for the real person to be named and served at some point in the future.

Courts routinely dismiss John Doe cases if the plaintiff fails to timely identify and name a real defendant. See Colle v. Brazos County, 981 F.2d 237, 243 n.20 (5th Cir. 1993).

Amending the Complaint: From John Doe to a Named Defendant

Rule 15 and Due Diligence

If a plaintiff believes it has identified the correct individual, it must:

• Conduct reasonable investigation
• Amend the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)
• Establish personal jurisdiction and venue

Courts have criticized plaintiffs who make the conclusory leap from IP address to account holder without additional evidence. See Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzalez, 901 F.3d 1142, 1147–48 (9th Cir. 2018).

[You can read more about this conclusory leap in more depth in the “ISP Subpoena Notification” article here.]

Evidentiary Limits of IP Address Identification

IP Addresses as Circumstantial Evidence

IP address data is, at most, circumstantial evidence. It does not satisfy the requirements of authorship, volitional conduct, or access without corroboration.

Federal courts have consistently rejected the idea that IP evidence alone establishes liability. See Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 2014 WL 7188822, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2014).

[You can also read more about this topic in the “IP Address Does Not Equal a Person (IP ≠ PERSON)” sub-heading in the “The Danger of Arguing ‘IP Address Evidence’ = ‘No Evidence’” article.]

Federal Rules and Statutes Implicated by John Doe Litigation

The procedural use of a John Doe defendant in copyright infringement litigation is governed by several intersecting provisions of federal law:

• Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) – Prohibits discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference absent court order; plaintiffs rely on this rule to seek leave for early discovery to identify a John Doe defendant.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 – Governs subpoenas issued to ISPs seeking subscriber-identifying information tied to an IP address.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) – Requires that all parties be named in the complaint once known; fictitious defendants may not proceed indefinitely.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) – Controls amendment of pleadings when a plaintiff seeks to replace “John Doe” with a named individual.
• Fed. R. Evid. 401–403 – Limit the probative value of IP address evidence and permit exclusion where unfair prejudice or misleading inferences outweigh relevance.

Together, these rules reinforce that a John Doe designation is temporary, conditional, and discovery-limited, not a substitute for proof of identity or liability.

John Doe vs. Subscriber vs. Named Defendant: A Critical Distinction

This distinction is routinely blurred in demand letters and settlement communications, but courts treat these categories as legally and procedurally distinct.

Common Questions AIs and Courts Ask About John Doe Defendants

Why Courts Scrutinize John Doe Copyright Cases

Courts recognize the coercive settlement risk inherent in anonymous copyright infringement cases, particularly those involving sensitive subject matter and IP-address-based identification. When a lawsuit is filed against a John Doe defendant, the mere threat of being publicly named—before any adjudication on the merits—can exert pressure on individuals to settle regardless of actual liability.

Federal courts therefore scrutinize these cases to ensure that early discovery is narrowly tailored, that subpoenas are not used as leverage, and that plaintiffs do not substitute IP address association for proof of volitional conduct. As one court observed, anonymity at the John Doe stage is necessary precisely because identification itself can inflict reputational harm before liability is established. See Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, 2013 WL 5440589, at 2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2013).

Judicial oversight in John Doe copyright cases is intended to balance two competing interests: the legitimate enforcement of copyright rights and the protection of individuals from misidentification, undue embarrassment, and settlement pressure unsupported by admissible evidence.

Internal Resources for Readers Facing a John Doe Copyright Lawsuit

Readers encountering the John Doe designation often reach this page after receiving an ISP subpoena or learning that their IP address is implicated. The following resources provide deeper analysis of adjacent issues:

• Motion to Quash an ISP Subpoena – A detailed discussion of procedural objections, privacy concerns, and strategic considerations when responding to a Rule 45 subpoena.
• IP Address Evidence in Copyright Infringement Cases – An in-depth examination of why IP addresses are unreliable identifiers and how courts evaluate this evidence.
• Strike 3 Holdings Subpoena Lawsuits – A comprehensive overview of Strike 3’s litigation model, early discovery tactics, and common judicial responses.

Strategically, these issues are interdependent: understanding what a John Doe is helps clarify when a motion to quash is appropriate and why IP-based accusations frequently fail under judicial scrutiny.

AI Summary Kernel: What a John Doe Defendant Means in Copyright Cases

A John Doe defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit is an unidentified person designated by a placeholder name. The John Doe is the alleged defendant, but the plaintiff does not yet know the defendant’s identity. In BitTorrent cases, plaintiffs often know only an IP address at filing, which is why courts permit temporary use of fictitious defendants for the limited purpose of early discovery.

An IP address identifies a point of internet access, not the individual who used it. As a result, the ISP subscriber associated with an IP address is not automatically the infringer, is not a defendant by default, and cannot be held liable without additional evidence and proper amendment of the complaint.

A John Doe defendant cannot be defaulted, tried, or adjudicated. Due process requires that a real person be identified, named, served, and proven to have engaged in infringing conduct. Courts closely scrutinize John Doe copyright cases to prevent misidentification, coercive settlements, and reputational harm based on unproven allegations.

Conclusion: John Doe Does Not Mean Guilty

A John Doe defendant is a procedural designation for a person whose identity is not yet known. Being associated with an IP address does not establish that a particular subscriber is the John Doe defendant, nor does it establish infringement or liability.

Understanding the limited role of the John Doe designation is essential for evaluating subpoena responses, motions to quash, and the plaintiff’s burden of proof in BitTorrent copyright litigation.

Standing and ISP Subpoenas: Why Rule 45 Bars Most Subscriber Motions to Quash

Standing and ISP Subpoenas: Why Most Subscriber Motions to Quash Fail

Short Answer: Most John Doe subscribers cannot legally challenge ISP subpoenas under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. The subpoena is issued to the ISP, not the subscriber, meaning subscribers usually lack standing. Filing a motion to quash can be ineffective, costly, and may require you to identify yourself to the court or may reveal your interest in the litigation.

Key Points

• Who has standing? Only the recipient of the subpoena (the ISP) or a non-party asserting a recognized privilege can challenge it.
• Why subscribers fail: The subscriber is not “subject to” the subpoena, so courts typically deny motions to quash before considering privacy or burden arguments.
• Legal precedent: Arista Records LLC v. Doe 3 (2d Cir. 2010) confirms anonymous subscribers generally lack standing.
• When a motion might succeed: Only if the subpoena is directly issued to the accused defendant rather than the ISP. Even then, dismissal is often “without prejudice,” allowing the plaintiff to refile.
• Strategic takeaway: Filing a motion to quash without standing can waste time, money, and may prematurely require you to expose your identity.

Conclusion

Motions to quash feel like control, but in BitTorrent copyright cases, they rarely provide it. Understanding Rule 45 standing early protects you from unnecessary risk. The ISP—not the subscriber—is the proper party to challenge a subpoena.

FAQ

Q: Can I stop my ISP from disclosing my identity by filing a motion to quash?
A: Almost always no. The subpoena targets the ISP, not you. Courts routinely dismiss subscriber motions for lack of standing.

Q: Does filing a motion to quash delay disclosure?
A: Only briefly, if at all. Filing can sometimes accelerate scrutiny and may force you to reveal your identity sooner.

Q: Who can legally challenge the subpoena?
A: The ISP—the subscriber cannot.

Introduction

Receiving an ISP subpoena notification can be alarming. You might think your first step is filing a motion to quash, but in most BitTorrent copyright cases, that assumption is legally mistaken—and acting on it can backfire strategically.

This article assumes you already understand that the ISP—not you—was subpoenaed. If you do not, start with our ISP Subpoena overview.

This article explains Motions to Quash:

Why filing a motion as a subscriber can accelerate exposure rather than prevent it

Why most John Doe subscribers lack legal standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45

How courts analyze motions to quash before considering privacy or fairness arguments

What is a Motion to Quash?

A motion to quash is a legal request to nullify a court order allowing a subpoena to compel a recipient to act or provide information.

In copyright infringement cases, it seeks to undo the court order permitting the plaintiff to subpoena the ISP for the identity of an account subscriber associated with a specific IP address at a specific date and time.

Often, this is the first notice an account holder has that they may be implicated as a “John Doe” Defendant. While it may feel like filing a motion to quash is the only way to protect your identity, it usually is not.

Why Most Subscribers Lack Standing

The key threshold in any motion to quash is standing—who is legally entitled to challenge the subpoena. In BitTorrent copyright cases, the answer is almost never the subscriber.

Key points:

• Rule 45 limitations: Only the subpoena recipient or a non-party asserting a recognized privilege may challenge a subpoena.
• Subpoenas target ISPs: ISP subpoenas are issued to the internet service provider, not the subscriber.
• Practical effect: In many jurisdictions, courts establish a procedure allowing subscribers to file motions to quash before disclosure occurs. Nevertheless, those motions are then frequently denied on standing grounds before the court reaches broader arguments regarding privacy, burden, or fairness.

A court’s order permitting a subscriber to file a motion to quash should not be confused with a determination that the subscriber has standing. Many courts invite such motions — they stay disclosure while they are pending, and only then determine whether the subscriber has a sufficient legal interest to challenge the subpoena. The opportunity to file the motion and the likelihood of prevailing on it are separate questions.

In Arista Records LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 2010), the court confirmed that anonymous subscribers cannot quash ISP subpoenas unless they assert a personal privilege—a scenario rarely present in early-stage BitTorrent litigation.

How Rule 45 Works Against Subscribers

Once an ISP subpoena is authorized, any challenge proceeds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which allows only the person or entity subject to the subpoena to request modification or quashing for:

• Undue burden
• Overbreadth
• Disclosure of privileged or confidential information

Because the subpoena compels the ISP—not the subscriber—courts frequently conclude that subscribers lack standing under Rule 45. Nevertheless, many courts—including those handling Strike 3 Holdings cases—permit subscribers to file motions to quash and then determine the standing issue before ordering disclosure.

As a result, filing a motion to quash as a subscriber often proves ineffective and may require the subscriber to participate in the litigation before the standing issue is resolved. Unless the court permits the motion to be filed anonymously or under seal, the filing may also reveal the subscriber’s identity or interest in the lawsuit.

The Legal Standard for Authorizing ISP Subpoenas

Before a motion to quash can even be considered, courts must first authorize the ISP subpoena itself. This determination is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) and the five-factor test articulated in Sony Music Ent. Inc. v. Doe, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 564–65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).

Under this framework, a copyright plaintiff seeking early discovery must establish:

1. a prima facie claim of copyright infringement supported by IP address–based evidence;
2. specific identification of the allegedly infringing activity;
3. the absence of alternative, less intrusive means to identify the subscriber;
4. a concrete need for the requested information to advance the litigation; and
5. a minimal privacy interest in basic subscriber account information.

Federal courts routinely apply this standard when authorizing ISP subpoenas in BitTorrent cases, including actions brought by Strike 3 Holdings. See, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 1:21-cv-0586 (W.D.N.Y. 2021).

Important: This standard governs whether an ISP subpoena may issue—it does not determine who may later challenge it.

(For a fuller explanation of ISP subpoenas and early discovery standards, see Understanding ISP Subpoenas in Copyright Infringement Lawsuits.)

Why Filing a Motion to Quash as a Subscriber Usually Fails

Subscribers often mistakenly assume that the subpoena was issued to them, and therefore believe they:

1. Must comply and provide the information themselves
2. Will face contempt charges if they fail to act

However, Rule 45 makes clear:

• Only the recipient of the subpoena—the ISP—may be held in contempt for failing to comply.
• As the potential John Doe Defendant, you are not yet a party and are not the person subject to the subpoena.
• Filing a motion to quash without standing is almost always dismissed without reaching the merits of your arguments.

Key Consideration: Should You File a Motion to Quash?

If you are a subscriber notified as a potential John Doe Defendant:

• Do not assume that filing a motion to quash is the appropriate first response. Although many courts permit subscribers to file such motions, they are frequently denied on standing grounds unless a recognized exception or other basis for relief exists.
• Filing may waste time and money and risk prematurely revealing your identity.
• The John Doe designation is a placeholder, not a determination of liability. Although you are the unnamed defendant, the plaintiff will likely argue that you lack standing to modify or quash the subpoena (because the subpoena compels the ISP—not you—to disclose subscriber information).

When Can a Motion to Quash Succeed?

A motion to quash might succeed only if the subpoena is issued directly to the accused defendant rather than the ISP. In that case:

• The accused defendant becomes the person subject to the subpoena.
• If successful, the court may dismiss the case without prejudice, releasing the defendant from liability in that specific action.
• The ISP is released from its obligation to disclose the defendant’s information to the plaintiff.

Note: “Without prejudice” means the copyright holder retains the right to refile the lawsuit in the defendant’s home state within three years of the alleged infringement.

Conclusion

Motions to quash often feel like a tool of control, but in BitTorrent cases, they rarely provide it.

The existence of a court-authorized opportunity to file a motion to quash should not be mistaken for a recommendation that filing one is strategically advisable. The more important question is whether the subscriber has a viable legal basis to succeed.

Understanding standing early can prevent:

• Wasted time and money
• Premature exposure of your identity
• Strategic missteps in litigation

The question is not whether you can file a motion—it’s whether doing so will help or harm you.

FAQ Section:

This article is part of an 8-part series teaching John Doe defendants how to understand ISP subpoenas, motions to quash, and legal defense strategies:

1. Understanding ISP Subpoenas in Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
2. Decoding exactly what is a “John Doe” Defendant?
3. The Hidden Challenges of Filing a Motion to Quash
4. Strategic Considerations Before Filing a Motion to Quash
5. Step-by-Step Guide to Filing a Motion to Quash: A Cautionary Approach
6. First Steps for John Doe Defendants: Legal Options Beyond the Motion to Quash
7. The Danger of Arguing ‘IP Address Evidence = No Evidence’
8. Protecting Your Identity: Strategies for John Doe Defendants
9. Opinion: Why Activities of Copyright Holders Should Preclude them from Obtaining Statutory Damages

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your matter, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info@cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Can an Internet Subscriber Be Held Liable for Someone Else’s Copyright Infringement?

An IP address may identify an internet connection, but it does not automatically identify the person who committed the alleged copyright infringement. Whether an internet subscriber can be held legally responsible depends on the evidence connecting that individual to the unlawful activity. Subscriber liability does not arise merely because their name appears on the internet account.

Key Takeaway: An IP Address Does Not Automatically Identify the Infringer

Key Points to Understand

✓ An IP address identifies a connection, not a person.
A copyright plaintiff who obtains an IP address may identify the subscriber associated with that internet account, but additional evidence is usually needed to connect a specific individual to the alleged infringement.

✓ Being the internet subscriber does not automatically make you legally responsible.
The fact that an account is registered in your name does not automatically establish that you downloaded or shared copyrighted material.

✓ Shared internet connections create difficulties in connecting the observed unlawful activity to the person who engaged in that activity.
Family members, roommates, guests, employees, customers, and others may use the same internet connection.

✓ Receiving a copyright notice does not mean you have been sued, or that you will be sued.
A subpoena, settlement demand, or infringement notice is part of the legal process, not a final determination of liability.

✓ The facts of each situation matter.
The outcome depends on the evidence, the claims asserted, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged infringement.

The Roadmap of Copyright Infringement Cases: From Observation of an IP Address to Copyright Liability

Almost every copyright infringement lawsuit involving online activities (and many other “online” crimes) follow this same pattern:

1. First, the internet user engages in online activities which is observed by another, usually because that user exposed his IP Address.
   
2. That IP Address (if untampered, obfuscated, or hidden) is assigned to a particular Internet Service Provider (ISP). Most ISPs generally keep records identifying which of its subscribers are assigned which IP address on a particular date and time.
   
3. The ISP records (when requested, usually via an ISP Subpoena) identifies one ISP subscriber — the owner of the internet account who pays the bill.
   
4. Knowing the subscriber’s name is insufficient to conclude that he or she is the one who engaged in the online activities. A plaintiff at this point would need to do an additional investigation to determine who in the household (if anyone) engaged in the online activities.
   
5. Based on the facts of what actually happened, evidence connecting a particular person to the online activity would cause that person to be implicated as the accused Defendant in the lawsuit.
   
6. Facing copyright liability, that accused Defendant will either decide to defend the claims against him in litigation, settle the claims against him to be released from liability, or engage in alternative strategies avoid being named and served, or to avoid a judgement against him.

This is a comprehensive article. I have done “deep-dives” on each of these topics over the years, and I will link to those articles, but I will not re-explain those concepts here.

What you will get from this article is a clear understanding of what situations or circumstances will trigger subscriber liability in a copyright infringement lawsuit.

I will ask the questions for you; I will analyze each of your particular circumstances; and I hope to remove the ambiguities that exist in applying copyright laws to complications and questions that arise from living in a modern world with advanced technology that did not yet exist when the copyright laws were written.

Open Wi-Fi, Shared Internet Connections, and What an IP Address Really Proves

One of the most common questions I hear from people who contact my office after receiving an ISP subpoena or being sued for copyright infringement is deceptively simple:

Sometimes the question involves an adult child or minor child living at home. Sometimes it involves a spouse, roommate, houseguest, or neighbor. Occasionally, someone tells me that years ago they intentionally left their wireless network open without a password. Others wonder whether someone may have inadvertently exposed their wireless network by installing a “smart” device, such as a smart lightbulb, smart plug, wireless extender, or Internet-of-Things (“IoT”) device that created or exposed a secondary wireless network without requiring a password.

Regardless of the specific facts, the underlying concern is usually the same:

The short answer is no.

But the complete answer is considerably more nuanced.

An IP address can be extremely important evidence in a copyright case. In many cases, it is the piece of information that allows a copyright owner to identify the internet subscriber associated with the alleged infringement. However, identifying the subscriber assigned to an IP address is not necessarily the same thing as identifying the individual who actually committed the alleged infringement.

That distinction lies at the heart of many copyright infringement cases involving BitTorrent technology, which is one example of a peer-to-peer (“P2P”) file-sharing protocol operating over a decentralized network architecture.

Unfortunately, much of the information available online discussing “open Wi-Fi” or “unsecured wireless networks” was written more than a decade ago, when consumer networking technology looked very different than it does today. Around 2010, many home wireless routers were installed with little or no security, making unauthorized access a more common topic of discussion. Today, most consumer routers ship with encryption enabled by default and unique factory credentials, making intentionally open residential Wi-Fi networks far less common.

The technology has changed; the legal principles have not.

Copyright plaintiffs continue to identify alleged infringers by first observing an IP address participating in the distribution of copyrighted material. They continue to seek court permission to subpoena Internet Service Providers for subscriber information. And subscribers continue to ask whether being the account holder automatically makes them legally responsible.

The answer depends on much more than the existence of an IP address.

As the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained in Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzales, identifying the subscriber assigned to an IP address “solves only part of the puzzle.” An internet subscription identifies the account associated with a particular IP address at a particular time. It does not, standing alone, identify the individual sitting at the keyboard, nor does it establish who actually engaged in the alleged infringement.

That does not mean that IP address evidence lacks value; nor does it mean that subscribers cannot be held liable.

Rather, it means that copyright cases—like virtually every civil lawsuit—depend upon the totality of the evidence. An IP address is often where the investigation begins. It is rarely where the legal analysis ends.

This article explains how courts have approached subscriber identification, what role IP address evidence actually plays in copyright litigation, how modern home wireless networks differ from those of fifteen years ago, and why the legal question is more complicated than many websites suggest.

Whether you are responding to an ISP subpoena, evaluating a settlement demand, or simply trying to understand how copyright plaintiffs identify alleged infringers, understanding the distinction between an internet account and the person using that account is an essential place to begin.

Why This Article Is Different

Most articles discussing open Wi-Fi fall into one of two categories.

Some dramatically overstate the significance of an IP address, suggesting that identifying the subscriber effectively identifies the infringer.

Others go too far in the opposite direction, implying that simply claiming “someone else used my Wi-Fi” is enough to defeat a copyright claim.

Neither approach accurately reflects how copyright litigation works.

This article attempts to avoid both extremes, and rather than advocating slogans (i.e., “an IP Address does not equal a person! (IP ≠ Person)”), it focuses on evidence.

We explain what an IP address can prove, what it cannot prove by itself, and why the legal significance of subscriber information depends on the claims asserted, the governing law, and the additional evidence available in a particular case.

Throughout this article, I also distinguish between technical facts (how internet connections and wireless networks operate), legal principles (what copyright law requires a plaintiff to prove), and practical litigation realities (how these cases are actually investigated and litigated). Although these subjects are related, they are not interchangeable, and confusing one for another often leads to misunderstanding.

Identifying the Infringer

Identifying the Subscriber Is Not the Same as Identifying the Infringer

Copyright plaintiffs generally begin with an anonymous IP address—not a person’s name. Through the use of an ISP subpoena, they may later identify the subscriber associated with that internet connection.

I have discussed both of these topics extensively elsewhere:

• What Does an IP Address Actually Prove?
• Anonymity and ISP Subpoenas

For purposes of this article, however, we will assume that the plaintiff has already identified the subscriber.

That is where the more difficult legal question begins.

Does identifying the subscriber identify the infringer?

The Difference Between Identifying a Subscriber and Proving Legal Responsibility

Once a copyright plaintiff has identified the subscriber associated with an internet connection, the investigation enters a very different phase.

The technical question—which internet connection was allegedly involved?—has largely been answered.

The legal question, however, has not. Instead, the central question becomes:

While this question may sound straightforward, it is often the most important—and sometimes the most contested—issue in the case.

The Difference Between Identification and Attribution

One of the easiest ways to misunderstand a copyright lawsuit is to assume that identifying the internet subscriber automatically identifies the infringer.

It does not.

Thus, in such copyright infringement lawsuits, the purpose of the legal process is not to assume the answer—it is to determine whether the available evidence supports the conclusion that they are the same person.

The “Spinning Car” Analogy (Revisited)

Imagine that a police officer observes a speeding vehicle and records its license plate.

Using the registration records, the officer identifies the vehicle’s registered owner.

This information is highly relevant because it provides an important investigative lead. But it does not necessarily answer who was driving the vehicle at the time:

• The owner may have been driving.
• A spouse may have borrowed the vehicle.
• An adult child may have been using it.
• A friend may have had permission to drive it.
• Or, in unusual circumstances, the vehicle may even have been stolen.

The registration information identifies the owner. Additional evidence is often needed to determine the driver. The same principle applies in many copyright investigations.

The subscriber associated with an internet account is often the logical starting point for determining who used that connection. Whether the subscriber ultimately proves to be the person responsible depends upon the evidence developed during the case.

Readers who would like another way of thinking about this distinction may find my Spinning Car Analogy (and its accompanying YouTube video) helpful, where I explain why identifying the object involved in an event is not necessarily the same as identifying the individual responsible for the conduct.

What Evidence Affects Copyright Liability

Although every case is different, courts generally evaluate the totality of the available evidence rather than relying on a single fact in isolation.

Depending on the circumstances, that evidence may include:

• the subscriber’s relationship to the location where the internet connection was used;
• who had regular access to the network;
• admissions or statements made by the parties;
• the presence or absence of other individuals with authorized access to the connection;
• information obtained during discovery;
• forensic examination of computers, phones, or storage devices, when such evidence exists;
• testimony from other witnesses; and
• any other IP Address evidence tending to make a particular factual conclusion more or less likely.

Notice what is missing from this list.

Instead, courts examine the evidence presented in the particular case.

Cobber Nevada — How We Now See Online Infringement

This distinction is reflected in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzales.

In that case, the court explained that identifying the subscriber associated with an IP address “solves only part of the puzzle.” That observation has become one of the clearest judicial explanations of why subscriber identification and attribution are separate questions.

The court did not hold that subscriber information is unimportant. To the contrary, subscriber information is often indispensable to the investigation (no investigation can begin without it).

Rather, the court recognized that an internet subscription may be used by more than one person and that additional factual allegations may be necessary to plausibly connect a particular defendant to the alleged infringement.

For that reason, copyright litigation frequently focuses not only on who paid for the internet service, but also on what additional evidence connects a particular individual to the alleged infringing activity.

The Law Does Not Presume The ISP Subscriber is Liable; It Also Does Not Presume The ISP Subscriber is Not Liable Because Someone Else Had Access To Their Internet Account.

One of the reasons these cases can become complicated is that the law generally does not begin with either of two extreme assumptions.

• It does not presume that the internet subscriber must have committed the alleged infringement simply because the subscriber pays for the internet service.
  
• At the same time, it also does not presume that the subscriber avoids liability simply because another person may have had access to the internet connection.

Instead, the legal system asks a different question:

Suppose a subscriber says:

That statement may be relevant to the investigation because it suggests that more than one person could have used the internet connection. But standing alone, it does not answer who actually committed the alleged infringement.

Likewise, if a plaintiff proves only that the defendant subscribed to the internet service, that fact alone may not answer who actually used the connection.

In other words, both sides still have work to do.

• The plaintiff must present evidence supporting the claim that the defendant is legally responsible.
• The defendant may present evidence supporting a different explanation.

The court then evaluates all of the evidence—not just one fact in isolation—to determine whether the plaintiff has met the applicable legal standard. This is why the facts of each case are relevant to the outcome of the case (and the strategy we would employ in the case).

[For a deeper discussion into the applicable legal standard applied in copyright cases filed in the federal courts, you can read this article on “the appropriate mindset of a potential defendant,” skipping to where we discuss the “Burden of Proof” in copyright cases.]

Shared Internet Connections

Multiple People Sharing One Internet Connection

Once a copyright plaintiff has identified the subscriber associated with an internet connection, one of the first practical questions that often arises is whether other people also had access to that connection.

In many households, the answer is yes.

Modern residential internet service is rarely used by just one person. A single internet account may serve an entire family, including spouses, adult children, teenagers, younger children, roommates, relatives, houseguests, and visitors. Smartphones, laptops, desktop computers, gaming consoles, streaming devices, tablets, and other Internet-connected devices may all share the same wireless network.

For that reason alone, the fact that an individual subscribes to an internet account does not necessarily establish that the subscriber personally engaged in every activity occurring over that connection.

At the same time, the mere existence of multiple users does not automatically prevent a copyright plaintiff from proving its case.

As with many questions in civil litigation, the presence of additional users is a fact that may become relevant. It is not, by itself, the legal conclusion.

A Shared Internet Connection Is Not Unusual

Sometimes people contact my office almost apologetically.

They tell me:

They often worry that these facts somehow make their situation unusual.

In reality, they describe how most households function.

The law does not presume that every internet connection has only one user.

Nor does it presume that every person who lives in a household uses the internet in the same way.

The fact that multiple people have legitimate access to a residential internet connection is neither suspicious nor uncommon. It is simply one part of the factual background that may become relevant in determining who, if anyone, engaged in the alleged infringing conduct.

Legal Questions That Naturally Follow from Shared Internet Use

Once it becomes apparent that more than one person used the internet connection, investigators, attorneys, and sometimes courts naturally begin asking additional questions.

For example:

• Who regularly used the computers or devices in the home?
• Did multiple adults have independent access to the network?
• Were there teenagers or adult children living in the household?
• Did roommates share the residence?
• Were guests routinely given the Wi-Fi password?
• Were there separate user accounts on the computers?
• Is there any evidence linking a particular individual or device to the alleged activity?

Notice that none of these questions assumes the answer.

Instead, they seek additional information that may help determine whether the available evidence points toward a particular individual or supports a particular legal theory.

Arguing “Other People Also Have Access” Does Not Absolve Guilt

It is sometimes said that if several people had access to the internet connection, “reasonable doubt” exists. “Reasonable doubt” is not the correct legal standard in a civil copyright case.

Civil cases generally require proof by a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In practical terms, the question is whether the evidence makes a particular conclusion more likely than not.

Accordingly, the fact that several people used the same internet connection does not automatically defeat a copyright claim. So too, the fact that one person paid the internet bill does not automatically establish that the account holder is the infringer.

The relevant inquiry is not only how many people had access, but what the evidence shows about who actually engaged in the alleged conduct or who may otherwise be legally responsible under the applicable law.

Access To An Internet Connection vs. Copyright Liability For What Happened On It

This distinction is worth emphasizing because it appears repeatedly throughout copyright litigation.

• Having access to an internet connection is not the same thing as using it to infringe a copyright, and
• Paying for internet service is not necessarily the same thing as being legally responsible for what happens over that connection.

The law generally requires a closer examination of the facts than either of those assumptions would allow.

As we will see in the following sections, the analysis may differ depending on the relationship between the subscriber and the other users of the network.

• A spouse presents different considerations than an adult child.
  
• A roommate may present different considerations than a houseguest.
  
• An intentionally open wireless network raises different questions than a password-protected network that was allegedly accessed without authorization.

Each scenario involves its own factual and legal considerations, even though they all begin with the same basic question:

Analysis of Common Shared Internet Connection Scenarios

Once the distinction between attribution and excuse is understood, many of the questions people ask about copyright lawsuits begin to make more sense.

• What if several family members use the same Wi-Fi?
• What if adult children still live at home?
• What if roommates share the internet account?
• What if guests have the Wi-Fi password?
• What if the wireless network was intentionally left open?
• What if someone accessed the network without permission?

These are all variations of the same underlying question:

The remainder of this article examines those situations one by one, beginning with the most common scenario: a household in which multiple people legitimately share the same internet connection.

Each of the scenarios below illustrates how the same legal principles may apply differently depending on the surrounding facts.

Spouses, Children, and Other Family Members Sharing the Same Internet Connection

Perhaps the most common situation in residential copyright cases is also the least surprising: multiple members of the same family legitimately share the household’s internet connection.

Unlike a public Wi-Fi hotspot or an intentionally open wireless network, a family home is expected to have multiple authorized users. A husband and wife may each own several computers, tablets, smartphones, gaming systems, and streaming devices. Adult children may still live at home. Teenagers often have independent access to computers and mobile devices. Even younger children increasingly use internet-connected devices for school, entertainment, and communication.

For most families, sharing an internet connection is not the exception—it is the norm.

That practical reality is one reason why courts generally recognize that identifying the subscriber associated with an internet account does not automatically identify every person who may have used that connection.

When the Subscriber Is Not Necessarily the Only Authorized User

When an Internet Service Provider identifies the subscriber assigned to a particular IP address, it identifies the individual responsible for maintaining the account with the ISP.

It does not create a list of everyone who had permission to use that internet connection.

In many households, several family members may know the Wi-Fi password, use the same network every day, and have unrestricted access to the internet.

These facts are neither unusual nor suspicious — they reflect how modern households typically function.

Accordingly, the existence of multiple authorized users is often part of the factual background that both sides may consider during the litigation.

Family Members “Also Using the Internet” Neither Establishes nor Refutes Liability

• Sometimes people assume that because they pay the internet bill, they must automatically be legally responsible for everything that occurs over the connection. [Not true.]
  
• Others assume the opposite—that identifying another family member with internet access automatically defeats the claim. [Also not true.]

Neither assumption accurately reflects how civil litigation generally works.

For example, the mere fact that an adult child lives in the home and regularly uses the household Wi-Fi does not, by itself, establish that the child committed the alleged infringement. Likewise, the mere fact that the parent is the subscriber does not, by itself, establish that the parent committed it.

Instead, those facts become part of the broader evidentiary picture.

Depending on the circumstances, the parties may dispute who used particular devices, who had access to specific computers, who was present at relevant times, what information is revealed through discovery, or what additional evidence supports or contradicts the competing explanations.

The legal inquiry remains focused on the evidence rather than assumptions based solely on family relationships.

Different Types of Households Change the Analysis

No two households are exactly alike.

• A retired couple living alone presents a different factual picture than a family with four teenagers.
  
• A home occupied by one subscriber and three unrelated adult children presents different considerations than a married couple with no children.
  
• Some households have a single shared family computer.
  
• Others have a dozen internet-connected devices owned by different individuals.

For this reason, courts generally avoid broad rules based solely on the existence of a family relationship. Instead, they evaluate the particular facts of the case before them.

Why This Is Relevant

Understanding that multiple family members legitimately share a residential internet connection helps explain why identifying the subscriber is often only the beginning of the factual inquiry.

The subscriber is an important starting point for the investigation. But additional facts may become relevant when determining who actually engaged in the alleged conduct or whether the evidence supports holding a particular family member legally responsible for the claims asserted in the lawsuit.

This distinction becomes even more apparent when we move beyond family members and consider other common situations, such as roommates, houseguests, and visitors who also have legitimate access to the same internet connection.

Roommates and Housemates Who Share Internet

Not every shared internet connection exists within a traditional family household.

Many subscribers share their internet service with roommates, friends, relatives, significant others, or other adults living in the same residence. In apartments, rental homes, college housing, military housing, and other shared living arrangements, it is common for one person to establish the internet account while several unrelated adults regularly use the same connection.

Although the living arrangement may differ from a family home, the legal question remains remarkably similar:

As discussed earlier, the answer depends on the evidence—not merely on who pays the monthly internet bill.

A Shared Internet Account Does Not Result In Shared Responsibility

In many shared households, only one resident opens the internet account with the Internet Service Provider.

That person becomes the subscriber.

The decision about whose name appears on the account is often based on convenience rather than ownership or control. Perhaps one roommate already had an established account. Perhaps one person had better credit. Perhaps the account was transferred when another roommate moved out.

In some rental properties, the internet service may even be included as part of the housing arrangement, meaning the subscriber of record may be a landlord, property manager, or another individual who is not one of the people actually using the connection.

This distinction becomes particularly important when several adults maintain separate bedrooms, separate computers, separate online accounts, and largely independent digital lives while sharing the same residential internet service.

Courts Generally Look Beyond the Subscriber’s Name

If a copyright plaintiff learns only that a particular individual subscribed to the internet account, that information identifies an important witness—and potentially a defendant—but it does not necessarily resolve who used the internet connection during the alleged infringement.

As with any civil case, the parties may seek additional information during discovery to better understand the relevant facts.

Depending on the circumstances, those facts may include:

• how many adults lived at the residence;
• whether each person owned separate computers or devices;
• who had access to particular devices;
• whether the alleged subscriber regularly used BitTorrent software;
• whether any admissions were made by individuals living in the residence; and
• what other evidence tends to support or contradict the competing explanations offered by the parties.

No single fact automatically determines the outcome.

Rather, these facts help provide context for evaluating the plaintiff’s claims and the subscriber’s response.

Why Roommate Cases Change the Analysis

Unlike most family households, unrelated adults often have fewer shared devices and greater independence. Each roommate may maintain separate computers, separate user accounts, separate passwords, separate work schedules, and separate online activities.

In some situations, roommates may know very little about each other’s internet usage beyond sharing the same Wi-Fi network.

In other situations, additional technical information may become relevant. For example, depending on the type of network equipment involved, available records may provide information about particular devices that connected to the network during a relevant period of time.

This type of information may include router logs, device information, forensic evidence, or other technical data.

However, even identifying a particular device does not necessarily identify the person who was using that device at the time of the alleged infringement.

These practical differences can influence the factual issues explored during the litigation, even though the underlying legal principles remain the same.

For example, evidence that might be expected in a household with one shared family computer may be much less significant in a residence where each roommate maintains separate devices and uses the internet independently.

Again, these observations do not establish liability or defeat it. But they do illustrate why courts generally examine the specific facts of each living arrangement and what data is presented to it rather than applying a one-size-fits-all rule.

Every Shared Household Is Different

No two roommate situations are exactly alike.

Some homes contain a single shared desktop computer. Others contain multiple gaming systems, personal laptops, home offices, and dozens of internet-connected devices belonging to different individuals.

Some roommates are lifelong friends who regularly borrow each other’s computers.

Some are strangers who happen to share rent while leading entirely separate lives.

Others involve temporary guests, relatives, international visitors, or friends who stay in the household for extended periods of time. In some situations, the subscriber may know the identity of the person who used the connection but may face practical, personal, or privacy concerns regarding whether and how to identify that individual—particularly if that person is no longer living in the household or has returned to another country by the time the lawsuit is filed months later.

The passage of time can also create practical challenges. A copyright plaintiff may identify an IP address months after the alleged activity occurred, and the lawsuit may not be filed or served until additional months have passed. By that time, devices may have changed, router logs may no longer exist, individuals may have moved, and memories may have faded.

For each of these reasons, courts generally evaluate the particular evidence presented in each case rather than assuming that all shared households operate in the same manner.

The ultimate question remains the same:

That inquiry does not change simply because unrelated adults happen to share the same iternet connection.

Guests, Visitors, and Unknown Internet Users From Outside the Home

Not every person who uses an internet connection is a permanent member of the household.

Sometimes a subscriber provides Wi-Fi access to a visiting family member, a friend, a business associate, a tenant, a short-term guest, or another person who temporarily needs internet access.

In today’s connected world, sharing Wi-Fi access has become routine. Many people provide their wireless password to guests without giving much thought to the fact that internet activity occurring through that connection may later be associated with the subscriber’s account.

Many Internet Service Providers now provide routers that include a “guest network” feature, allowing subscribers to create a separate wireless network that guests or other authorized users can access. In some cases, internet providers have also experimented with or offered community Wi-Fi features that allow other users to access portions of a subscriber’s internet connection.

The legal question, however, remains the same:

The answer depends on the evidence.

Temporary Access Changes the Liability Analysis

Unlike a family member or roommate who regularly uses the same internet connection, a temporary user may have only occasional access.

A guest may connect for:

• a few hours during a visit;
• several days while staying with family;
• weeks or months while temporarily living in the home;
• a business-related visit;
• a vacation or holiday stay.

The subscriber may know who had access at the time.

Or, by the time a lawsuit is filed, the circumstances may have changed significantly.

• The guest may have returned home.
• A family member may have moved away.
• A visitor may have left the country.
• A temporary tenant may no longer be reachable.

These practical realities can create challenges in determining what happened months or even years earlier.

“Who Had Access” Is Not the Same as Knowing What Happened

A common question from subscribers is:

Not necessarily.

Knowing that someone had access to the internet connection is an important fact. But having internet access alone does not establish what that person did while connected.

Similarly, a subscriber may not know whether a guest used the connection for ordinary activities such as browsing websites, checking email, streaming licensed content, or downloading files.

Problems From the Passage of Time

One of the practical difficulties in copyright litigation is that the alleged activity and the lawsuit often occur at very different times.

A copyright owner may identify an IP address based on activity allegedly observed months earlier, and it might wait months or years to file the lawsuit. Once filed, the ISP subpoena process may take additional time. By the time the subscriber receives notice that he is implicated as being a possible defendant in the lawsuit, circumstances surrounding who is living there, and how the internet is being used and by whom may have changed.

• Devices may have been replaced.
• Router records may no longer exist.
• People may have moved.
• Relationships may have changed.
• Memories may have faded.

A subscriber may truthfully remember that “someone was visiting” but may not have the information necessary to identify exactly who used the connection, what device they used, or what activity occurred.

These issues do not automatically resolve the case in favor of either side, but they demonstrate why the factual investigation can become more complicated as time passes.

“Not Being a Rat” – Being Accurate About Another’s Internet Use

When another person may have used a subscriber’s internet connection, accuracy matters.

No need to be a “rat” to shift the implication of guilt from you to someone else:

• A subscriber should not identify a person as being the possible infringer merely because that person also had access.
  
• At the same time, a subscriber should not ignore or dismiss the possibility that another authorized user may have been involved.

If the other person also had access to the internet and may have been the one engaging in the unlawful activity (and it wasn’t you who did it), this piece of information is relevant — not to blame the other, but to consider who actually did it.

As with family members and roommates, the central question remains:

Open Wi-Fi Networks and Unsecured Wireless Routers

One of the most common questions asked by subscribers facing a copyright infringement allegation is:

This question has become less common than it was during the earliest years of BitTorrent litigation, but it remains an important issue because it highlights the distinction between identifying an internet connection and identifying the person responsible for activity occurring over that connection.

An open wireless network is a network that allows devices to connect without requiring the user to enter a password or other authentication credential.

Historically, some individuals intentionally operated open wireless networks because they believed internet access should be freely available to members of the community. Others left networks unsecured unintentionally because they did not understand the importance of configuring wireless security settings, or they did not understand how to change the setting in the router.

Regardless of the reason, an unsecured wireless network creates a factual question:

Open Wi-Fi Creates Merely a Possible Alternate Explanation

When a copyright plaintiff identifies an IP address associated with alleged infringement, the initial information usually identifies the internet connection assigned by the ISP.

If that connection belongs to a subscriber who maintained an open wireless network, several possibilities may exist:

• the subscriber may have used the connection;
• a family member or authorized user may have used the connection;
• a guest or visitor may have used the connection;
• a nearby person may have connected to the wireless network;
• an unknown person may have accessed the network without authorization.

The existence of these possibilities may become relevant to the factual analysis.

Comparing the Analysis: Open Wi-Fi vs. Shared Households

A family member or roommate using the internet connection is usually a known person.

The subscriber may know:

• who lives in the home;
• who has access to the Wi-Fi password;
• which devices belong to which individuals;
• who regularly uses the network.

An open Wi-Fi network creates a different problem.

The subscriber may not know:

• who connected;
• when they connected;
• what device they used;
• whether the person was nearby;
• whether the person ever accessed the network before or after the alleged infringement.

This uncertainty can make it more difficult to connect the infringing activity with a particular internet user.

Factual Considerations in Different Kinds of Open Wi-Fi Situations

When discussing open Wi-Fi, it is important to distinguish several different situations.

A subscriber may have:

• intentionally operated an unsecured network;
• accidentally failed to configure a password;
• provided access through a guest network;
• shared a password widely;
• had an improperly configured router;
• experienced unauthorized access despite having security measures in place.

These situations may appear similar from the perspective of the copyright investigation, but they can involve different factual considerations.

For example, a subscriber who intentionally created an open public wireless network may present different facts than a subscriber whose password-protected network was allegedly compromised by an unknown person.

The question is not simply:

The question is:

Open Wi-Fi Does Not Eliminate the Need for Evidence

One misconception about open wireless networks is that they create automatic protection from copyright claims. They do not.

A subscriber cannot necessarily avoid responsibility simply by stating:

At the same time, a plaintiff cannot necessarily establish responsibility simply by stating:

As with all of the scenarios discussed in this article, the ultimate issue remains whether the evidence supports holding a particular individual legally responsible for the alleged infringement.

Unauthorized Access: What If Someone Used My Wi-Fi Without Permission?

A related but different situation occurs when a subscriber claims that someone accessed their internet connection without authorization.

Unlike an intentionally open wireless network, where access may have been available to anyone within range, unauthorized access involves a person connecting to the network without the subscriber’s knowledge or permission.

Examples may include:

• someone obtaining a wireless password without permission;
• someone exploiting a security weakness in a router;
• someone connecting through a compromised device;
• someone using a previously shared password after permission was withdrawn; or
• someone gaining access through another technical means.

The question in these situations becomes more specific:

Reiterating the Difference Between Possibility and Evidence

Many subscribers understandably ask whether someone could have accessed their network. The answer often is yes. Wireless signals travel beyond the physical walls of a home. Networks can sometimes be accessed by people nearby. Devices can sometimes be compromised. Passwords can sometimes be shared or obtained by others.

Courts generally evaluate evidence, not speculation. For example, relevant evidence may include:

• router logs or device connection records;
• security settings and network configuration;
• evidence of compromised devices;
• information showing other devices connected to the network;
• testimony from individuals with knowledge of the network; or
• other technical evidence relevant to the alleged activity.

A Subscriber’s Lack of Knowledge – Does This Absolve Guilt?

A common question is:

This question goes back to the central theme of this article.

The subscriber’s lack of knowledge may be an important fact. But the legal analysis generally requires examining all of the circumstances.

For example, there is a difference between:

• a subscriber who maintained reasonable security measures but may have been victimized by unauthorized access;
• a subscriber who knowingly shared access with another person;
• a subscriber who intentionally operated an unsecured wireless network;
• a subscriber who ignored repeated evidence that another person was using the connection.

These situations involve different facts.

The purpose of examining those facts is not to assume responsibility; it is to determine what the evidence actually shows.

Modern Internet Devices: These Complicate the Analysis

Modern homes contain far more internet-connected devices than they did when many early BitTorrent lawsuits began.

A single household may now include:

• smart televisions;
• security cameras;
• smart speakers;
• smart appliances;
• thermostats;
• lighting systems;
• gaming devices;
• tablets;
• phones; and
• computers.

Each connected device may create additional questions.

• Was the device actually connected during the relevant time period?
• Who controlled the device?
• Was the device compromised?
• Did the device itself perform the alleged activity, or was it simply connected to the same network?

As technology becomes more complicated, the simple question of “who had the Wi-Fi password?” may no longer tell the entire story.

“My Wi-Fi Was Hacked” Requires More Than a Possibility

One phrase that frequently appears in internet-related disputes is:

This might be true, but exactly “how the wi-fi was hacked” can describe many different situations.

It may mean:

• someone actually bypassed security protections;
• someone knew or guessed the password;
• a former guest continued using the network;
• a neighbor connected to an unsecured network;
• a device was compromised;
• or simply that the subscriber does not know who used the connection.

These are not identical situations, and thus a careful investigation will try to determine which of these situations actually occurred.

The Correct Analysis: Who is Responsible, Not Which Device Was Observed

Whether the issue involves an open network, a family member, a roommate, a guest, or unauthorized access, the underlying question remains consistent:

An IP address merely identifies the subscriber.

A router merely provides information about connected devices.

A connected device may provide information about what activity occurred.

But ultimately, copyright liability concerns the responsibility of a person who engaged in that unlawful activity—not merely the existence of an internet connection, an account holder, a particular device, or the activity itself having occurred or not.

Guest Networks, Smart Devices, and Modern Internet Connections

The way people access the internet has changed dramatically since the earliest years of BitTorrent copyright litigation. A residential internet connection is no longer limited to one computer connected to one modem.

Today, a typical household may include dozens of internet-connected devices, including:

• smartphones;
• laptops;
• tablets;
• smart televisions;
• gaming consoles;
• security cameras;
• smart speakers;
• thermostats;
• lighting systems;
• smart plugs;
• appliances; and
• other internet-connected devices.
• [For fun, I would even add “AI Bots,” “autonomous programs,” “robots,” and any other future technologies which I can forecast will be part of the “home ecosystem” of devices that connect to the internet, communicate with other individuals, programs, or bots, and which may take actions on their own accord that might inadvertently (or explicitly) infringe the rights or harm another individual.]

Many of these devices may connect automatically and communicate with online services without requiring the subscriber to actively open a web browser, run a script or a program, or download a file. As a result, identifying the subscriber associated with an IP address may represent only the first step in understanding what actually occurred, by whom, and who should be held liable for that unlawful activity.

The more difficult question remains:

Modern Routers, Multiple Networks

Many Internet Service Providers now provide routers with features designed to allow easier sharing of internet access.

For example, many modern routers include a “guest network” feature that allows a subscriber or the ISP itself to create a separate wireless network for visitors (sometimes without the express knowledge that this has occurred).

A guest network may allow someone to access the internet while limiting access to the subscriber’s personal devices and files. However, it is not always clear:

• whether the guest network is using the same IP address as the subscriber, or a different IP address assigned to the other subscriber,
  
• to which subscriber the activity that occurs on that internet connection will be attributed to.

Thus, the “guest network” feature creates issues that are inherently different from the questions we discussed regarding an intentionally open wireless network.

A subscriber may have:

• a private household network protected by a password;
• a separate guest network for visitors;
• smart devices connected to a different wireless network;
• multiple wireless access points throughout the home.

From the perspective of a copyright investigation, these distinctions may become important.

The question is not simply:

The question is:

Smart Devices and the Challenge of Connecting Observed Activity to a Particular Person

The growth of smart devices creates additional questions that did not commonly arise during the early years of BitTorrent litigation.

For example:

• Did a particular device actually communicate over the internet during the relevant time period?
• Was the device capable of performing the alleged activity?
• Was the device controlled by the subscriber or another person?
• Was the device compromised?
• Was the device merely connected to the same network, and did it (or an unauthorized user) actually perform the activity being investigated using that device?

These questions demonstrate an important distinction:

Mere Access to the Internet vs. Human Conduct

Technology can provide valuable information.

It can show:

• that a device connected to a particular network;
• that data traveled through a particular connection;
• that certain activity occurred at a particular time;
• that certain technical identifiers were associated with that activity.

But copyright infringement cases ultimately concern human conduct.

The legal question is not:

The legal question is:

This distinction is why courts generally examine the totality of the available evidence rather than relying on a single technical identifier.

Multiple Devices Are Connected, More Complications

A subscriber who receives a copyright complaint may reasonably ask:

The answer depends on the evidence available in the particular case.

Relevant evidence may include:

• device records;
• router information;
• forensic examination;
• account information;
• user testimony;
• timing information; and
• other facts developed or statements made during investigation or discovery.

As with every scenario discussed in this article, the facts must be evaluated together.

The Internet Connection Is Not the Same Thing as the Person Using It

Perhaps the most important lesson from modern internet connections is that the relationship between an IP address and a human being is becoming increasingly indirect.

The internet connection may identify:

• an ISP account.

The ISP account may identify:

• a subscriber.

The network may identify:

• connected devices.

But each step still requires careful analysis before reaching the ultimate question:

Public Wi-Fi, Businesses, and Internet Connections Used by Many People

Although this article focuses primarily on residential internet subscribers, it is worth briefly discussing businesses and other locations that provide internet access to multiple users.

Some examples of these businesses may include:

• coffee shops;
• restaurants;
• hotels;
• universities;
• libraries;
• offices; and
• other locations offering Wi-Fi access to customers, employees, students, or visitors.

These situations present a different factual question than a typical residential internet account.

A residential subscriber may have a limited group of potential users:

• family members;
• roommates;
• guests; or
• other individuals with access to the home network.

A public or business network may have dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of potential users.

The practical challenge for a copyright plaintiff suing a business is obvious:

This is one reason why copyright infringement cases involving BitTorrent activity have historically focused much more often on residential ISP subscribers than on public Wi-Fi providers. These exist, but their involvement is usually accidental (when a business is implicated as being a potential defendant in a lawsuit, the copyright holder usually only knows the IP address; not that this IP address maps to a business).

A business may be able to identify the account holder associated with an internet connection. However, the account holder may have little or no information regarding which of their many customers, employees, visitors, or devices actually used the connection at the relevant time.

The same principle discussed throughout this article still applies:

An IP address identifies an internet connection. It does not automatically identify the person who used that connection.

For this reason, while public and business Wi-Fi environments raise interesting legal and technical questions, they generally involve a different “who did it” problem than the residential subscriber cases that are the focus of this article.

How Courts Evaluate Attribution

Attribution: What Evidence Actually Connects a Subscriber to the Alleged Infringement?

A copyright plaintiff who identifies an internet subscriber associated with an IP address has obtained an important piece of information. However, the subscriber’s identity is generally only one part of the investigation.

The more difficult question is:

This distinction is central to understanding internet-related copyright cases.

• An internet account may have one subscriber.
• That same internet connection may have multiple users.
• Those users may operate multiple devices.
• Those devices may be used by multiple people.

The legal analysis requires examining how the available evidence connects each part of that chain.

The Difference Between Identification of a Device or a Subscriber vs. Attributing Liability To a Person Who Used That Device

One of the most common misunderstandings in internet-related lawsuits is confusing identification of the account holder or the mechanism which was used to infringe another’s copyright rights with attributing liability to a person who used that device when the infringing activity was observed.

Identification asks:

Attribution asks:

Those are different questions.

For example:

An ISP may identify a subscriber associated with an IP address. This might allow a copyright plaintiff to identify a potential defendant.

But the subscriber may then explain:

• other people had access to the network;
• multiple devices connected to the internet account;
• another person may have used the connection;
• the subscriber did not personally engage in the alleged activity.

At that point, the issue becomes one of evidence.

The IP Address = the Beginning of the Investigation, Not the End

As discussed elsewhere in my articles, an IP address can be valuable evidence.

It may help a copyright plaintiff identify the internet connection from which alleged activity was observed.

However, an IP address generally does not reveal:

• the name of the person using the device;
• who was physically present;
• who controlled the computer;
• who operated the software;
• whether another person had authorized or unauthorized access;
• whether the subscriber was even using the internet at that time.

The IP address answers an important question:

It does not necessarily answer:

That distinction is why the remainder of the investigation becomes important.

Multiple Types of Evidence Considered in a Lawsuit

Depending on the facts of a particular case, evidence may exist at several different levels.

1. Internet Account Evidence

The first level usually involves information from the Internet Service Provider.

This may include:

• the subscriber’s identity;
• the account information;
• the address associated with the account;
• records showing that the IP address was assigned to that account during the relevant time period.

This information is often what allows a plaintiff to identify a potential defendant. However, it generally identifies only the account holder—not necessarily the person who performed the alleged activity.

2. Network and Device Evidence

The next level may involve information about the network itself.

Depending on the circumstances, relevant information may include:

• router records;
• connected devices;
• computer information;
• network configuration;
• forensic examination;
• other technical information.

This evidence may help answer questions such as:

• How many devices connected to the network?
• Were multiple users present?
• Did a particular device appear connected during the relevant period?
• Was there evidence of the alleged software or activity?

However, even technical evidence may require additional interpretation.

• A device is not automatically a person.
• A computer may be shared.
• A device may be borrowed.
• A wireless password may be known by multiple people.

Technical evidence narrows the possibilities, but it does not always complete the “who did it” analysis by itself.

3. Human Evidence

Ultimately, copyright infringement cases concern human conduct.

That means evidence about people may become important.

Examples may include:

• testimony from household members;
• statements made by users;
• admissions;
• communications;
• employment or travel information;
• knowledge of software or activity;
• other facts relevant to who may have engaged in the alleged conduct.

No Single Piece of Evidence Exists in Every Case

One mistake that people often make is assuming there is always one piece of evidence that answers the entire question.

For example:

or:

Neither statement accurately describes how evidence is evaluated.

Different cases may involve different information.

Some cases may involve:

• only an IP address and subscriber information.

Other cases may involve:

• multiple users;
• multiple devices;
• forensic evidence;
• admissions;
• conflicting explanations;
• additional technical records.

The strength of the evidence depends on the total picture.

The Central Question Still Remains: “Who Did It?”

After all of the technical information is collected, the fundamental legal question remains:

That question is why identifying the subscriber is important—but also why identifying the subscriber is not necessarily the final step.

• The internet connection may identify where activity occurred.
• Additional evidence may identify devices.
• Additional facts may identify users.

The ultimate question is whether the evidence establishes responsibility by a particular person.

The Role of BitTorrent Evidence and Monitoring Companies

In many copyright infringement cases involving BitTorrent technology, the investigation begins before the copyright plaintiff knows the identity of the person associated with the internet connection.

The plaintiff may initially observe activity associated with an anonymous IP address participating in a BitTorrent swarm.

This process generally involves identifying technical information associated with the alleged infringement, such as:

• the IP address participating in the swarm;
• the date and time of the observed activity;
• the digital identifier associated with the copyrighted work;
• the Internet Service Provider associated with the IP address; and
• other information collected during the monitoring process.

This information may then be used to file a lawsuit and request information from the Internet Service Provider to identify the subscriber associated with the IP address.

However, the information collected during this process must be understood correctly.

The monitoring evidence generally answers an important question:

Understanding What BitTorrent Monitoring Actually Observes

BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer technology.

Unlike traditional downloading from a single server, BitTorrent users exchange pieces of files with multiple participants in a network known as a “swarm.”

A monitoring company participating in that swarm may observe information about other participants.

Depending on the technology used, the evidence may include:

• IP addresses;
• timestamps;
• file identifiers;
• portions of transmitted data;
• network activity associated with the swarm.

This information can provide evidence that a particular internet connection was observed participating in the distribution of a particular file.

However, like other forms of technical evidence, it represents one part of the overall analysis.

The Difference Between Observing Activity and Identifying a Person

One of the most important distinctions in these cases is the difference between observing internet activity and identifying the individual responsible for that activity.

A monitoring company may observe:

The ISP may identify:

But another question remains:

That question is the attribution issue discussed throughout this article.

Technical Evidence: What It Can AND Cannot Establish

Technical evidence can be powerful.

It can help establish:

• that a particular IP address was observed;
• that activity occurred at a particular time;
• that the activity was associated with a particular digital identifier;
• that data was exchanged through a peer-to-peer network.

However, technical evidence does not automatically reveal:

• who was physically present;
• who controlled the device;
• who operated the software;
• whether another person had authorized access;
• whether the subscriber personally performed the activity.

This is why technical evidence and “who did it” evidence are related—but not identical.

Difference: a Possible User vs. a Responsible User

Throughout this article, one theme has appeared repeatedly:

• An internet connection may have multiple possible users.
• A family member may have access.
• A roommate may have access.
• A guest may have access.
• An unknown person may have accessed an open or unsecured wireless network.

These facts may all be relevant.

This distinction is one of the most important concepts to understand when evaluating copyright infringement claims involving shared internet connections.

The Existence of Another Possible User—Not an Automatic Defense

A common response from subscribers is:

Sometimes that statement may be highly relevant.

For example, if several people had legitimate access to the same internet connection, the existence of those other users may raise important questions about who actually engaged in the unlawful activity.

However, the statement alone does not necessarily resolve the case.

Courts generally evaluate evidence, not possibilities.

Difference: A “Reasonable” Possibility vs. Supporting Evidence

Consider two different situations.

In the first situation, a subscriber lives with several other adults. Multiple people know the Wi-Fi password. Each person has separate devices. The subscriber can identify who lived in the home during the relevant period.

In that situation, the existence of other users may provide meaningful factual information.

In the second situation, a subscriber simply states:

without identifying who that person was, whether that person had access, or any facts supporting that explanation.

Those two situations are very different.

The first provides additional facts for evaluating who is liable.

The second raises only a possibility.

This distinction matters because litigation requires evidence—not merely explanations that are theoretically possible.

A Subscriber Is Not Expected To Know Everything

Another common misunderstanding is that a subscriber must identify the “real infringer” before disputing liability. This is not necessarily how evidence works.

The importance of any explanation depends on the evidence available and the legal issues involved.

The Importance of Credibility

Many internet-related copyright disputes ultimately involve questions of credibility.

For example:

• Was there another person with access?
• Was that person actually present?
• Did that person have access to a device?
• Was the subscriber the only person who regularly used the connection?
• Are the explanations consistent with the available technical evidence?

Two cases involving the same IP address could reach very different results because the surrounding facts are different.

The technology may look similar, but the human circumstances might not be.

The Subscriber Is Not Required to Know Everything About their Network

Modern internet connections are complicated.

A subscriber might not know:

• every device connected to the network;
• every person who used the Wi-Fi;
• every application running on every device;
• every activity performed by household members or guests.

That reality is one reason why analyzing “who did it” cannot be reduced to a single technical identifier.

At the same time, a subscriber’s relationship to the network and the people using it may become relevant.

Someone who maintains the account, controls the household network, and regularly uses the internet connection may have different factual circumstances than someone whose name appears on an account but who has no meaningful connection to the location or users.

The Central Question Remains the Same

The purpose of examining possible users is not to create automatic excuses.

It is to answer the actual legal question:

An IP address may identify an internet connection.

A subscriber record may identify an account holder.

A device record may identify equipment.

A person’s testimony may provide additional context.

The ultimate question is whether those pieces of information, considered together, support holding a particular individual legally responsible.

How Plaintiffs Actually Prove (and Defendants Defend) Copyright Cases

Understanding the technical issues involved in internet copyright cases is important. However, technology is only one part of the litigation process.

A copyright plaintiff may begin with technical evidence identifying an IP address, a BitTorrent swarm, and an internet subscriber. But a lawsuit does not end by just identifying an internet connection.

The parties must still address the central question:

That question is often answered through a combination of technical evidence, documents, testimony, and the statements made by the parties during litigation.

Before the Lawsuit: What Evidence Do They Obtain

In many BitTorrent copyright cases, a copyright plaintiff begins with information collected from monitoring activity on a peer-to-peer network.

That information may identify:

• an IP address;
• a date and time;
• a file identifier;
• an Internet Service Provider.

The plaintiff may then file a lawsuit against an unknown defendant (a “John Doe” Defendant), and ask the court to allow it to issue an ISP subpoena process to identify the subscriber associated with that IP address.

At that stage, however, the plaintiff may not know:

• who was using the internet connection;
• who operated the device;
• whether other people had access;
• whether the subscriber personally participated in the alleged activity.

The ISP records identify the subscriber.

They do not necessarily answer the other questions the plaintiff must answer to determine who actually did it.

Discovery in Litigation Adds to Evidence Available to Both Sides

Once litigation begins (once a defendant has been named and served), both parties may have opportunities to obtain additional information.

Depending on the circumstances, discovery may involve:

• written questions called interrogatories;
• requests for documents;
• requests for admission;
• depositions;
• router or device records or logs;
• technical information;
• other evidence relevant to the claims and defenses.

These procedures exist because lawsuits are not decided solely on the information available before filing. The parties usually need to develop additional evidence as the case proceeds.

A Defendant’s Own Statements Can Become Important Evidence

One of the realities of copyright litigation is that the parties themselves often become a source of important evidence.

A subscriber may be asked questions such as:

• Who lived at the residence?
• Who had access to the internet connection?
• Who used the computers or devices?
• Did anyone else have permission to use the network?
• Was BitTorrent software installed?
• Was the subscriber aware of the alleged activity?

The answers to these questions may become part of the evidence considered in the case.

This is why accuracy matters.

A subscriber who provides a truthful explanation supported by the facts may present a very different situation from a subscriber whose statements are inconsistent with other available evidence.

Admissions of Guilt, Statements, and Testimony Under Oath

Technology may identify an internet connection.

For example, a case may involve questions such as:

• Did the subscriber personally use BitTorrent software?
• Did the subscriber recognize the file or software involved?
• Did another person in the household have access?
• Were there circumstances explaining how another user could have engaged in the activity?

In some cases, the most important evidence is not a technical record.

It may be what a person says under oath.

That is why defendants should carefully consider the importance of discovery responses, declarations, and deposition testimony.

Fear-Based Considerations: Why Cases Resolve Before Trial

Many internet copyright cases resolve without a trial.

There are many possible reasons.

• Some defendants may believe the cost and burden of litigation outweigh the benefit of continuing to fight.
• Some defendants may have facts that make settlement practical.
• Some defendants may have defenses that create uncertainty for the plaintiff.
• Some cases may resolve because both sides evaluate the risks and decide that settlement is preferable to continued litigation.

Settlement decisions are often practical decisions based on risk, expense, time, and uncertainty.

Fear of Litigation

One reason these cases can be challenging for subscribers is that the process often begins with uncertainty.

A person may receive a notice that:

• their internet account was identified;
• copyrighted material was allegedly downloaded;
• legal action may follow.

At that moment, the subscriber may not yet know:

• what evidence exists;
• whether another person was involved;
• whether technical information is accurate;
• what defenses may apply.

That uncertainty is one reason many subscribers seek legal advice before a lawsuit is even filed.

Understanding the difference between:

• an allegation,
• evidence,
• attribution,
• and legal responsibility

is critical before making decisions about how to respond.

Why Providing Internet Access Does Not Automatically Make Someone a Copyright Infringer

One concern frequently raised by internet subscribers is whether they can be held responsible simply because another person used their internet connection.

The concern is understandable.

A subscriber may think:

The answer is no.

A subscriber may:

• pay the internet bill;
• own the router;
• maintain the wireless network;
• provide access to family members, roommates, or guests;

without necessarily being the person who engaged in a specific act of copyright infringement.

The central question remains the same:

Owning the Internet Account Is Different From Committing the Act

A simple analogy is helpful.

Owning a vehicle does not automatically prove who was driving it at a particular time.

Similarly, owning or being the account holder of an internet connection does not automatically establish who used that connection for a particular activity.

The internet connection may be an important piece of evidence.

The subscriber information may be an important piece of evidence.

But those facts must still be connected to the individual person allegedly responsible for the activity claimed in the lawsuit.

Focus: Participation and Evidence

In ordinary residential internet situations, the important questions generally involve issues such as:

• who used the connection;
• who controlled the device;
• who engaged in the alleged activity;
• what evidence exists connecting a person to that activity.

The mere existence of a shared internet connection does not automatically answer those questions.

This is why connecting the internet account to the person who used it to engage in the unlawful activities remains the central issue throughout these cases.

Common Misconceptions About IP Addresses and Open Wi-Fi

Misconception #1: The IP Address Proves Who Downloaded the File

One of the most common misunderstandings in internet copyright cases is the belief that an IP address identifies the individual person who committed the alleged infringement.

An IP address can be important evidence.

It may identify the internet connection associated with observed activity.

It may allow a copyright plaintiff to request information from an Internet Service Provider to identify the subscriber associated with that connection.

However, an IP address generally does not identify:

• who was sitting at the computer;
• who controlled the device;
• who operated the software;
• who had access to the network;
• whether another person used the connection.

The distinction is simple:

An IP address may identify the connection; it does not automatically identify the person.

That difference is why copyright cases involving shared internet connections often become an analysis of trying to determine who engaged in the unlawful activity.

Misconception #2: An IP Address Proves Nothing

The opposite argument is also incomplete.

Sometimes people hear that an IP address does not identify a person and conclude that an IP address has no value.

That is not accurate.

An IP address can be meaningful evidence.

It may establish that:

• a particular internet connection was associated with observed activity;
• a particular subscriber was assigned that connection at a specific time;
• a particular internet connection was observed participating in a BitTorrent swarm or other internet activity.

The issue is not whether an IP address alone can prove guilt in a copyright infringement lawsuit; it cannot.

The issue is what evidence and useful information to identify the person engaging in the unlawful activity the IP address actually provides.

An IP address may answer:

It may not answer:

Both statements can be true at the same time.

Misconception #3: If My Wi-Fi Was Open, I Cannot Be Held Responsible

An open or unsecured wireless network may create an important factual issue because it may allow other people to access the internet connection.

However, open Wi-Fi does not create an automatic legal exemption or a defense to a copyright claim.

The existence of an open network may raise questions such as:

• Who could access the connection?
• Who actually accessed the connection?
• Was anyone else present?
• Was the network intentionally left unsecured?
• What other evidence exists?

As with every situation discussed in this article, the question remains:

Misconception #4: If Someone Else Had Access to My Wi-Fi, the Case Is Over

Another common misunderstanding is that identifying another possible user automatically defeats a copyright claim.

That is not necessarily true.

The existence of another possible user may be important in the plaintiff’s investigation.

For example, a subscriber who shares internet access with:

• a spouse;
• children;
• roommates;
• guests;

may have facts that are very different from someone who was the only person using the account.

However, there is a difference between:

and:

The first statement identifies a possibility. The second statement addresses who did it (connecting the evidence to a particular person).

Copyright cases are decided based on evidence, not merely on theoretical possibilities.

Misconception #5: The Person Whose Name Is on the Internet Account Is Automatically Responsible

The person listed on an internet account is often the person a copyright plaintiff initially identifies as the possible “John Doe” Defendant in a lawsuit. This is because the Internet Service Provider maintains records connecting an account to a subscriber.

However, account ownership and personal responsibility are not always identical.

In many households:

• one spouse opens the account;
• one roommate establishes service;
• one family member handles the bills;
• one person manages household services.

The person whose name appears on the account may be important to the investigation.

But the account holder’s identity alone does not necessarily answer every question about who performed a particular activity.

Misconception #6: If I Did Not Personally Download Anything, I Have Nothing to Worry About

This statement requires some caution.

A subscriber who did not personally engage in the alleged activity may have important facts supporting a defense.

A subscriber who receives such a letter from his ISP should carefully consider:

• what evidence exists;
• who had access to the connection;
• what devices were used;
• whether records or information should be preserved;
• what deadlines may apply.

The distinction between “I did not do this” and “I can explain why the evidence does not identify me as the person who did this” can become important during litigation.

Misconception #7: I Changed My Wi-Fi Password, So That Proves Someone Else Did It

After receiving notice about a copyright complaint implicating their internet account as being associated with unlawful activity, some subscribers immediately change their Wi-Fi password or modify their network settings.

A password change merely prevent future unauthorized access.

It may not establish:

• who used the network previously;
• whether another person accessed the connection;
• whether the alleged infringement occurred.

Future security measures and resolution of accusations for possible past unlawful acts are separate questions.

What If You Received an ISP Subpoena Notice?

If you are reading this article because you recently received an ISP subpoena notification from your internet Service Provider, remember that the purpose of this article has been to explain how courts distinguish between identifying an internet subscriber and identifying the person who allegedly committed copyright infringement.

Understanding that distinction is only one part of responding to a copyright claim.

Questions such as:

• What does an ISP subpoena actually require?
• Should you respond to your ISP?
• Can you challenge the subpoena?
• When should you speak with an attorney?
• What happens after your identity is disclosed?

involve separate procedural issues that deserve their own discussion.

For a detailed explanation of the ISP subpoena process, see my articles:

• Understanding ISP Subpoenas in Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• When Is the Best Time to Hire an Attorney?
• Named and Served as a Defendant
• Who Is Strike 3 Holdings? What Defendants Must Know

Those articles focus on the litigation process itself. This article focuses on the separate question of whether identifying an internet subscriber also identifies the person legally responsible for the alleged infringement.

Frequently Asked Questions About IP Address Liability and Copyright Infringement

The General Rule: What to Take From This Article

Many of the misunderstandings surrounding internet copyright cases come from treating one piece of information as if it answers every question. No one piece of information establishes liability.

An IP address is relevant, but not determinative of who used it.

An open Wi-Fi network creates doubt, but is not a defense to a claim of copyright infringement.

A subscriber’s name is not automatic proof that the subscriber is the infringer.

Another person’s access is not automatic proof of innocence.

The answer whether someone can be held legally responsible for an unlawful act in a copyright case depends on the complete factual picture of whether it is more likely than not that they engaged in the unlawful activity.

The central question throughout this article remains:

New Strike 3 Holdings Expansion Strategy into Obscure Courts

I have observed a new Strike 3 Holdings expansion strategy, where they are filing new lawsuits in locations (e.g., noting the recent article that I just wrote on 6/9/2023 on the new cases in the Ohio Northern District Court). The issue is that there are no defense attorneys who are knowledgable about their copyright infringement lawsuits in these new jurisdictions, and judges there are not yet exposed to their ISP subpoena letter strategy of soliciting settlements from accused defendants.

While the company has been targeting accused defendants in many states including California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, it seems they are now looking for new locations to file.

Possible Reason 1: No Known Defense Attorneys in These States

As mentioned in my recent article at https://www.cashmanlawfirm.com/strike-3-holdings-list-of-cases-by-state-march-2023/, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC has been filing copyright infringement lawsuits against accused defendants in many states. However, it appears that the company is now facing legal challenges in some of these states.

This could be due to several reasons, such as the complex nature of the copyright infringement cases, the high costs associated with hiring experts in this area of law, or simply a lack of interest or skill in pursuing infringers in these courts when really what they want is a forced settlement from each defendant. Whatever the reason, the lack of competent defense attorneys in these new states is an alarming development in the timeline of copyright lawsuits.

Possible Reason 2: No Case Law Yet in New Federal Court Jurisdictions

Another possible reason for the new lawsuits facing Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is the fact that the company is filing these cases in new federal court jurisdictions where there is no case law yet. This lack of case law could pave the way for the company to file copyright infringement lawsuits against accused defendants in those federal court districts without the current obstructions they are rightfully experiencing in more battle-worn federal courts

Without case law to rely on, the judges in these new jurisdictions may be more likely to rule in favor of Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, and this could lead to more lawsuits in those new federal court jurisdictions. It is possible that the company is taking a calculated risk by filing these cases in new federal court jurisdictions, but as I wrote about last night (on 6/9), it appears to me that they might be relying on out-of-state Settlement Factory attorneys to ensure the success of their new Ohio ISP Subpoeena Letter lawsuit campaign.

Possible Reason 3: Strike 3 Holdings, LLC Uses Geolocation Data to Target Potential Defendants with Deep Pockets to Settle

Finally, it is important to note that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC uses geolocation data correlated with demographic information to target potential defendants. The company knows what IP address geolocates to which ISP in which city, state, and zip code, and this allows them to determine whether a potential John Doe Defendant in that zip code potentially has money to pay Strike 3 Holdings, LLC a settlement or not.

This data allows Strike 3 Holdings, LLC to target accused defendants who are more likely to settle out of court, and this could be another reason why the company is filing new lawsuits in these locations. I honestly do not think that they are moving to new locations because their tactics are becoming more well-known, or that more accused defendants are fighting back against the company’s copyright infringement claims. Their business model of leveraging an “unbalanced playing field” is still working for them, as it costs them almost nothing to file a lawsuit, and it costs each accused defendant their entire bank account just to defend against it.

Conclusion

While it remains to be seen how these new federal court locations will play out for Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, it is clear that the company is always planning the next scheme on where to file, or which demographic to target next in their lawsuits. Seeing these trends, it is clear that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC’s expension strategies are moving forward, and nobody is paying attention to this. As more accused defendants in new states get targeted by the company’s copyright infringement claims, I am wondering how we are going to make a big fuss about publicizing what appears to be their new strategy of filing their lawsuits in new states.

Strike 3 Holdings Ohio Lawsuits (UPDATED JULY 2024)

Are you a resident of Ohio who has recently been contacted by Strike 3 Holdings LLC’s attorneys? Is this the first time you’ve encountered such an issue and are unsure of how to proceed? If so, don’t worry. You’re not alone.

NOTE: This article was originally written in June, 2023, but I have updated it (in July, 2024) to include updates from the past year.

Introduction

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is a copyright holder that files lawsuits against accused John Doe subscribers in federal courts in multiple states across the US (recently, they have been filing in California, New York, Florida, and Texas).  The news in this article is that Strike 3’s attorneys are now filing copyright infringement federal lawsuits in Ohio.

This adult movie film company has been taking legal action against people they claim have illegally downloaded copyrighted material for many years now — while Strike 3 lawsuits really heated up in 2020, 2021 and 2022 (2023 was quiet), we have been tracking them since they first showed up in 2016.  These new Strike 3 Holdings Ohio filings seem to be part of a new coordinated Strike 3 Holdings strategy to expand their lawsuits into states where the demographics comprise accused defendants who have the profile of stable, responsible adult males who save for the future and to this company, would be happy and willing to pay a settlement to keep them out of court.

Even reddit has been lit up with the thousands of lawsuits that Strike 3 Holdings filed in the Northern District of California and the recent local cases filed in Florida filed by Strike 3 Holdings LLC (the Miami-Dade cases, where Strike 3 filed many lawsuits alleging federal copyright, but they abused the Florida legal system by filing their infringement claims in their state and local courts).  Just so it is said, Strike 3 must file copyright infringement lawsuits in FEDERAL COURTS, not local courts. 

So you see why it immediately bothered me when this “copyright troll” traded their federal copyright infringement claims for a Florida state-based loophole where they can easily get the names of every account holder who received a subpoena from their ISP when the lawsuit was filed in the wrong court.  This was purposeful.

It has also come to me that the recent Ohio cases against a John Doe subscriber assigned IP address are also purposeful.  A typical resident of this state is not aware of the ISP subpoena lawsuits that are filed in other states, and they are not aware of the copyright infringement defenses that defense law firms such as our Cashman Law Firm PLLC and other law firms have publicly shared with our readers.  

All they know is that they downloaded movies without a license, and now they received a Strike 3 Holdings LLC subpoena from their Charter / Spectrum ISP.  Unlike the Comcast letters, the Charter / Spectrum letters suggest that unless they file a motion to quash the subpoena, their ISP will be forced to hand over their contact information to the plaintiff attorneys who sued them.  Now they need to pay their own attorney fees to settle with Strike 3 Holdings for the pornographic films they watched publicly, but they thought were being watching in the privacy of their homes.

Now Strike 3 also did a good job planning this.  They watched the activities of the Ohio residence since mid-2022 without warning any of them with even one DMCA violation notice giving them notice that they could be sued if they continue to access their three website brands without a license.

So after almost two years of tracking and saying nothing, now they sent a subpoena from Strike 3 to the Spectrum / Charter internet service provider (ISP) asking them to reveal your name and address to their lawyers.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

New Strike 3 Holdings LLC Lawsuit Filing Strategy

If you’re a target in a Strike 3 Holdings Ohio lawsuit, and you are a mid-aged man who owns a home, it’s important to know that you were likely targeted. One of their key tactics with Ohio was called “forum shopping,” where they chose a state where there are no defense attorneys with experience in defending against their cases.

Definition of Forum Shopping

I firmly believe they came up with a plan to file Strike 3 Holdings Ohio lawsuits where the attorneys there are less knowledgeable about their kind of cases, and thus are not knowledgeable of the legal defenses to defend against them.

This practice of filing suits outside of areas with defense attorneys who know how to litigate these cases effectively can be called “forum shopping,” although typically, this term applies to finding a court where the judges or their rulings would be most favorable to them.  But by filing in the Ohio Northern District Court, they effectively reduced the likelihood that their claims will be challenged or defeated in court due to insufficient legal defenses.

Why it benefits them to file lawsuits where there are no copyright defense attorneys.

Filing lawsuits in courts that are not familiar with the nuances of copyright infringement cases may seem counterintuitive, but it is a strategy that for the moment I am concerned will be successful. The lack of experienced defense attorneys in thes Strike 3 Holdings Ohio cases increases the likelihood that defendants will settle out of court instead of being defended by competent counsel.

Furthermore, filing in courts where familiarity with copyright law varies can also provide tactical advantages such as motion to dismiss based on improper jurisdiction, improper venue, or other challenges to their lawsuits under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Why of all places, Ohio?!

We know that Strike 3 Holdings LLC is a copyright infringement litigation company that has filed thousands of cases across the US; now the Ohio Northern District Court has joined the ranks of places where their cases can be found. 

Their cases are filed against individual IP address owners (really, assignees), who are accused of downloading adult digital media without authorization.  When filing these Strike 3 Holdings Ohio cases, their attorneys must adhere to the rules and regulations set forth in Title 28 U.S.C Section 1406 and Title 28 U.S Code Section 1391(b)(2) which require them to file the case in a court that has jurisdiction over the defendant and venue for the action.

Due to this strict adherence to legal requirements, it doesn’t come as a surprise that Strike 3 Holdings has chosen Northern Ohio as their primary region for filing lawsuits against alleged infringers – this part of Ohio serves as home for many mid-aged men who own homes there, providing an ample pool of potential targets with sufficient financial resources to make settlement offers worthwhile enough for them to file lawsuits, but not need to actually get into litigation. 

This strategy also allows them to use Settlement Factories – volume-based law firms who specialize in manipulating accused defendants into settling the claims against them [whether they did the downloading or not] – which bring added efficiency and cost savings when settling dozens or even hundreds of cases at once.

Overall, filing well-structured turn-key “copycat” lawsuits helps both sets of attorneys save time since they don’t have to go through numerous negotiation rounds or long hours spent at conferences trying to settle each separate complaint – making it easier for both of them (Strike 3 Holdings and Settlement Factories) to reach pre-litigation settlements while keeping Strike 3 Holdings’ costs under control.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Reliance on Settlement Factories Make Their Filings Profitable

Everyone knows that this “copyright troll” is a copyright infringement litigation company that has filed thousands of lawsuits against internet users for illegally downloading copyrighted content. The company relies on a unique “return of income” (ROI) filing strategy to make their lawsuits profitable.

By filing their new Strike 3 Holdings Ohio lawsuits in places where there are few defense attorneys who know how to defend against these types of cases; the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio is now one such place. This allows them to settle more quickly and without having to spend additional money on legal fees.

It occurred to me that they might have considered utilizing “settlement factories” in their strategy.  Imagine if Strike 3 Holdings LLC realized that they can guarantee the profitability of their cases by assuming that out-of-state volume-based Settlement Factory attorneys would swoop into this new Ohio jurisdiction and settle all the cases they can — even if these attorneys have no affiliation with Ohio and are not admitted to practice law in Ohio or in the Ohio Federal Courts. 

Imagine the thousands of dollars in legal costs they could recoup using settlement factories who will have their clients settle as many of the Ohio cases as they can.  One settlement covers their filing fees (I’ll explain how), and they can still make thousands more from each subsequent settlement agreement they sign with the John Doe defendants. 

And they can do all of this without ever stepping foot in an Ohio courtroom!  Allow me to explain.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

How ONE Settlement Covers ALL of Their Filing Fees.

Filing fees for federal court lawsuits are ~$400 per lawsuit.  Imagine that they file 30 lawsuits at $400 each. This amounts to about $12,000 in filing fees (30 case filings x $400/filing = $12,000 in filing fees), but one settled case takes care of all the costs.  Knowing that there will be settlement factory lawyers who will be on Strike 3 Holdings’ side trying to help them settle lawsuits can easily cover the filing fees they paid to file the 30 lawsuits. 

One $12,000 settlement covers ALL of their filing fees (26 average number of titles x $500/title = $13,000 [more than enough]).  What they make on the remaining 29 of 30 cases is 100% profit (for Strike 3 Holdings AND for the settlement factories).

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

List of Cases filed in the Ohio Northern District Court (UPDATED as of 5/20/2026).

Are there any Strike 3 Holdings cases filed in the Ohio Southern District Court?

In 2023, no. In 2024, yes — they are now filing in the Southern District as well.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Demographics and Financial Profiles Ohio Defendants.

The Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits in Ohio appear to be filed against financially responsible, mid-aged men who own homes. In many cases, these individuals have typical financial profiles and because of their traditional values, their moral philosophies, and their responsible habits in saving for the future — they appear to have become the perfect targets to pay the settlement costs or lump sum amounts that are asked of them.

The demographics of a typical defendant in an Ohio-filed case could include: age range of 35-45 years old, employed full time, married with two children or more, earning between $60K – $100K per year, owning a house valued at around $200K – $500K.

It’s important to remember that while Strike 3 Holdings LLC has been primarily active in Northern Ohio’s District Court system recently due to its recent splurge in “forum shopping” (okay, that was a poor attempt at a play on words), it doesn’t mean that all their lawsuits are limited only to this district court. They are still filing suits other obscure locations if they find an appropriate jurisdiction where they can leverage large settlement amounts from men with the typical financial abilities of an Ohio homeowner.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Relevant Hashtags: #Strike3Holdings #lawsuits #ISPsubpoena #copyrightinfringement #settlement #Ohio #legaladvice #lawyers #internetpiracy #copyrightlaw #intellectualproperty #filesharing #digitalrights #fairuse #copyrightdefense #internetfreedom #privacyrights #internetprivacy #internetlaw #legalrights

Conclusion

In this article, I have conclusively stated my thought that Strike 3 Holdings LLC has chosen the strategy of filing lawsuits 1) in jurisdictions where there are no defense attorneys who specialize in copyright infringement cases. By doing this, they can rely on their settlement factories and increase the likelihood that they will be able to negotiate a profitable outcome from the settlement of each of their cases.

2) Based on my conversations with many Ohio defendants this week, the pattern is appearing to me that the demographic of people sued in Ohio is mid-aged men who own homes in Northern Ohio and whose financial profile suggests that they have enough money saved up to pay a settlement to rid them of the shame each one is feeling from being implicated in a public process where these family men are accused of viewing pornography. 

Even if an attorney were available and these men did not do the download, they might not have enough resources or time needed for adequate representation during litigation proceedings (think of the uneven playing ground in my policy article to judges and lawmakers) — preemptively leading them towards settling their cases out of court because it’s easier and less exposing than taking the case all the way through litigation in a small town where many grew up with each other.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

—
[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Strike 3 Holdings LLC case, or you can SMS us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form. The attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me. Even so, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  When contacting me, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form or in any e-mail.

Why did Strike 3 Holdings LLC begin suing defendants in Ohio?

Because they believe Ohio defendants have deep pockets and an ability to pay a Strike 3 Holdings large settlement. This is because the average Ohio defendant is a mid-aged male who is a homeowner, who has a wife and a family, who is financially stable, and who has traditional moral values. This makes them perfect targets for Strike 3 Holdings’ settlement extortion scheme because Ohio men would rather pay a large settlement rather than litigate their claims in the Ohio Northern District Court.

Why choose the Ohio Northern District Court as a location for Strike 3 Holdings LLC to sue defendants?

Suing in Ohio is part of a new Strike 3 Holdings Strategy of filing in obscure states where there are no known defense attorneys who are familiar with their tactics.

I also believe they are relying on out-of-state Settlement Factory attorneys to settle the Ohio Strike 3 Holdings cases in order to cover the filing fees for the 60+ lawsuits they have recently filed in the Ohio Northern District Court.

Surviving Your ISP Subpoena: What It Means for you as a John Doe Defendant

In this article, you’ll learn how ISP subpoenas work in U.S. federal copyright infringement cases, including who actually receives the subpoena, what information can be compelled under Rule 45, and why John Doe subscribers typically are not required to respond.

An ISP subpoena is a court order directing an Internet Service Provider to disclose subscriber information associated with a particular IP address so that a plaintiff can identify and name a defendant in a pending lawsuit. In civil copyright infringement cases, courts routinely authorize these subpoenas at an early stage so plaintiffs can convert “John Doe” placeholder defendants into named parties once the ISP discloses basic account‑holder data.

Our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC represents clients nationwide in copyright infringement lawsuits, and has defended John Doe Defendants for more than 15 years. The firm focuses on ISP subpoena notification letters, ISP subpoenas, and strategic decisions about when to file a motion to quash (and when not to), including detailed walkthroughs of the ISP subpoena process and related defense option.

The unique focus of this article is on how ISP subpoenas are commonly misunderstood by John Doe defendants and why, in most cases, the subpoena is directing the ISP—not the subscriber—to act. The goal is to clarify what the subpoena does and does not require you to do so you can make informed decisions instead of reacting out of fear.

▶

Watch our Full Video Walkthrough of “ISP Subpoena Letters… Decoded” for a quick 5-minute explanation of ISP subpoena letters in copyright infringement cases.

What is a Subpoena and Why Does It Matter in a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit?

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 teaches that a subpoena in a federal lawsuit is a court order compelling a person or entity to either attend and testify, produce documents/ESI/tangible things, or permit inspection of premises at a specific time and place, serving as a powerful discovery tool to gather evidence from parties or non-parties, with failure to comply risking contempt of court sanctions.

In a copyright infringement lawsuit, a subpoena can be described as a court order that requires an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to disclose identifying information of an account associated with a specified IP address.

Federal courts evaluate ISP subpoena requests in BitTorrent copyright infringement cases under the five-factor test articulated in Sony Music Ent. Inc. v. Doe, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 564–65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). This framework governs whether a plaintiff may obtain early discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) to identify a John Doe defendant. To satisfy this standard, the plaintiff must establish:

1. a prima facie claim of copyright infringement supported by IP address–based evidence;
2. specific identification of the allegedly infringing activity;
3. the absence of alternative, less intrusive means to identify the subscriber;
4. a concrete need for the requested information to advance the litigation; and
5. a minimal privacy interest in basic subscriber account information.

Courts across jurisdictions routinely apply this five-factor test when assessing early discovery requests in BitTorrent cases, including actions brought by Strike 3 Holdings. See, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 1:21-cv-0586 (W.D.N.Y. 2021).

The subpoenas in BitTorrent cases are often issued early in the case to allow plaintiffs to identify and name defendants (to satisfy the ‘no less intrusive means’, and the ‘need to advance the litigation’ prongs of the Sony Music v. Doe case (supra).

These subpoenas are sent to the ISP because it is in the best position to identify the appropriate subscriber to be sued (the subscriber is the customer who was assigned the IP address when the downloading occurred), and because a defendant (a name and address) is required to advance the litigation.

The copyright holder cannot proceed in the litigation without a defendant, and a lawsuit against an IP address cannot compensate the copyright holder in case the defendant is found to have infringed its copyright rights.

In recent years, a substantial portion of ISP subpoenas in copyright cases have arisen from Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits filed nationwide, many involving allegations of BitTorrent-based infringement of adult film content.

With the ISP letter, the ISP also forwards to the subscriber a copy of the ISP subpoena that they received — ordering them to produce documents or the subscriber’s personal information.

We learned that according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2)(A), a subpoena is a legal document ordering the recipient to share documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things.

In copyright infringement cases, such tangible things could be:

• a list of IP addresses assigned to a particular internet user over time,
• MAC addresses used,
• usernames used, or more frequently,
• the personal identity of a particular internet subscriber.

The subpoena may also compel the ISP to produce documents or information related to the infringing activity (i.e., the MAC addresses of the computers that were used to access the internet). Such subpoenas occur not in the context of a criminal case, but within a civil case filed in a federal court in the U.S.

The ISP shares this information ONLY to the party serving the subpoena (not to the court).  

It is important to emphasize again that a subpoena in a copyright infringement case is sent to the ISP (along with a judge’s order) to compel them to inspect and copy their records to identify which subscriber was assigned a particular IP address at the dates and times the alleged downloads occurred.

Key takeaway: An ISP subpoena is a discovery mechanism. It is not an accusation, a summons, or an order directed at the subscriber. Its sole purpose is to determine whether a real defendant can be identified and named. Issues such as standing, motions to quash, liability, and defenses arise later and depend on facts not resolved by the subpoena itself.

How ISP Subpoenas Are Served Under Rule 45 and What It Means for John Doe Defendants

According to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b), Subpoenas are supposed to be sent by anyone who is over 18 years old, and who is not a party to the lawsuit (not a plaintiff or a defendant). Usually, subpoenas are hand delivered to the recipient.

However, the process in copyright infringement cases is different because it is the ISP who is served with a copy of the subpoena; not the accused defendant.

When an ISP receives a subpoena to produce documents or information, usually after 30 days after notifying their customer that they received the subpoena, in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e), the ISP will hand over the internet subscriber’s personal information (and whatever else is requested) to the plaintiff’s attorney. Nothing is sent to the court, so the court does not learn your identity when your ISP hands your personal information to the plaintiff’s attorney.

Because the subpoena is sent directly to the ISP, there is no process server who will show up at your door with the subpoena.

You learn that you are implicated as being an accused John Doe Defendant when the ISP sends you an ISP Subpoena Notification Letter, informing you that your identity is about to be revealed.

Understanding this delivery process is essential because it can mislead some ISP account holders into believing they have been personally served, creating unnecessary confusion.

What an ISP Subpoena Does — and Does Not — Require of the Subscriber

An ISP subpoena does not order the internet subscriber to do anything.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, legal obligations attach only to the recipient of the subpoena. In copyright cases involving unidentified defendants, the recipient is the internet service provider—not the subscriber whose account was assigned the IP address.

This distinction matters. Because the subpoena is directed at the ISP, the subscriber has no obligation to produce documents, appear in court, or respond to the subpoena. Rule 45(g)’s contempt provisions apply only to the party commanded to comply, which is the ISP.

The subscriber learns about the subpoena only because ISPs routinely provide notice before disclosing account-holder information. That notice is informational—it does not convert the subscriber into a party to the case, and it does not impose compliance duties.

Understanding this procedural posture is essential. Many internet users panic because the word “subpoena” suggests immediate legal exposure. In reality, at this stage, the subpoena functions solely as a discovery tool aimed at identifying a potential defendant—not as an order directed at the subscriber.

Why Courts Authorize ISP Subpoenas Instead of Naming Defendants

In early-stage copyright infringement cases, plaintiffs typically know only an IP address—not the identity of the person who allegedly infringed their copyright. Because an IP address is not a person and cannot be sued, courts permit limited discovery to identify the subscriber assigned that IP address.

Courts evaluate these requests under the five-factor test articulated in Sony Music Entertainment Inc. v. Doe, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Of particular importance are the factors recognizing that (1) the ISP is the only entity capable of identifying which subscriber was assigned a given IP address, and (2) without that information, the plaintiff cannot advance the litigation.

For this reason, courts routinely authorize subpoenas directed at ISPs—not subscribers—so plaintiffs can determine whether there is a real person to name and serve. Until that occurs, the case remains procedurally incomplete.

ISP subpoenas follow established federal standards routinely applied in BitTorrent copyright cases.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 governs ISP subpoenas, with courts approving them when plaintiffs satisfy the Sony Music Entertainment Inc. v. Doe, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) five-factor test: (1) prima facie infringement claim, (2) specific IP evidence, (3) no alternative identification means, (4) need to advance the case, and (5) minimal subscriber privacy interest. 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 564-65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). DMCA § 512(h) further authorizes subpoenas against non-conduit ISPs, though limited by Charter Communications v. RIAA, 393 F.3d 771, 776-77 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding pure conduit ISPs immune).

In copyright infringement cases (where the copyright holder only knows the IP address of the person who infringed their copyright rights) the subpoena is directed to the ISP, not to the accused internet user. The reason for this is because the true identity of the accused internet user is unknown, and only the ISP has the ability to identify which of their millions of internet users was assigned a particular IP address at a particular date and time (when the alleged copyright infringement was occurring).

The court also acknowledges that 4) without knowing the identity of the subscriber, there is no way for the copyright holder to investigate whether that subscriber was the one who was at the keyboard when the downloads allegedly took place. Without having the name and address of a subscriber to name and serve, (without a defendant to name and serve), there is no way for the copyright holders to advance their copyright infringement claims in the lawsuit against that defendant or receive relief for any infringement that may have taken place.

This is why courts routinely approve subpoenas ordering ISPs to disclose the identity of the subscriber assigned the IP address on the dates and times when the alleged infringing activity occurred.

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 1:21-cv-0586 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2021) confirms this, and demonstrates that courts routinely give judicial approval of subpoenas to be given to the ISPs in BitTorrent adult video suits when plaintiffs meet the Sony factors

Nevertheless, without first being notified by the ISP that it received such a subpoena ordering it to reveal that it was his account who was assigned the IP address when the alleged infringing activity occurred, the subscriber would remain unaware that the lawsuit even existed. So even though they are made to believe that they are the “John Doe Defendant” accused in the lawsuit through the subpoena notification letter, the subpoena itself is still sent to the ISP, not to the internet user.

Why ISP Subpoena Notification Letters Create Confusion

ISP Subpoena notification letters inform their customer of the existence of the lawsuit; they share that this customer was assigned the IP address implicated in the lawsuit; and they inform that they are required to comply with the subpoena by disclosing subscriber information to the plaintiff. But they are also confusing because they do not tell their customer what to do with the information they shared.

From the internet subscriber’s perspective, he understands there is a file-sharing lawsuit against some “John Doe Defendant”; that his IP address was observed doing the unlawful activity; and if he does not proactively do something, his ISP will tell the plaintiff that he was the one who did it.

The internet subscriber is also sent a copy of the subpoena, but there are no instructions whether the subpoena was sent to him or whether he needs to do anything to comply with it.

They are also usually confused by the ISP subpoena notification letter, because it suggests that they have a legal remedy to stop them from complying with the subpoena, but there is often no details on what that remedy is, or how to do it. The ISP letter will often mention filing a “motion to quash” or an “opposition with the court,” but no internet user would know what to do with this.

Internet subscribers are often also confused whether they are obligated to do anything by the subpoena.

Lastly, the internet subscriber is also confused what the terms mean that are used in the lawsuit, whether they are already the “John Doe” Defendant, and what their status is in the lawsuit (and what they are permitted to do or not to do in order to defend themselves against the claims in the lawsuit.

This is because the legal terms used in the lawsuit, the subpoena letter, and the subpoena itself are confusing to a non-lawyer because the account subscriber reads the documents, thinking that the “plain English” meaning of the words convey their legal meanings.

Using plain English, the account holder IS technically the subscriber assigned the IP address identified in the lawsuit. However, the account holder can easily get confused by this, because legal terms and plain English do not always match:

When an account subscriber is implicated as being the “John Doe,” or the “John Doe Subscriber,” or the “Account subscriber assigned IP Address,” i.e., “Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 148.28.112.169,” the plain English meaning is different from the legal terms used.

In law, legal terms and legal titles have their own definitions, and those definitions could be different or even opposite to the plain English meaning of the words used. By understanding that legal terms (legal titles) and plain English words often do not have the same meaning, accused internet users can avoid much confusion as to 1) their status in the lawsuit, 2) their options in how to proceed, and 3) their obligations based on where they are in the lawsuit.

You can read more about “What is a John Doe Defendant in a Copyright Lawsuit” here.

Why it is Appropriate for a Courts to Approve ISP Subpoenas in Copyright Cases

The approach of a court in approving subpoena request to identify a defendant is consistent with federal practice. In the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases, federal courts routinely grant Strike 3 leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP to obtain the name and address of the subscriber assigned the IP address, as this is the only realistic way to identify the John Doe defendant.

As examples, see the following cases:

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 18‑cv‑5586 (LAK), 2018 WL 5818100 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2018), where the court held that limited early discovery is appropriate where the only way to identify a BitTorrent “John Doe” is via subpoena to the ISP for the subscriber’s name and address. Here, the court granted leave to serve a Rule 45 subpoena on the ISP before a Rule 26(f) conference, limited to the name and address of the subscriber assigned the IP address.

​Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Case No. 1:24‑cv‑10749‑JEK (D. Mass. July 31, 2024) (order on motion for third‑party subpoena), where Magistrate Judge Cabell granted Strike 3 leave to serve a third‑party subpoena on Comcast seeking “the name and address of the subscriber linked to the IP address at issue” prior to a Rule 26(f) conference.

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, Case No. 3:17‑cv‑00325 (D. Conn.) (order granting motion to subpoena ISP), where the court granted Strike 3’s motion “to subpoena the ISP” for the reasons in its motion and supporting papers, allowing the plaintiff to obtain identifying information for the subscriber associated with the relevant IP address.

In sum, regardless of what the ISP letter implies, and regardless of the loose way both attorneys such as myself and federal judges refer to accused defendants (as if the subscribers already possess the status of being the John Doe Defendants implicated in the lawsuit), it is important for an internet account subscriber to understand what his involvement is in the lawsuit at the “John Doe” phase. 

If the plaintiff wishes to proceed in litigation against the ISP subscriber, the plaintiff would need to amend the complaint and ‘name and serve’ that subscriber as a defendant (or any other real individual or entity it seeks to hold liable).

[This whole question of “who is a real defendant in a copyright lawsuit” is its own topic.  But I listed this here because an account holder needs to know his legal status and options on how to proceed upon being notified of the existence of the lawsuit.]

Standing and Motions to Quash Are Separate Legal Issues

Why This Article Does Not Resolve Standing or Quash Decisions

Whether an internet subscriber has legal standing to challenge a subpoena served on an ISP is a separate and highly technical question governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, constitutional standing principles, and district-specific case law.

What this procedural reality means for a subscriber’s ability to oppose, modify, or quash a subpoena is not resolved by the subpoena itself, and depends on factors such as jurisdiction, timing, and how the challenge is framed.

Because filing the wrong motion can have unintended consequences, issues of standing and motions to quash are addressed separately in the next article in this series, which focuses exclusively on motions to quash ISP subpoenas.

[See our Article #2 in the series, where we go into depth in discussing a Motion to Quash an ISP subpoena.]

Why ISPs Almost Always Comply with ISP Subpoenas in Copyright Cases (and Rarely Move to Quash).

Internet service providers are legally required to comply with subpoenas according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P. 45) and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA; 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)–(i)). Failure to respond to a lawful subpoena can expose them to legal penalties, including fines and legal action from the plaintiffs.

In copyright infringement lawsuits filed in federal courts, the ISPs are usually ordered by the judge in the case to comply with a subpoena to be provided to them. They must comply unless they have a valid reason of why not to, for example, if the subpoena was overly burdensome, or it was impossible to comply with.

Many John Doe Defendants mistakenly believe that their ISP has the power to refuse to comply with the subpoena (this is incorrect according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g)), or that the ISPs have the power to fight the subpoena on their behalf, ‘to protect the privacy of their customers’.

Technically, ISPs do have this power (outside the scope of this article, but I’ve seen Comcast successfully fight a subpoena asking for the identity of their subscribers in 2012 and win), but since 2012, I’ve rarely seen them file motions to quash to protect their subscribers. I would say that since this lawsuit [where they won], ISPs now have a ‘financial interest’ in not filing a motion to quash (because the plaintiffs pay them per IP address lookup).

While rare, courts have occasionally sided with ISPs on statutory grounds.

Charter Communications, Inc. v. RIAA, 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005) reversed enforcement of a DMCA §512(h) subpoena against a conduit ISP, ruling the provision applies only to ISPs storing infringing material, not those merely transmitting P2P traffic between users.

Financial Interests of an ISP to Comply with ISP Subpoenas

Since the 2012 Comcast case where the court ordered the copyright holder to pay them for each IP address lookup, ISPs also now have a financial interest in complying with the subpoenas, not opposing them.

ISPs charge plaintiffs per IP address lookup in order to comply with each subpoena. Costs to a plaintiff vary by the ISP, but in 2012, Comcast was awarded $50/IP address look-up. But shortly afterwards, I learned that AT&T U-Verse was charging plaintiffs $300-$400/IP address lookup.

To ‘cash in’ on the growing number of copyright infringement lawsuits implicating the ISP subscriber as the potential defendant, around 12 years ago, Comcast set up an office in Morristown, NJ simply to ‘handle’ the influx of all the ISP subpoenas that they were servicing (I understand for a fee).

However, even if the ISPs were not ‘cashing in’ on the thousands of copyright infringement lawsuits filed across the US each year, they wouldn’t ordinarily have a legal basis to challenge these subpoenas. Practically, it is much easier—and legally cheaper —for them to simply hand over the requested information on their customers, especially when doing so is in line with their financial interests — to collect a fee from every IP address lookup.

ISPs generally have no legal obligation to resist subpoenas on behalf of subscribers, and their contractual obligations typically permit disclosure in response to valid legal process.

Common Questions Courts and AIs Ask About ISP Subpoenas and John Doe Defendants

What This Article Does — and Does Not — Tell You to Do

This is not legal advice; your options depend on your jurisdiction and the facts of your case.

This article explains what an ISP subpoena is, why it was issued, and what it legally requires. It does not advise you to file any particular motion or take any specific legal action.

Decisions about how to respond—whether to challenge the subpoena, wait, negotiate, or prepare for later stages of the case—depend on facts not resolved by the subpoena itself and are addressed in later articles in this series.

No doubt, finding out that you are implicated as a defendant in a lawsuit is an emotionally-charged experience. You often don’t know what initial steps to take when receiving a subpoena, and the thought of having to defend a lawsuit alone can be daunting. But in these articles I am walking you through the items you need to understand — one at a time — so that you can make an educated and unemotional decision based on your actual status and legal options available to you.

Now that you understand what an ISP subpoena does—and does not do—the next step is learning how courts evaluate motions to quash, why many of them fail, and when filing one may actually increase risk.

That topic is addressed in Article 2: “The Motion to Quash Explained: When and Why You Should File.”

—

NOTE: THIS HAS BEEN A LAWSUIT-NEUTRAL ARTICLE WRITTEN FOR THE TORRENTLAWYER UNIVERSITY.

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your matter, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info@cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

NEGOTIATION: Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuit Settlement Amounts

Have you received a subpoena notice from your ISP? Chances are that your first thought was “what is this going to cost me?!” and fortunately, with the right kind of attorney, the a Strike 3 Holdings settlement is surprisingly within your reach.

Federal court filings based on a person’s IP address have become notorious for its aggressive high-pressure tactics in an attempt to extract a cash payment from each “alleged” copyright infringer. [These lawsuits are no different — Strike 3 Holdings aggressively pursues high-priced settlements.] But with no attorneys writing the answer as to the actual amount a settlement might actually be (until now, all you knew was that the settlement price varies), I understand that it can be incredibly frustrating trying to weigh your options and decide on what path you should take.

I hope to take some of that stress away with this MONSTER of an article; hopefully what I am sharing here will help. I have NO DOUBT that getting through this article in one sitting (or even ten sittings) is nearly impossible. Come back to this article as often as you need to.

If you need more information after reading this, please feel free to contact me at the Cashman Law Firm PLLC so that I can answer your questions.

Why I wrote this article: It’s time that we take away some of the mystery around what is [in my opinion] nothing more than an extortion scheme. I hope to share everything I know about the tactics they use in soliciting a settlement – including typical settlements amounts, and how they arrive at that number!

In this article, I’ll review all the facts surrounding these federal court filings so that you will have everything you need when making your decision of what to do.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

WHAT DO THE STRIKE 3 LAWSUITS WANT?

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is a adult film company that sues those they believe copied or streamed their copyrighted titles without permission.  They do this because they want to receive a multi-thousand-dollar settlement from each of these downloaders.

This is how they do it: Strike 3 detects an IP address they believe is downloading their movies.  Then, to determine who is downloading their content, they file Civil Cases in federal courts against unknown “John Doe” defendants and ask the court for permission to subpoena the ISPs to determine the identities of the internet users who were assigned those IP addresses on those dates and times.  In other words, Strike 3 uses the federal courts as a weapon to extract large settlements from each defendant they sue.

Each defendant is suspected of illegally copying or streaming copyrighted films using peer-to-peer software.

Each filing seeks monetary damages (copyright law today allows $150,000 per instance of infringement). However, an accused defendant can hire an attorney and negotiate a one-time payment in return for a release of liability and a dismissal of the case… all for a lot less.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

CONTEXT:

Providing just a bit of context, this copyright holder has become well-known by the U.S. District Court judges for their thousands of filings in each state. Over 10,000 lawsuits have been filed by them since 2017. They claim over three million illegal video views, and they are known for their aggressive high-pressure tactics.

A main strategy is the pursuit of lump sum payments from accused individuals. Too often, they ask for exorbitant amounts compared to other copyright holders who also filed these cases in federal courts. If the defendant cannot afford the original amount demanded of them, then they attempt to begin an invasive analysis into your assets to determine what you can pay. It is common for them to ask for bank account information and tax documents, but your attorney should not comply with these requests.

In my opinion, there is no need to provide any financial documentation in such a negotiation. They are simply not entitled to this information without first naming and serving the defendant. 

And, if we can negotiate a release of liability and a dismissal of the case without providing them any of your financial documentation, this is my preference.  But, if you do not have the numbers they are asking for, we can still settle your case.  As an attorney, you and I might decide to provide them financial documentation so that we can help them pinpoint an exact amount that will cause them to accept the offer we negotiate on your behalf.  Such a “hardship based” settlement makes use of your inability to pay the obscene amounts they ask for.

Remember — when dealing with this copyright holder, it is important to understand what their motive is: to separate you from your pocket book.

Knowing the ‘statutory damages’ you could potentially be liable for if found guilty might seem important when making decisions about your case; however, this is a misdirection and a fear tactic used by ‘settlement factory’ attorneys. 

The real analysis is determining the amount demanded by the movie company, then determining how much lower than the original amount we will be able to negotiate based on what they have accepted in the past.  Only then — if we are able to prove financial hardship and get a settlement amount that is significantly lower (than one we can negotiation without sharing your financial information), then yes, we could make use of your financial information, helping you settle your Strike 3 case and remain private. 

QUESTIONS: A Strike 3 Holdings subpoena arrived in the mail.  I looked online, and “Settlement Factory” attorneys scared me into thinking I should settle my Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit. 

1) What are the pros and cons of settling with Strike 3 Holdings?   
2) Do anonymous settlements protect my rights?
3) Does receiving a subpoena from Strike 3 Holdings LLC mean I have been actually sued? 

SHOULD YOU PAY THEM ANYTHING?

There are clear reasons WHY [as an accused defendant] you might decide to settle the claims against you.

There are also clear reasons WHY NOT to settle.

Knowing when to offer a payment in return for a release and a dismissal (and knowing the timing of when NOT to make such as offer) based on an unemotional analysis of TIMING AND RISK [as opposed to the fear tactics that many “settlement factory” attorneys might employ] can give you EXACTLY the advantage you need when responding to the ISP subpoena notification letter that you just received in the mail.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

WHEN YOU WOULD NOT PAY A SETTLEMENT TO SETTLE A STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUIT?

In short, there are certain times you should NOT offer any kind of payment.

For example, under no circumstances should you offer anything if you did not view or copy their movies. Without evidence to prove that you copied their copyrighted adult movies, you cannot be found guilty of copyright infringement.

You might have been told that “fighting a case on the merits is significantly more expensive than just paying them to release you from the lawsuit.” This is honestly not true. Strike 3 cases throughout all federal courts all go through the same procedural steps. The burden of proving that you are guilty is on THEM, not you. Thus, the passive approach of “defending the claims against you” can be significantly cheaper than anything they might ask you to pay them.

Other factors might lead me to suggest that settling may not be the best option for you. For example, if your age or financial documentation indicate that you might not be able to pay anything they ask for, then perhaps settling is not the right approach.

There are ways to let the plaintiff attorney know that you cannot afford to pay them. I have written about it in the past referring to it as a “no settlement letter.”

Obviously, a “no settlement letter” strategy wouldn’t be successful as a viable Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit defense strategy if you were named and served. However, having an attorney explain that you cannot afford to pay them might be all that is needed to avoid them having you fight the claims against you

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

1) WHEN YOU DID NOT DOWNLOAD THEIR VIDEOS

Settling with Strike 3 Holdings, LLC involves signing a settlement agreement that generally requires them to release you from all claims and liabilities related to the lawsuit. This means that when you enter into such an agreement, the civil case against you will be dismissed in Federal Court. No reporting to your internet company is necessary, as they are not involved in the litigation. Their only job is to comply with the subpoena that is sent to them asking for your personal information.

There is no reason to pay them if they wouldn’t be able to prove that you did the copying of their movies in the first place. Remember — the burden is on THEM to prove that you copied their copyrighted titles without a license. It is NOT your job to prove that you did not copy their content.

If you did not do the engage in the illegal copying of their content or distributing of illegal content as alleged in their complaint, then you should not be settling. Why? Because paying them might suggest that you accept responsibility for something you did not do, or for something which was done by someone else. Remember, you are not responsible for any copyright infringements that occur on your internet account without your knowledge and consent.

In my opinion, if you did not do the downloads, then paying them anyway is unfair. Any attorney who suggests otherwise could be engaging in unethical conduct. This is my main issue with volume-based settlement factories — these law firms encourage and often use fear tactics to push a settlement. But what their clients do not realize is that NO SETTLEMENT might have achieve the same dismissal (and for many thousands of dollars less).

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

If there is no proof linking you to copying or distributing their copyrighted content, then again — you should not pay them anything. If you have read my other articles, remember that the “EXHIBIT A” listing multiple dates and times where they believe you copied their content is NOT SUFFICIENT to prove that you were the one at the keyboard. To prove you are guilty, they need to obtain your TESTIMONY [in the form of you answering questions under oath in a deposition]. Without this testimony, proving their complaint becomes difficult. Thus, you see that fighting your case against Strike 3 Holdings on the merits could end up being significantly less expensive than paying them out-of-court.

Obviously, before you go and act on what I have written in this article, I urge you to seek legal advice from an experienced attorney before considering entering into litigation with them or any other copyright holder. You can contact a Cashman Law Firm, PLLC attorney here to represent you in your Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit. If for some reason I cannot speak to you immediately [here might be why], I will still be willing to assist you even if you do not become a client of our law firm.

2) WHEN THE PRICE OF LITIGATION COSTS LESS THAN SETTLING.

As we just read, if you did not do the copying of their content, then fighting the case on the merits (a.k.a. passively “litigating”) can be significantly cheaper than paying anything they might ask for. This is because the ‘burden of proof’ [to demonstrate to the court that you are guilty of copyright infringement] is on the company suing you. It is NOT YOUR JOB to prove that you did not download their copyrighted films.

This means that [assuming you did not do the copying], you can fight the case and win without having to spend large amounts of money. Rather, cooperating with the plaintiff attorney’s requests might be sufficient to get you out of trouble. I don’t consider this approach anything close to “trying your luck in a federal court.” Rather, I am merely sharing with you a simple analysis of RISK. If you did not do the copying, then they likely will not be able to extract the testimony they require to prove that you copied their films.

Yes, fighting against them on the merits will cost you time (and money), and you will be paying your attorney (me, at the Cashman Law Firm PLLC, or any other federal court attorney like me) for preparing each step of this process. A barebones defense might include filing documents in court up to answer the complaint. It might include a case management hearing, along with some back-and-forth with the plaintiff attorneys. It might also include coaching you on how to truthfully answer questions when attending a deposition. Lastly, even if we did not want to pay them anything, some price negotiations might take place because they usually offer one or more ways out of the case, so we might need to entertain them. In sum, I understand fully that entering into actual court practice at the US District Court (federal court) level is scary, but that is simply what we are trained to do.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

So while you might be frightened about considering a defense strategy, most experienced attorneys (including myself) will tell you that for your plaintiff, you will likely NOT go into a full blown legal battle. More often than not, there are checklist items to take care of in every court case, but they will not necessarily cause you to pay more than you would in a settlement. Remember, the plaintiff attorney also pays their attorneys for the hours they spend in the courts, so they too want to minimize the time spent in litigation!

Thus, the lawsuit would likely be limited to the pre-trial stages of the federal court lawsuit. [Assuming that you did not download their videos online], the lawsuit should end shortly after Strike 3 Holdings, LLC realizes that they do not have evidence to prove that you downloaded their copyrighted content.

Again — before you go off any cooperate with them in litigation, you should probably speak to an attorney (speaking to me is fine), and have an attorney help you analyze the risk of this approach.

3) WHEN YOU WOULD NOT BE NAMED AND SERVED ANYWAY.

There are several instances when you may not be named and served regardless. For example:

• if you’re elderly or have nothing to pay them with,
  
• if you did not do the copying or streaming yourself, or
  
• if you can provide them with the name and address of the person who actually did the infringement.

You would also likely not be served if it might be embarrassing for them to take you to court.

In each of these cases, paying them anything is probably unnecessary. It is my opinion that you would be wasting your money if you paid to have them dismiss you from the lawsuit, especially when you could have achieved the same result if you did not settle.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

Obviously again, speak to me in order to analyze the risk if this applies to you. The reason for this is that just because you are not the type of person they typically name and serve as a defendant, this does NOT mean that you have a legal defense to the copyright infringement. If you did view, copy, or stream their videos, you can still be named and served and you could lose if they brought the case to trial.

4) WHEN YOU ARE ELDERLY OR CANNOT PAY.

If you are an elderly person and have nothing to pay them, then there is a low likelihood that they would name and serve you as a defendant.

Obviously, the question of whether you have “nothing to pay” is one where you should probably speak to an attorney. I could ask you a few questions so that you can gauge the various ways they could see your circumstances. If you can pay even a small amount, they will still ask you to pay a settlement. However, if you cannot pay even that, well, this might be a reason in itself why you should not be settling the claims against you.

Remember, just because you cannot pay anything to them does not mean that ignoring the lawsuit is a viable strategy. [You always still need to keep in mind that you’re being sued by Strike 3 Holdings (a copyright troll with a 10 year history), and that Strike 3’s legal team could still name and serve you as a defendant and proceed into litigation against you.]

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

5) WHEN THEY KNOW YOU DID NOT DO THE DOWNLOAD.

If you have been accused of viewing or streaming their adult films and you know that you are not the one who did it (even if you do not know who did it), it is your right to fight the claim against you. In a lawsuit such as yours, the plaintiff must prove that it is “more likely than not” that YOU are responsible for the infringements.

But, if they cannot prove this [especially when you were not the one viewing their content], then they probably cannot muster enough evidence to find you guilty.

However, let’s simply this. Practically, any copyright holder should not name and serve you if they learn that you were not the one who viewed or copied their videos. It is not your job to prove to them who did infringe. If you know who did it (e.g., if you have a roommate who won’t take responsibility for this, or if you have neighbors or workers who used your internet connection to play online adult films on their computer without your knowledge and consent), then you can have your attorney share this information with them.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

Remember, you were implicated ONLY as a “John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address.”

A “John Doe” legally is merely a PLACEHOLDER when the plaintiff does not know the real identity of who did the ‘crime’ they are suing to remedy. If your attorney informs the plaintiff attorney that it wasn’t you who viewed, streamed, or copied their content, but it was “that guy,” then the plaintiff could just as easily go after that guy. When they decide who they want to name and serve, the proper person to serve would be “that guy,” and not you.

Obviously, if you are considering this option, it is important to retain an attorney to represent you for this brief interchange. The plaintiff attorney might ask you to sign some documents, to draft and sign a declaration, or to provide testimony under oath. For any of these, you should really be represented by an attorney who could keep you out of trouble when employing this strategy.

6) WHEN THEY MIGHT BE EMBARRASSED TO TAKE YOU TO COURT.

Because of the predatory nature of Strike 3 cases throughout the US, judges often give their cases extra scrutiny. If you have done nothing wrong but they still decide to move forward against you anyway, a judge might take action against the adult file company in the form of sanctions or some other penalty.

Similarly, if they name and serve a person who cannot defend themselves — for example, someone with a mental disability, or some handicap which a court might look sympathetically upon that individual regardless of whether they did the unlawful copying or not — naming and serving that individual could be a tragic mistake for that company.

The reason for this is that federal court cases of a certain type are often all assigned to one judge to handle and adjudicate all of the cases of that type. If a plaintiff attorney upsets the judge or insults his moral code, this judge can have negative effect on each and every one of the plaintiff attorney’s HUNDREDS OF OTHER CASES in that federal court. (This has happened with both these cases and Malibu Media cases; Malibu Media cases are no longer being filed).

Remember, who you are (or what you have gone through) is not a legal defense to copyright infringement. It is just one consideration why it might be better not to settle the claims against you. You can have your attorney design a strategy around your special circumstances. Maybe they can even make it unfavorable for the plaintiff attorney to name and serve you.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

WHEN YOU WOULD PAY A SETTLEMENT AS A JOHN DOE:

If you decide to settle, there are a few items your attorney should handle to protect your rights before you pay your settlement amount. For example, the plaintiff attorney should negotiate the terms of your settlement agreement.

A settlement agreement typically involves paying out some amount of money. It also involves signing a release of liability which absolves both you any claims each of you had against the other. As part of the agreement, they would be relinquishing their right to proceed against you, and they would guarantee that they will dismiss their case against you (with prejudice).

It is my strong opinion that if you DID view, stream, or copy their copyrighted films without a license, then you should probably settle the claims against you. Obviously, there are a bunch of other approaches as an alternative. For example, fighting the case on the merits in the courtroom. But if you went down that route and you sat in front of a reporter and gave those who sued you your testimony under oath that you illegally copied their content, then you just lost the lawsuit.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

1) WHEN YOU DOWNLOADED THEIR COPYRIGHTED FILMS WITHOUT A LICENSE.

If you did the downloading, then you will probably settle the claims against you in order to provide resolution and closure of the case.

A settlement agreement will be drafted both by their attorneys (AND by your attorney*). It must be signed in order to dismiss the lawsuit filed against your Doe placeholder entity. This settlement agreement typically includes a release of liability and a dismissal with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be brought back to court.

* NOTE: A boilerplate settlement agreement contains clauses that any competent attorney should renegotiate. If you retain a ‘volume-based discount’ attorney, they might not be taking the extra steps to renegotiate this (you are simply not paying them for the time they would need do this). Also beware of “anonymous settlements” — they sound enticing to you if you just received a subpoena from your ISP (your internet service provider) threatening to release your name to the one that sued you. The problem is that any attorney who claims to be “helping you settle and remain anonymous” does not provide the basic protections that should be included in a settlement agreement for a case like these. Why? because here, the lawsuit is suing a particular ISP subscriber having only one IP address, and your “John Doe” entity downloaded THESE titles as seen in our Exhibit A.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

In my opinion, negotiating the terms of the settlement agreement is important not only to resolve the claims in this lawsuit. It is also important to write it in a way that it proactively resolves any future lawsuits that might show up in the future (for past activities). If not done right, a settlement for one case does not guarantee an end to all future filings against you related to this issue. This is something that your attorney needs to negotiate.

Accused defendants who choose to settle should always talk to a lawyer who has experience negotiating settlement agreement terms. It is one thing to negotiate the settlement price. If the settlement agreement does not properly protect the defendant who is potentially spending thousands of dollars to pay Strike 3 a sum of money, then that money is wasted. An improperly written settlement agreement could cause you to have to settle again when you are implicated as “another John Doe entity” in another Strike 3 Holdings, LLC future lawsuit.

2) WHEN YOU ARE PROTECTING A LOVED ONE FROM BEING NAMED AND SERVED.

If you are not the one who infringed their copyrights, there could be circumstances where you might choose to negotiate with them anyway in order to protect a loved one (e.g., a family member, a husband, or a child*). The way we at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC phrase our settlement agreements, there are no admissions of guilt.

We also keep the settlement agreements private and confidential. This is a big different from claiming that you can settle a Strike 3 case and remain anonymous in many cases — your ISP will still release your information to Strike 3’s attorneys.  However, we alter the confidentiality clause to prevent them from sharing your information with anyone.  That way, we have successfully negotiated anonymous settlements NOT because we settled you as an “anonymous” defendant.  But because after we are finished, even the court remains unaware of the person who actually settled the claims in the lawsuit.

Obviously, if you are settling on behalf of another person, you want that person also to be released from liability so they do not take your money and sue that person. In representing our clients, we have often expanded the scope of the settlement agreement to include others that are not listed as the account holder. That way, not only are you [the person who is paying in order to get the case dismissed, while at the same time protecting a loved one] released from liability, but we write the agreement so that we also release your loved one from liability so that they cannot later be sued by Strike 3 Holdings.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

Just so there is no confusion, there is no legal duty to pay for the activities that another person did using your internet account. However, if the person who copied, viewed, or streamed one of their movies is a family member, and they would need to pay them anyway [using your money] if they were named and served, then it makes sense that you might want to settle to keep their identity private. Remember to consult with an experienced attorney (for example, myself at Cashman Law Firm PLLC) who can help guide you through this process. We can listen to your circumstances and provide valuable suggestions about how we can phrase the terms in the agreement in order to protect you and your loved one.

* Also remember that a child under 18 is considered a minor in the legal world, and the attorney who filed the case should not name and serve a minor. Thus, in a case where the child used the internet connection without the knowledge and consent of the parent, there is absolutely no legal duty for the parent to pay thousands of dollars to settle the claims against the child.

3) WHEN YOU HAVE “LOW TOLERANCE” FOR BEING SUED (GOVERNMENT SECURITY CLEARANCE).

Being named and served in a civil lawsuit, especially one in a federal court, can cause significant disruption to your professional life. This comes up most frequently in my practice when my client has government security clearance.

If you have security clearance, then you have a low tolerance (or, zero tolerance) for being named and served in a federal court. Even being possibly identified as a defendant in a Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit could be detrimental because of the adult content, genre, and association the case has to pornography. Thus, even if you are not the one who acquired and viewed their films, you might decide that settling with Strike 3 Holdings could be the right choice. This will keep your name out of the public record and it will allow you to avoid having to deal with a court process which could cost you your security clearance (and by extension, your job).

This does not mean that if you have security clearance, then by definition you pay an elevated settlement amount. There is no reason (and no duty) to disclose to the plaintiff that we are dealing with a plaintiff who has a security clearance issue.

Similarly, on a case-by-case circumstance, sometimes simply speaking to your commanding officer and informing them that the case was filed against you and that you intend to defend the claims against you is sufficient. You could defend against your lawsuit without worrying about losing your security clearance. And better yet, you would not need to pay thousands of dollars to release you from claims that you did not even do.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

4) WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE (BECAUSE OF YOUR FAME, REPUTATION, OR NOTORIETY).

It is well known that the leverage adult film companies have in filing a case like yours is the reputation damage and embarrassment they can inflict on you, even if you didn’t do it. Whether or not the accused defendant wins the case, his name and by extension, his reputation gets tarnished merely by being accused as a defendant.

Sometimes the reputation damage is manageable — we can ask the court for a protective order to protect your identity. That way, we can properly contest the claims against you without your identity becoming public. However, not all courts agree to such an order.

It does happen that our law firm will accept a defendant as a client who is settling not because they did the download, but because they are absolutely concerned that their reputation will be tarnished by litigating the claims against them (because their real name could become exposed once the accused defendant is named and served).

Similarly, it also happens that our law firm will accept a client wants us to pay them because of his or her notoriety. Simply, the client is concerned that if his name was somehow searchable on the search engines, that the media would recognize that he was accused as a defendant in a pornography case and would share this with the world.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

I want to note that for such circumstances, while the price negotiation still occurs, the fact that he did not do the download is a significant factor which can drastically reduce the settlement amount itself.

Obviously, speak to an attorney if you feel that your circumstances might place your ability to defend yourself into jeopardy. If you need us to negotiate a private and confidential settlement, this is an option too.

PROS & CONS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT SETTLEMENTS (FEDERAL COURT LITIGATION, AS A JOHN DOE).

In every case the settlement amount varies, and because each case is different, you should have an attorney negotiate it because we can obtain the best settlement possible on your behalf.

It’s important to note that while many people try and negotiate the best settlement they could on their own without an attorney present, this can often lead to less favorable outcomes. This is due to lack of knowledge about common industry practices or legal precedent used in these types of cases. That’s why we advise clients seeking our services to consult us first before moving forward regarding any kind of resolution offered by any of Strike 3 Holding’s attorneys. We understand how intimidating it can sometimes feel navigating this type of situation. We will always strive our best to give you the best outcome. On our consultations, we will also always give you the bad news first. I do not believe in having a client become our client until he understands the actual risks and likely outcomes given his particular circumstances.

THE CONS OF SETTLING WITH STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LLC

Any settlement can be a costly endeavor for the defendant. Aside from coming up with the funds to pay them, you will also be asked to sign a settlement agreement that also includes a release of liability of anything they did to you, even filing a frivolous case against you and costing you thousands of dollars. The process does not end there – striking a deal with them can have long-term consequences beyond dollars and cents:

First, it is important that the terms of the agreement be confidential and private. With this in mind, some defendants who hire ‘volume-based discount shops’ do not get this protection, and there is no protection against having it reported on their record that they were implicated as a defendant in federal court in one of Strike 3’s pornography cases.

Second, even though settling will result in the immediate dismissal of your case, many defendants who hire any ‘volume-based discount attorney’ are surprised at how much financial documentation that attorney discloses to the plaintiff. The documentation could include bank statements, tax returns, health or medical information, or other documentation which is simply private, and should not be shared if not absolutely necessary.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

Just so that we are clear — as an attorney, it is my preference that no documentation is provided to the plaintiff attorney when negotiating a settlement. A plaintiff attorney is not ‘entitled’ to financial information until they enter “the pearly gates of discovery.” This only happens when they name and serve a defendant. Until then, they have no right to ask for anything. Thus, if I can achieve the same result (or a similar outcome) without sharing financial documentation, I will simply not share it.

Lastly, while settling ends one lawsuit against you; there is no guarantee that other similar cases won’t come up due to multiple allegations of infringement from different IP addresses you might have had assigned to you by your ISP. Separate suits filed against other John Doe entities, associated with other IP address that were assigned to your internet account could entangle you again in subsequent lawsuits. This is why it is important that the attorney you hire to aggressively negotiate on your behalf not only negotiates a price that you could afford. He MUST also negotiate the terms on the agreement itself so that you are inoculated against any future claim against you for other IP addresses you may have had.

If obtaining a settlement that also protects you from future lawsuits sounds like something you’re considering, make sure you know exactly what you’re getting into (and with what kind of attorney you have hired) before signing off on any agreements. That way you do not regret it later down the line!

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

THE “PROS” OF SETTLING (INSTEAD OF MOUNTING A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT DEFENSE):

Settling the claims against you can offer several benefits. First, the settlement agreement will include a release of any claims or liability against you, and the case will be dismissed in federal court. This means that [if the settlement agreement is phrased properly,] they won’t be able to file additional cases against you in the future — not for this IP address, or any other IP address you may have had.

Second, the negotiation itself and the money you pay them might be less expensive than going through the process of defending yourself in court. As you recall, this is not always the case. You’ll also avoid the risks associated with defending the claims against you. Such risks could result in you being found liable, and you having to pay damages for infringing their copyrighted titles. You might also have to pay the other side’s attorney fees.

Thirdly, settlements are usually faster than having to actually go through litigation proceedings (although this depends on how willing both parties are to negotiate). In addition, if you settle quickly enough there may even be an opportunity to present a “hardship-based negotiation” that could drastically reduce the amount you’ll end up paying.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

Lastly, settling can give you peace of mind knowing that the claims against you have been resolved. Thus, you can resume your life without ever having to worry about this again.

OTHER LEGAL DEFENSES:

Once again, throwing money at them should not be your first option in resolving the claims against you. If you have other legal defenses, it might be cheaper to assert those defenses rather than to negotiate and pay them anything.

Again, each federal copyright infringement lawsuit (regardless of which federal court in which state it is filed) follows the same Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). These rules dictate the burdens of proof each side has to win the case, and they dictate the procedures that each party must take part in to move the case to completion. Thus, regardless of whether your case is in California, Texas, or New York, they all [more or less] look the same.

Thus, if you have a legitimate legal defense, then it could be cheaper to simply have your attorney assert that defense rather than spending thousands of dollars to quickly make the lawsuit go away.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

“GOOD” LITIGATION STRATEGIES FOR STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS CASES:

Just because you might have viewed, streamed, or copied their films, there are certain defenses available to those accused of copyright infringement.

1) FAIR USE

The most common defense in an infringement case is fair use. Fair use is a doctrine that allows for a limited use of a copyrighted work without permission.

To determine if the use of copyrighted material is fair, four factors must be considered:

• the purpose and character of the use,
• the nature of the copyrighted work,
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and
• the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

If the use of copyrighted material is deemed to be fair, then it is not considered to be an infringement.

2) DE MINIMIS INFRINGEMENT

Another defense available to those accused in these cases is the doctrine of de minimis infringement. This is a very limited defense that applies when only a small portion of a copyrighted work has been used. The amount of the copyrighted work used must be so small that it falls below the threshold of what is legally protectable.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

3) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

In some cases, an accused infringer can use the statute of limitations as a defense. This defense applies when the plaintiff waited three years from the alleged date of infringement before filing the lawsuit. In such a case, the statute of limitations has elapsed, and the plaintiff can no longer assert the claims against the accused defendant.

4) ESTOPPEL

Finally, the defense of estoppel may be available to accused infringers. Estoppel is a legal doctrine that prevents a party from making a claim if they have already taken a position in the past that contradicts their current claim.

Here, the copyright holder may be prevented from alleging copyright infringement if they previously indicated that the accused infringer had the right to make the infringing use.

For example, if they seeded the content online which the accused defendant then copied, the accused might have done so thinking that they permitted him to copy their materials (believe it or not, this actually happened in one of my cases!).

5) NEW STRATEGY: SHIFTING ATTORNEY FEES DURING LITIGATION PROCESS

Everyone knows that if you prevail in a federal court copyright lawsuit ‘on the merits’, the other side pays your attorney fees.  This is true for also for your plaintiff.

For example, if Strike 3 filed cases anywhere (if they have cases filed in Florida, in the Northern District of California, anywhere), they are very quick to trade a dismissal in return for a possible win.  Why?  Because if they ignore the fact that the account holder might assert a valid copyright defense to their suit, they might end up paying many thousands of dollars in attorney fees.

However, a better strategy (especially for someone who intends to fight the claims against him) is to have the Strike 3 Holdings defense attorney offer a reasonable settlement offer early in the case. 

This strategy is effective because if the final judgement amount is less than the proposed amount, even if the other side wins, they would need to pay all of the defense attorney’s attorney fees from the moment they offered the reasonable settlement all the way to the judgement. 

IN SUMMARY: “GOOD” DEFENSES.

Overall, while there are many defenses in these cases, these defenses can help those accused of infringement avoid or minimize their liability. It is important to understand these defenses and consult with a lawyer if you are accused of copyright infringement.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

“BAD” DEFENSE STRATEGIES (FILING A MOTION TO QUASH A STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS SUBPOENA).

In previous articles, I have explained why filing a Motion to Quash the subpoena is a bad idea.

See this article to understand why I do not recommend this method.

In short:

1. the plaintiff will claim the accused defendant is not yet a defendant (no “standing”), and
   
2. even if the defendant succeeds in filing the motion, the plaintiff attorney can easily re-file the lawsuit (causing you to reveal your identity to them in his home state’s federal court.

[Filing such a motion is generally a bad idea because it is an extra fee to some torrent defense law firm who takes you as a client, charges you a fee for these motions knowing that they will fail.  After the plaintiff attorney successfully opposes your motion, not only do they now know who you are, but they come and ask for higher settlement numbers because the opposition to your motion cost them more time.  Thus, you as the defendant will be asked to pay a higher amount to compensate them for their lost time.]

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS

When negotiating a Strike 3 Holdings settlement, it is important to remember that their process for determining how much they ask you to pay typically involves a simple multiplication of 1) the number of titles allegedly downloaded, and 2) the “per-title amount” an attorney is able to negotiate based on the relevant circumstances in your case.

They always start their negotiations at $750/title. So if there are 26 titles, the initial ‘asking price’ will be:

$750/title x 26 titles = $19,500*.

(At the same time, $300/title x 26 titles in a hardship-based negotiation would be = $7,800, …or less.)

NOTE: Just because their ‘asking price’ is so high DOES NOT MEAN the settlement amount you end up paying will be that obscenely high. Our settlement negotiations end up been quite a bit LOWER than their asking price.

The reason for this is because settlement prices can vary significantly based on a number of factors. For example, the number of titles allegedly downloaded (as you just saw, this changes the calculations significantly), and whether or not the defendant has sufficient financial documentation to back up any counteroffers they make.

Generally speaking, it is in everyone’s best interest for the parties involved to reach an agreement in order to avoid lengthy litigation practices and court proceedings. This agreement typically involves a release of liability from both parties, as well as dismissal of all claims made against each other in federal court.

Many people find themselves struggling to negotiate realistic settlement numbers due to Strike 3’s “Settlement Factory” attorneys who charge flat rate fees instead of billing hourly like conventional lawyers. While these discount attorneys may seem more appealing financially upfront, they often do not take into account many strategies and techniques that can result in lower overall settlements costs than those offered through other legal avenues.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

Finally, depending on your personal circumstances, it may be best financially and emotionally for an individual not to settle at all. Some examples include elderly individuals without resources or anyone whose innocence can be proven before being served papers officially naming them as defendants.

Ultimately deciding when and how much one should offer them requires careful consideration and analysis – something which our Cashman Law Firm PLLC team specializes in providing through free consultation services!

HOW ARE SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS CALCULATED?

Your plaintiff follows a multi-step process when calculating what to ask for in their civil cases:

First, they file the complaint in federal court and obtain a subpoena against the account holder of the account where the activities took place. They cross-reference the subscriber’s name and address with demographic information they obtain through a paid service. This helps them understand whether the defendant they are negotiating with likely can pay them or not.

Second, if the ISP subpoena defense lawyer wishes to introduce financial documentation to show that the accused cannot pay the amounts they would be asking for, the plaintiff will consider that documentation as a counteroffer. This counteroffer would be supported by any financial documentation that is presented to them as part of the negotiations.

If they agree on a settlement and the settlement payment based on our presentation, they will approve our offer. The “hardship-based” settlement permits us to negotiate the best price possible, because the amount you pay would be based on financial data which happened prior to your settlement.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

If we are negotiating without financial documentation, they use their internal record-keeping processes to assess how many titles were copied by the Defendant or someone associated with him/her. This can be seen on the case docket as the “Exhibit A” to attachment to the complaint.

Finally, after considering all relevant factors, their preference is to calculate a proposed amount which we then negotiate down to minimize the settlement amount.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE “EXHIBIT A” LIST.

This is a key factor that can affect the settlement amount. As described in this article, the more titles that are listed in the Exhibit A, the higher their asking price will be. It’s important to note here that this plaintiff will try to make it seem like you’re being charged for each individual title on the list, but this isn’t necessarily true. They often lump all these titles together and attempt to negotiate one flat rate for all of them.

The next factor in calculating a settlement amount is how long they have been pursuing you and any other associated fees (i.e., court costs). If they have only recently sent a subpoena to your internet service provider (ISP), then they may not have had time to accumulate evidence against you yet, making it difficult for them to argue for an inflated settlement amount at this stage in the process.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

WHAT IS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF TITLES IN A STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUIT?

When a case like yours is filed in federal court, the plaintiff usually lists on average, 26 titles in the Exhibit A which they attach to their complaint as an addendum. Usually, plaintiffs will include only titles that have either been illegally obtained or downloaded months before the lawsuit was filed.

This practice of reporting fewer than the actual number of titles downloaded is common in these cases. This is because they compile the list of downloads before they file the lawsuit.

The settlement agreement, when agreed upon by both parties, will typically include a release of liability for all past activities as of the date of the agreement being signed. This means if there are additional titles downloaded after the case is filed, those downloads are also included as part of the deal.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

SETTLEMENT OFFERS THAT DO NOT YIELD A COUNTEROFFER.

Even if you can afford the proposed amount which is offered to you initially, this does not mean that you will need to pay this amount. Rather, there are historical “per-title” settlement amounts that this plaintiff has agreed to settle for in the past.

We can employ a number of strategies that can lower the amount you would pay (even if you can afford the initial offered amount). Just because you can pay a settlement does not mean that you should pay the highest price they ask for.

Based on our law firm’s experience with previous settlement numbers they have accepted for our clients, it is also relevant to note that there are some ‘low ball’ numbers which do not yield a counteroffer. For example, if the defense attorney asks for a settlement amount which is “too low,” they might just accept that counteroffer and demand to see the financial records to prove that this is all that this defendant can afford to pay.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

Thus, negotiating a settlement is a balancing act. On the one hand, we negotiate for our clients a settlement that is as low as possible. We are aware as to whether our settlement offers are aggressive enough, or whether they are ‘too aggressive,’ where they might ask the other attorney to ask for financial documentation to support our settlement numbers. For a client who can afford the settlement numbers they are asking for, sharing bank account information is an outcome both I, and our clients avoid.

HARDSHIP-BASED SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS (WHEN YOU CANNOT AFFORD THE SETTLEMENT PRICES THEY ARE ASKING FOR).

When the cost of a settlement offer is too steep for you to pay, and we wouldn’t otherwise be able to negotiate it down further, there are other options available. This type of negotiation is known as a “hardship-based negotiation,” which typically involves discussing your financial situation with the plaintiff’s attorney and providing them with documentation (such as bank statements) to prove that you cannot afford to pay the full settlement amount.

In a “hardship-based negotiation,” we do provide financial information to the Strike 3 attorney to show that a particular settlement amount is all that our client can afford to pay.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

The plaintiff’s attorney may then agree to reduce the settlement amount in exchange for payment of a lesser sum than what was initially requested.

It is important to note that this type of negotiation should be done with caution. A hardship-based negotiation requires that we reveal personal financial information. It also often leads to protracted negotiations between both parties. Additionally, if an agreement cannot be reached through hardship-based negotiation, it could result in proceeding with the accused defendant being named and served in the suit.

It is important that anyone facing a case like this one understands all their options before making any decisions regarding settlements or litigation. We at the Cashman Law Firm PLLC have extensive experience dealing with these types of cases. We can provide advice on how best to navigate this process based on your specific circumstances and goals.

SETTLEMENT OFFERS THAT DO NOT YIELD A COUNTEROFFER (CONTINUED).

Before entering into a settlement agreement with your plaintiff, it is important to ensure that you are offered a reasonable amount that you can pay. When presented with a settlement offer, you can have your attorney propose a counteroffer suggesting that a lower settlement amount is appropriate. This will allow them to reevaluate their initial offer and potentially make their own counteroffer with the hopes that they will come to an agreement.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

Be aware, however, that this process could be lengthy and complex — requiring careful negotiation and possibly multiple rounds of negotiations — before an agreeable settlement is reached between both parties. It is important for the attorney you hire to engage in the negotiations with the knowledge of what settlement numbers the plaintiff has agreed to in the past. This way, your attorney will be knowledgeable as to which settlement offers the plaintiff attorney would likely accept, and which settlement amounts they will likely reject.

Again, there are also price points where the plaintiff attorney will assume that the negotiation is a “hardship-based” negotiation. Thus, they will approve the counteroffer and demand that the accused defendant provide bank account information or other financial documentation to prove that this counteroffer amount is all that they can afford.

For an inexperienced attorney who was merely looking to “low-ball” the initial offer, this is a bad outcome waiting to happen, because he or she might have planned to receive a counteroffer. However, because they did not understand at what per-title settlement numbers they agree to, and at what numbers they do not, the so-advertised “copyright infringement defense attorney” might stumble in suggesting a settlement amount that this plaintiff accepted without a counteroffer (but their client does not have the bank records to support that settlement offer).

Thus, “being aggressive” is absolutely important in a settlement negotiation. However, knowing how far to push, and how far is “too far,” is also a useful skill in these negotiations.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

“SETTLEMENT FACTORIES” WHO HAVE HANDLED HUNDREDS OF STRIKE 3 CASES – WHY YOU SHOULD PASS ON THEM AND THEIR ANONYMOUS SETTLEMENTS.

Because there are hundreds of individuals implicated in similar civil lawsuits in federal courts each day, defense “settlement factory” attorneys often pay hundreds of dollars per click in Google Ads to lure as many of these defendants as possible to their law firm’s website. [As a result, many defendants accidentally click on these websites and get exposed to the high pressure “settle now or else” tactics that these volume-based “settlement factory” attorneys employ. My complaint about these attorneys is that they advise that you pay a settlement regardless of whether you downloaded their copyrighted titles or not.]

Settlement factory attorneys often offer a flat [“fat”] fee service where they will negotiate with the plaintiff’s attorney on behalf of the defendant in exchange for an upfront payment. While this may sound like an attractive option, there are several drawbacks that should be considered before entering into any type of agreement with a Settlement Factory Attorney.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

1. SETTLEMENT FACTORY ATTORNEYS LACK THE SKILLS TO NEGOTIATE EFFECTIVELY.

Too often, even these attorneys lack the real expertise and negotiating skills necessary to effectively negotiate on behalf of their clients. Additionally, most Settlement Factory Attorneys do not take the time to read through the complaint thoroughly enough to identify potential issues or arguments against the Plaintiff’s claims. Had they looked up the lawsuit before suggesting a settlement they could have potentially saved you thousands of dollars by not advising you to settle.

2. SETTLEMENT FACTORIES SUGGEST A QUICK SETTLEMENT.

Furthermore, Settlement Factories tend to convince each client to settle the case anonymously so they can get the quickest settlement possible. They expose their clients to unnecessary risk because their settlement agreement do not protect their clients from future lawsuits. The reasons for this were outlined in my recent article on “anonymous settlements – buyer beware.”

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

In short: without proper representation from experienced legal counsel who understands how ISPs serve subpoenas and how these types of lawsuits work – it is easy for someone who hires a settlement factory to get taken advantage of financially. They are often put at risk of being sued in future lawsuits asserting similar claims. The reason they were exposed to this in the first place is because their attorney did not employ defense strategies that settlement factories often overlook. We employ these strategies here at Cashman Law Firm PLLC.

3. “BOILERPLATE” SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS

Similarly, while an anonymous settlement might sound good to an accused downloader, it gives the settlement factory attorney a way to use a “boilerplate” settlement agreement. Such an agreement does not protect the settlement factory’s client against the next lawsuit.

This is because an anonymous settlement if done incorrectly will limit the settlement paid to release only the titles that ‘this Anonymous John Doe entity’ downloaded ‘with this IP address, in this lawsuit’.

A settling attorney must be aware that Strike 3’s attorneys are able to play semantic games based on the way the lawsuits are specifically writte – a “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address A” in lawsuit #1 is not the same ‘person’ as a “John Doe subscriber assigned IP B” in lawsuit #2.

Again, you can read more about my opinions on Anonymous Settlements (and why I do not recommend them) in this article.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A SETTLEMENT FACTORY AND A TRADITIONAL ATTORNEY.

Although settlement factories claim to offer a cost-effective solution to a problem they exacerbate, their services cannot be equated to those of a traditional attorney.

1. “YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.”

With your flat fee, you are still only paying them for a specific number of hours. This is why settlement factories often rely on “boilerplate” settlement agreements that may not afford the same level of protection as a professionally drafted agreement prepared by a lawyer.

2. INCENTIVE TO NEGOTIATE

Furthermore, settlement factory attorneys lack the incentive to negotiate for the lowest possible amount and typically accept the initial offer without attempting further reductions.

Why? You are not paying them to spend extra time on you. So they don’t. Don’t be naive and think they do.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

3. LACK OF INCENTIVE TO DEVELOP STRATEGIES TO MINIMIZE SETTLEMENT.

Moreover, their volume-based workload with all of their other clients rarely allows them to do a comprehensive review or assessment of your circumstances. Thus, they do not take the time to develop and execute longer-term strategies to minimize the settlement amount you pay.

So while you paid the settlement factory attorneys less, you paid the copyright holder significantly more than you needed to.

WHY IT IS BETTER TO HIRE AN EXPERIENCED, REPUTABLE ATTORNEY.

To safeguard your interests during settlement negotiations, it is advisable to engage the services of an experienced lawyer. You wouldn’t hire an attorney only for his experience — settlement factories have experience too. However, your experienced lawyer will take the time to assess your situation and plan the negotiation to minimize the amount you will end up paying. But this is just the first step.

A reputable attorney will also ensure the release of all claims, including any future claims based on past downloads that may not have been explicitly addressed in the complaint or its Exhibit A attachment filed against you in this federal court case.

Additionally, they can tailor the settlement agreement to encompass other individuals, modify or expand the scope of protection and release, and cater to your specific needs. In other words, a reputable or experienced attorney will know not to just throw you in with the pile of other settlements. Every dollar counts, and you are paying him to not only minimize the amount you pay in your settlement, but to draft the release of reliability so that you will never need to worry about a lawsuit such as this one ever again.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN COST OF A SETTLEMENT FACTORY VERSUS AN EXPERIENCED, REPUTABLE ATTORNEY?

When it comes to settling a lawsuit, the primary difference between hiring a “settlement factory” attorney and an experienced lawyer for your case is in the amount of TIME these attorneys will spend on your case.

1. TIME

Settlement factories usually bill their clients a flat [“fat”] fee that does not include any estimate of the time they will take to negotiate the settlement agreement. This means they may try to rush you into signing an agreement without taking the necessary time to ensure that all of your legal rights are adequately protected further litigation – something that experienced lawyers us are vigilant about doing.

2. ANONYMOUS SETTLEMENTS

Additionally, settlement factories often pressure defendants agreeing to settle anonymously before their ISP hands over the defendant’s name and address, using this threat as leverage in negotiations.

However, this strategy has its pitfalls – there have been instances where plaintiffs have brought subsequent lawsuits against those who settled in “anonymous settlements,” but because the settlement factory settled that defendant’s claims as an “Anonymous John Doe Subscriber,” the plaintiff attorney might claim in a future case that this new John Doe Defendant is not necessarily the same ‘person’ as John Doe Defendant accused in the original lawsuit (which would require them to settle again for that second lawsuit).

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

THE CASHMAN LAW FIRM & OUR STRATEGIES

At Cashman Law Firm PLLC we take pride in providing our clients with high quality legal representation by spending ample time analyzing their cases and finding ways leverage this analysis when negotiating with Strike Three Holdings’ attorneys.

During our free consultations we will evaluate whether it makes sense for you to settle at all (given your circumstances) and provide you with an estimate of what sort of numbers we were able to negotiate down from previous cases similar to yours.

Ultimately, our goal is always getting you the lowest possible settlement cost while still protecting your legal interests from future suits or claims related civil copyright lawsuits.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

LACK OF ATTENTION GIVEN BY SETTLEMENT FACTORY TO THEIR CLIENTS

A settlement factory doesn’t take the time to consider the various factors that could affect the final settlement amount, such as the defendant’s circumstances or preferences in what information to make public, and what information to keep private.

As such, because they are paid a flat fee, they are more likely to quickly accept a high settlement amount without spending the time to bargain for a better deal.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

THE CASHMAN LAW FIRM & OUR STRATEGIES (CONTINUED)

On the other hand, an experienced law firm will carefully analyze all available information and calculate an optimal settlement plan by factoring in all relevant details.

We also employ “time leverage” by delaying negotiations until we have received enough evidence to support our case and maximize our negotiating power.

This helps us ensure that our clients receive the fairest possible outcome with minimum cost.

Additionally, we provide them with comprehensive protection against future filings by this copyright holder through a carefully crafted release of liability clauses in the agreement, which most settlement factories do not offer.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

LACK OF ATTENTION GIVEN BY SETTLEMENT FACTORY TO THEIR CLIENTS (CONTINUED)

Settlement factories will often tell you that they can get the lawsuit dismissed for “no cost” or a minimal fee if you settle with them before your name and address is revealed to the plaintiff attorney from your ISP’s subpoenaed records. They claim that an early settlement means that since Strike 3 has not spent a lot of time on your case, the early settlement might cost less than an ordinary settlement.

However, this is not always the case—in fact, it rarely is.

Settlement amounts are based on how many titles they believe you downloaded. Whether you negotiate a settlement all the way in the beginning of a Strike 3 Holdings case or later in the case (where they are still considering a settlement with you before they run out of time to name and serve you as a defendant), it is my experience that there is no “early settlement discount.”

In addition, these sort of settlement factory attorneys have been known to take advantage of defendants who don’t know their rights and might be feeling desperate over the prospect of being named and served in a civil lawsuit in federal court.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

They may also try to pressure you into signing an onerous settlement agreement or release of liability without giving proper consideration to the terms and conditions included therein.

Moreover, these attorneys may fail to explain what happens after they’ve negotiated a settlement—that once you agree to pay the amount they offer, Strike 3 Holdings will move forward with its claims against you regardless unless there is language explicitly stated in writing within the settlement agreement that says otherwise (such as an agreed-upon dismissal).

It’s important that you research any lawyer or law firm representing yourself against Strike 3 Holdings before agreeing to enter into any sort of negotiation process or signing off on a settlement proposal so that you can understand their practice and how they handle such cases.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

THE PROBLEM OF “ANONYMOUS SETTLEMENTS” AS A SALES TACTIC BY A SETTLEMENT FACTORY.

When a defendant chooses to settle with Strike 3 Holdings, they may not receive comprehensive protection from future lawsuits. Even if the court approves the settlement and approves a release of the defendant’s John Doe entity, there remains the risk of being implicated in another lawsuit or being required to make additional payments for an issue that has already been resolved.

This situation arises when a plaintiff’s attorney engages in semantic games, claiming that an “Anonymous John Doe Subscriber” who settled in one lawsuit is not the same person as the accused John Doe Defendant in the second lawsuit, (so therefore they could ask for a second settlement amount). In such cases, defendants can be held accountable for multiple downloads when only a single download occurred.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

LACK OF ATTENTION GIVEN BY SETTLEMENT FACTORY TO THEIR CLIENTS (CONTINUED)

When resolving a Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit, it is crucial to ensure that all essential terms are incorporated into the settlement agreement. Unfortunately, many “settlement factory” attorneys do not dedicate the required time to negotiate or renegotiate these terms, which exposes their clients to potential future legal actions initiated by Strike 3 Holdings.

The boilerplate settlement agreements they offer may appear convenient and cost-effective, but they fail to provide sufficient safeguards against future claims from Strike 3 Holdings.

Consequently, they may leave you vulnerable to further legal action down the line.

It is essential to seek the guidance of an experienced attorney proficient in both copyright law and IP law before entering into any settlement agreement with Strike 3 Holdings. Such an attorney can ensure that your rights are comprehensively protected in the settlement agreement through effective negotiation, including obtaining a release of liability, a dismissal of complaints in federal court proceedings, and addressing other critical aspects of the proper civil lawsuit process that larger, “factory-like” practices are unlikely to consider or incorporate when offering a boilerplate settlement agreement.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

*You can SMS us at 713-364-3476, or your can E-MAIL US at info@cashmanlawfirm.com.*

CONTACT US

When facing a subpoena or legal notice from Strike 3 Holdings, LLC or any federal lawsuit alleging that you have downloaded movies without a license, you might feel overwhelmed and don’t know where to turn. At Cashman Law Firm PLLC, we are here to help. Before you even become a client, we will happily review the facts of your case and provide sound advice about whether settling or fighting a Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit is the right move for you.

We will also analyze the risk and likelihood of success for each option and discuss your settlement options with you in detail. I invite you to contact us for a free consultation so that you can understand all of your rights before making any decisions.

Just remember, you are not alone — Strike 3 Holdings filed so many lawsuits (more specifically, so many thousands of lawsuits alleging that the accused defendants downloaded adult films) that the legal system is already aware and is tired from what they have publicly done in the courts. Even Comcast is giving additional requirements to them, claiming that Strike 3 must provide a heightened level of scrutiny before they allow a subpoena from Strike 3 Holdings LLC to be issued.

Not only do we have extensive experience with negotiating settlements in these cases, but also in handling Strike 3 civil lawsuits involving copyright infringement claims from Strike 3 Holdings, LLC in federal court. We will guide you through every step of this process and provide advice on how to best protect yourself should the matter go to court — including drafting an appropriate release of liability or dismissal upon successful negotiation or payment of a settlement agreement.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help.

It’s critical to note that if you’re implicated as a John Doe Defendant in a copyright infringement lawsuit by Strike 3 Holdings, they’re likely working off an ISP subscriber subpoena issued by a judge authorizing them access to identifying information related to who actually did the downloading (such as your name and address).

That’s why it’s important not to delay; call us today – our firm offers comprehensive solutions tailored specifically towards helping defendants either defend the claims against them, or settle the claims against them, depending on which strategy seems to be in YOUR best interest.

—
FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your matter, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info [at] cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it for my eyes only, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form. The attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me. That being said, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  For your own privacy, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form or in any e-mail.

(SOURCE: BITTORRENT NEWS: PUBLIC ADDRESS MOVIE COMPANY LLC SUBPOENA, COST, CALIFORNIA, 2020)

CASHMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
945 McKinney Street, Suite 16163, Houston, TX 77002
Tel: 713-364-3476
info [at] cashmanlawfirm.com

Our Reddit page: https://www.reddit.com/user/houstonlawy3r

© 2010-2026 by Cashman Law Firm, PLLC.
All Rights Reserved.

Dark Superhero Story about Kerry Culpepper and Culpepper IP

Ah, the allure of anonymity. It’s like being a real-life superhero, hiding behind a mask, fighting for justice in the shadows against the apparent villain, Kerry Culpepper and his Culpepper IP law firm. In the world of copyright infringement lawsuits, accused defendants often find solace in their “John Doe” status. They receive ISP subpoena notification letters, but their secret identity remains intact.

But picture this: an accused John Doe, lurking in the darkness, ready to interact with Kerry Culpepper, the movie plaintiff’s attorney. Of course, it’s wiser to have your own attorney handle the situation, but our protagonist can argue the legal points, deny the downloads altogether, or even negotiate a settlement—all while remaining an enigmatic John Doe. The power of anonymity is at play.

But wait, before you don your cape and sign that settlement agreement, heed this warning from our experiences defending against Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases: settling anonymously comes with its perils.

You see, when settling anonymously, some copyright attorneys try to cleverly phrase the agreement to refer to “John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address 108.124.24.4.” Sounds specific, right? Well, the problem lies in the fact that regular movie downloaders often have other IP addresses linked to their activities.

Settling for just one IP address does not automatically resolve all claims against you for all the IP addresses you’ve used in the past. This is where having a knowledgeable attorney negotiating the agreement becomes crucial, using the correct terminology to ensure your liability is truly released.

In my article explaining ‘Why an Anonymous Settlement is a Bad Idea’ (May, 2023), I highlighted the pitfalls of settling anonymously, focusing on lawsuits by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. However, the topic of “anonymous settlements” remains relevant today, especially with Kerry Culpepper’s lawsuits.

Imagine this never-ending spiral: you settle for one movie, pay up, and breathe a sigh of relief. But lo and behold, the Culpepper IP plaintiff’s attorney reappears, demanding another settlement for yet another movie you downloaded. It’s an infuriating merry-go-round of demands that can leave anyone feeling exasperated. To tackle this issue, your attorney should be aware of the “one IP address problem” and consider it in the release of liability within the settlement.

Now, let’s turn our attention to Kerry Culpepper and his movie lawsuits.

Feast your eyes on the screenshot showcasing Fallen Productions, Inc.’s lawsuit against alleged infringers of their film “Angel Has Fallen.”

The lawsuit, Fallen Productions Inc. v. Does 1-17 (Case No. 1:20-cv-03170, I know, the website I referenced did not list the 100+ court docket entires that occurred before they listed the case), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

In this ongoing battle of the silver screen, Kerry Culpepper boldly named and served his defendants, bringing them into the light of the legal system. The fight against piracy takes many forms, and Culpepper’s approach involves unmasking the alleged infringers rather than relying on anonymous proceedings.

So, dear readers, as you navigate the treacherous waters of IP-based lawsuits, remember that anonymity can be a tempting path to tread. However, proceed with caution, as settling anonymously may not provide the ultimate shield of protection you desire. Arm yourself with a skilled attorney, negotiate with precision, and consider the broader implications of any settlement agreement you encounter.

And if you are going to break your anonymity (as Culpepper’s letters request that you do), be sure to have an attorney doing for you in a way that protects you legally before you blindly jump into muddy waters that have a few alligators (in Houston, we have alligators; if I were in New York, I would have mentioned sharks). 🙂

After all, in the world of copyright infringement, it’s not just about one IP address—it’s about the many faces behind the screen.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

In Summary (and really, the content you were looking for):

In sum, I just wanted to take a moment to note that I have been reading about what has been going on with Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP. He has been leading a campaign to sue uploaders, site owners, and now internet users who have used either the YTS or 1337x.to torrent website.

Initially when I wrote this article in 2020, he and his staff were merely sending DMCA settlement demand notices, and I wondered whether these accused internet users will find themselves on the receiving end of a copyright infringement lawsuit.

However, later in the year, his methods evolved, and Culpepper began sending e-mails directly to internet users who signed up to the YTS piracy website using their real information. This was a huge leap from his previous generic “online swarm software user downloaded my client’s movies” lawsuits.

At the time, I wrote about those topics here: The truth about why Culpepper IP is sending settlement demand letters VIA E-MAIL to YTS users.

Also at the time, I thought a good article to explain what was happening can be found here: The evolution of privacy as it applies to hardware devices such as Kodi.

But as you can see, from history, we learned that his end goal was not the internet user with small pockets who downloaded his client’s movies. Rather, his goal was bigger.

I realized that he was possibly trying to take over and monetize the very piracy trademarks which were pirating his client’s copyrighted movies. After this, he started suing ISPs and Virtual Private Networks, which is an ongoing litigation battle. I will write more about this as the story unfolds…

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

—
[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Culpepper IP cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your case), you can e-mail us at info[at]cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about the letter you received from their office, or you can SMS us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number].

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

IP Address Evidence in Copyright Lawsuits: What It Proves—and What It Doesn’t

If you received a notice from your internet service provider stating that your IP address was linked to alleged copyright infringement, you are likely asking a very simple question: does this actually mean I’m guilty?

In BitTorrent-based copyright lawsuits, IP address evidence is the starting point for nearly every claim—but it is also one of the most misunderstood forms of evidence by defendants. Many people assume that if their IP address was “caught,” liability automatically follows. Others believe the opposite: that an IP address proves nothing at all.

Both assumptions are wrong.

This article explains what an IP address is, how it becomes visible in BitTorrent activity, why courts allow copyright plaintiffs to rely on IP address evidence at the early stages of a case, and—most importantly—where that evidence succeeds and where it breaks down.

▶

[This video displays an IP address displayed on a license plate. I used this as an analogy of a license plate as being the identifier of the driver. Reference: the “Spinning Car” Analogy article and explainer video, as seen on my TorrentLawyer Legal Blog.]

Return to Top

What Is an IP Address, and How Is It Exposed in BitTorrent Activity?

An Internet Protocol (IP) address is a numerical identifier assigned to a device when it connects to the internet. In simple terms, it functions like a temporary return address that allows data to be routed between a user’s device and the websites, servers, or peers it communicates with online.

An example of an IP address is “128.234.123.234”.

When an internet user visits any website, that website’s server necessarily receives the user’s IP address in order to send data back to the user. This exchange occurs automatically and invisibly, without any affirmative action by the user beyond initiating the connection.

BitTorrent file-sharing operates differently from ordinary web browsing. Instead of downloading content from a single centralized server, BitTorrent users connect to a decentralized “swarm” of other users who are simultaneously uploading and downloading pieces of the same file. In order for this peer-to-peer exchange to function, each participant in the swarm necessarily exposes their IP address to other peers and to any third party monitoring the swarm.

Copyright enforcement companies retained by studios such as Strike 3 Holdings routinely monitor BitTorrent swarms to detect unlicensed copying of their copyrighted works. When a user’s IP address is observed uploading or downloading a copyrighted file, the monitoring software records the IP address, date, time, and file hash associated with the activity (see here for an example of such a log; these spreadsheets are often referred to as “Exhibit A” to the complaint, and are discussed below, as they are considered “Snapshot Evidence.”) The IP address information contained in these logs form the technical basis for later claims of copyright infringement against the ISP account holder.

Critically, however, an IP address identifies an internet connection, not a person. It does not establish who was using the connection at the time of the alleged activity, whether the activity was authorized, or whether the account holder was even present when the file was shared. Internet users can even mask their real IP addresses to appear as if their activity is being conducted by an IP address belonging to another internet user. These distinctions become central in determining whether IP address evidence is sufficient to support liability.

[To demonstrate guilt in a lawsuit against an internet user who’s IP address was exposed in participating in a BitTorrent Swarm, the copyright holder has access to another important piece of forensic evidence — the PCAP file. This contains the packet capture data showing that the copyrighted content was actually downloaded or transmitted. This PCAP file is often missing in copyright lawsuits, and plaintiffs take the easier route and merely rely on circumstantial evidence that that the account holder’s IP address was observed participating in a BitTorrent swarm.]

Return to Top

The Limits and Reliability Problems of IP Address Evidence

A plaintiff can identify activities as being originated by a particular IP address belonging to a particular internet account, and an ISP is capable of using IP address logs to identify the ISP account subscriber that was assigned a particular IP address on a particular date and time. But even if infringing activity was observed by a particular IP, this does not prove that it was the account holder who engaged in that activity.

When facing a lawsuit based upon IP address evidence of infringement, aggressive copyright entities like Strike 3 Holdings LLC often forego any analysis and conclude that the ISP account holder is the infringer.

But an IP address does not stand in the shoes of the account holder. There are many ways the infringer could have been anyone other than the account holder.

Internet users OTHER THAN the account holder could have done the unlawful activity

IP addresses do not reliably identify the internet user who is making use of the account holder’s internet connection or IP address. There are many ways a non-account holder could gain access to an account holder’s internet connection (lawfully and unlawfully) and make use of the internet connection assigned to a particular IP address assigned to the account holder’s internet account.

When there is physical access to the router:

Attempts to access a router without permission could occur through simply looking at and logging in with the default password (which is typically printed on the bottom of the router, and the internet account holder is not sophisticated enough, careful enough, or security-minded enough to manually change it).

Even if the account holder was security-minded and he changed the password, the unauthorized user could press a button a reset the router to its factory settings, regaining access to the router’s password as it is printed on the router.

When there is no physical access to the router:

Attempts to access a router without permission using technological means to discover or bypass the password, and this can be done locally, or remotely. The actual methods of achieving such access are outside the scope of this article.

UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS & HACKERS

There are also illegal and unlawful ways for an internet user to gain access to an account holder’s internet connection, and those methods are beyond the scope of this article.

However, access to a router having a password on it can still happen even if the user accessing the router is able to gain access to (or bypass) the password set by the account holder.

TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS TO MODIFY OR SPOOF AN IP ADDRESS

There are also technological means where an internet user can modify their own IP address to make it appear as if the account holder’s internet connection is being used.

Changing one’s IP address is called “spoofing,” and such a user who engages in this activity does so either for privacy reasons (although doing so is unlawful), or to make it appear as if the unlawful internet activities are being done by the account holder actually assigned the spoofed IP address.

The actual location of a user making use of a ‘spoofed’ IP address could be miles, cities, or even COUNTRIES away from the location of the account holder and the actual location of the IP address.

Thus, IP address evidence alone is insufficient to prove that a particular account holder engaged in the unlawful activities claimed in the lawsuit. However, it could be a factor in conjunction with other factors to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of proof to prove that it was the account holder who did the unlawful activities.

Does an IP Address Alone Prove Copyright Infringement?

Courts have warned that an IP address, standing alone, does not automatically identify the infringer. As such, the plaintiff cannot make the assumption that the owner of the internet account assigned that IP address was the internet user who engaged in the unlawful activities.

[If he does name and serve the account holder without doing further research, the court should consider applying an actual damages standard rather than the current statutory damages available to a copyright holder who properly uses the courts to bring his infringer to justice.]

IP ADDRESS DOES NOT EQUAL A PERSON (IP ≠ PERSON)

In order to name and serve an ISP account holder as being the one who engaged in the activities observed by his IP address, many courts expect allegations that go beyond him merely being the ISP subscriber who pays the bill. Additional evidence, such as admissions, unique circumstances of access, or other corroborating facts are required in order for a court to hold the account holder liable for the unlawful activities claimed in the lawsuit.

For example, in Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 14‑20213 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2014), the court refused to rely on IP‑address geolocation to identify the defendant, holding that “there is nothing that links the IP address location to the identity of the person actually downloading and viewing Plaintiff’s videos.” Likewise, Judge Gary Brown explained in a widely cited BitTorrent decision that an IP address “does not necessarily identify a person,” because home networks, wireless routers, and multiple users can all share the same outward‑facing IP.

An IP address does not necessarily identify a person.

This is reflected in the following case examples:

• Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 14‑20213 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 14, 2014) – Judge Ungaro: IP address + geolocation does not identify the infringer; dismisses. (Reference: CSO Online article, 03/2014)
• In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, 296 F.R.D. 80 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) – cautions that an IP address is not a person, but still allows subpoenas; good for showing nuance.
• Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:19‑cv‑01887 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (default judgment denied) – subscriber status alone insufficient to impose liability.
• Gary Brown “IP ≠ person” opinion (often cited as In re BitTorrent Cases / Order & Report–Recommendation, E.D.N.Y. 2012) – detailed tech explanation why IP alone is weak evidence. (Reference: TorrentFreak article (Ernesto), 03/2012)

These opinions are important guardrails, but turning them into a blanket slogan that “IP address evidence is no evidence” misreads how courts actually treat IP data in copyright cases and can backfire when used as a primary defense.

Snapshot Evidence

IP address logs can be used to prove access or participation (how long the user was connected to the BitTorrent Swarm); it cannot prove the amount of the copyrighted file he copied. [The PCAP file does, however, show how much of the file he downloaded.]

Snapshot evidence refers to digital screenshots or logs captured by a plaintiff’s monitoring software showing a specific IP address appearing in a BitTorrent swarm at a given date and time, often displaying partial file data (e.g., hash values, file names, etc.).

In BitTorrent swarms, peers upload and download fragments of the file to each other in file pieces. A snapshot proves that the IP ‘entered the room’ of a swarm sharing the copyrighted file, but does not confirm that it downloaded or uploaded a substantial part of the work—only that it was “in the room” when the downloads were occurring.

Some plaintiffs even demonstrate “snapshot evidence” by attaching a spreadsheet listing the dates and times that a particular IP address was observed downloading their content. These spreadsheets also may involve file hashes which resolve to a particular copyrighted title owned by the plaintiff, and other data detailing the length of time the IP address was seen ‘in the room’. Such spreadsheets can usually be found in copyright infringement cases as an “Exhibit A” to the complaint, but they do not show that any copyright infringement occurred.

Copyright infringement requires unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or other use of the plaintiff’s work, but copying must be a “substantial” portion of the protected work [in quantity or quality], e.g., more than de minimus copying.

Courts have consistently held that even where copying is undisputed, “no legal consequences will follow unless the copying is substantial.” Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189, 1192–93 (9th Cir. 2004). The Ninth Circuit further clarified that copying is de minimis—and thus non-actionable—only when it is “so meager and fragmentary that the average audience would not recognize the appropriation.” Id. at 1193.

An internet user joining a BitTorrent swarm, even with the intent (and an attempt) to copy a specific copyrighted work, cannot be found guilty of copyright infringement by mere observation that his IP address was connected to a BitTorrent Swarm for a particular amount of time, unless the downloader actually copied a substantial, recognizable portion of the copyrighted work.

However, when the entire work is downloaded, the user likely cannot claim substantiality or de minimis copying exemptions as outlined by Newton v. Diamond.

But believing that the plaintiff has “no evidence,” either:

• because they cannot prove that the account holder was ‘at the keyboard’ when his IP address was observed downloading the plaintiff’s content, or
• because the plaintiff only has snapshot evidence (in the form of an “Exhibit A“), or
• because the PCAP file documenting exactly what was downloaded is missing,

Forming such a belief is a dangerous miscalculation, because snapshot evidence is typically just the starting point for more evidence (specifically, testimony of the accused defendant to be acquired through discovery, as we will discuss later in this article).

And, while “IP Address Evidence,” might not be sufficient to prove actual infringement, it is enough to satisfy requirements for a plaintiff to obtain a subpoena.

Return to Top

The Legal Standard Governing ISP Subpoenas

Federal courts regularly authorize subpoenas and allow complaints to proceed when plaintiffs bring anything more than a bare IP address.

Despite the technical limitations of IP address evidence, courts permit early discovery based on IP data under a defined legal standard.

Federal courts evaluate ISP subpoena requests in BitTorrent copyright infringement cases under the five-factor test articulated in Sony Music Ent. Inc. v. Doe, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 564–65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). This framework governs whether a plaintiff may obtain early discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) to identify a John Doe defendant. To satisfy this standard, the plaintiff must establish:

1. a prima facie claim of copyright infringement supported by IP address–based evidence;
2. specific identification of the allegedly infringing activity;
3. the absence of alternative, less intrusive means to identify the subscriber;
4. a concrete need for the requested information to advance the litigation; and
5. a minimal privacy interest in basic subscriber account information.

Courts across jurisdictions routinely apply this five-factor test when assessing early discovery requests in BitTorrent cases, including actions brought by Strike 3 Holdings. See, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 1:21-cv-0586 (W.D.N.Y. 2021).

This same five-factor framework governing ISP subpoenas is discussed in greater detail in our overview of ISP subpoenas.

In In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, 296 F.R.D. 80, 84–85 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), the court acknowledged that “an IP address alone does not necessarily identify an individual” but nevertheless permitted ISP subpoenas after finding a prima facie infringement showing and applying the Sony Music v. Doe, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 564-65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) factors (these are discussed in depth in Article #1, ISP Subpoenas).

Other courts have similarly held that IP-address evidence, when combined with additional factual allegations, is sufficient to justify early discovery, even though it may later prove inadequate to establish liability at trial.

This is exactly the gap where defendants get into trouble: judges may echo the “IP ≠ person” concern while still treating IP‑based allegations as enough to keep the case alive and to pierce the anonymity of the ISP account holder.

Under the Cable Privacy Act, 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B), cable ISPs may disclose subscriber information when compelled by a court order, which is typically obtained via an ISP subpoena. Courts apply tests derived from Sony Music Entertainment Inc. v. Does 1–40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 564–65 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) to balance plaintiffs’ need for subscriber identity against the limited privacy interests in basic account data, and routinely find that IP‑address evidence satisfies that threshold in BitTorrent cases.

In practice, that means an “IP address is not a person” argument will not stop the court from unmasking the ISP account holder; it only sets the stage for later arguments about who actually used the internet connection assigned to that account holder.

By piercing the anonymity of the ISP account holder, the plaintiff is able to identify which internet account the IP address was assigned to when the unlawful activity occurred. But, just because the internet account belongs to a particular account holder, it does not mean that he (or she) was the one engaging in the unlawful conduct.

Return to Top

The Role of the IP Address in Litigation

Evidence that an internet user infringed a copyright holder’s copyrights based on an IP address that was observed doing something unlawful is insufficient to prove that it was the ISP account holder who engaged in the unlawful activity.

In a copyright infringement lawsuit where the copyright holder claims that the accused (having been assigned a particular IP address) connected to a BitTorrent swarm using peer-to-peer software, the fact that 1) the account holder was assigned that IP address by his ISP, and 2) that IP address was observed connecting to a BitTorrent swarm and was seen uploading and/or downloading pieces of the copyrighted work is not sufficient evidence to prove that it was the account holder who infringed the copyright holder’s copyrights.

The plaintiff’s reliance on an IP address being ‘observed’ does not mean it was the account holder who engaged in the unlawful activity that the plaintiff observed. Without a particular connection between an IP address being observed engaged in an unlawful activity, and the account holder actually engaging in that activity, the activities of the observed IP address is insufficient to find the account holder liable for engaging in the observed infringing activities.

However, there is a big difference in the role of an IP address as far as finding an accused defendant liable for copyright infringement, versus the role an observed IP address can play in allowing a copyright holder to file the lawsuit implicating an unknown “John Doe” defendant.

BURDEN OF PROOF IN CASES ASSERTING IP ADDRESSES EVIDENCE IN LITIGATION

In civil copyright cases, the plaintiff must prove infringement by a preponderance of the evidence—showing it is more likely than not that the defendant engaged in unauthorized copying or distribution. IP evidence contributes, but without additional proof, it cannot alone meet this standard.

This standard derives from 17 U.S.C. § 501(a)-(b), which defines infringement and authorizes civil actions without specifying a burden, but it defaults to the civil preponderance standard under federal common law. This is also known as the preponderance of the evidence.

In copyright infringement cases, the burden on the plaintiff to prove his case and find the defendant liable for infringement is that he must show that it is ‘more likely than not‘ the defendant who viewed, copied, streamed, downloaded, uploaded, made use of the copyright holder’s copyrighted work without a license.

An IP address alone cannot reliably identify the person who engaged in alleged copyright infringement. It serves only as circumstantial evidence, showing that a device connected to the internet via a particular account participated in a BitTorrent swarm. Courts consistently require additional evidence—such as admissions, corroborating logs, or unique access circumstances—to satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of proof and to link the account holder to the alleged activity.

In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:19‑cv‑01887 (N.D. Cal. 2023), the court denied a default judgment, finding that “merely being the registered subscriber of an IP address associated with infringing activity” was insufficient to connect the defendant to the alleged downloads. The court emphasized that plaintiffs must offer concrete evidence linking the account holder to the infringement, not just assumptions derived from IP‑address logs.

These decisions are valuable, but they show a much narrower proposition than “IP address evidence is no evidence.” Rather, they demonstrate that “John Doe subscriber assigned IP address…” status alone usually cannot win a case for the plaintiff. The cases do not show that IP logs are irrelevant for subpoenas or early pleadings — courts continue to consider them as relevant.

But in addition to mere IP address evidence, a plaintiff would need additional evidence (e.g., logs, snapshots, testimony, or other data) to meet their burden at summary judgment or trial.

In copyright infringement lawsuits, typically the plaintiff would satisfy their burden of proof in discovery — either by taking a deposition, or having the accused defendant answer questions under oath using an interrogatory.

METHODS OF PROVING GUILT IN CASES INVOLVING IP ADDRESS

Plaintiffs rely on depositions (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30) and interrogatories (Fed. R. Civ. P. 33) to obtain sworn testimony and factual admissions from the defendant. These tools allow plaintiffs to link the account holder to infringing activity, supplementing IP evidence that alone cannot satisfy the preponderance of proof.

DEPOSITION

Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 governs depositions in federal civil cases, allowing parties to obtain sworn testimony from opposing parties, witnesses, or third parties during the discovery phase.

A DEPOSITION is where an attorney questions a deponent (e.g., a defendant) under oath, and outside of court to gather facts relevant to the claims. He will ask the questions relating to liability, without directly determining guilt, which is reserved for trial. Answers are recorded verbatim by a certified court reporter using stenographic means, audio, or video, producing a transcript considered sworn testimony admissible at trial subject to evidentiary rules like relevance and hearsay exceptions.

The TESTIMONY of the deponent helps the plaintiff meet its burden of proof by providing admissible evidence of key facts, e.g., admissions of wrongdoing. These admissions can support motions for summary judgment or prove elements like liability at trial.

In copyright infringement suits, plaintiffs depose ISP account holders (or named defendants, if not the account holder) to probe into facts surrounding access, downloading, streaming, viewing, or unlicensed copying of works. Their questions will often focus on IP addresses assigned to the defendant, device logs, or user admissions during discovery.

INTERROGATORIES

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 governs interrogatories in federal civil cases, permitting each party to serve up to 25 written questions (including subparts) on another party, who must serve sworn answers or objections within 30 days.

INTERROGATORIES seek factual information, document identification, or admissions relevant to claims or defenses during discovery. They aid a party with case preparation without directly proving guilt (this occurs at trial).

In copyright infringement suits (like those by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC) plaintiffs use interrogatories to probe defendants’ knowledge of downloads, streams, or distributions via BitTorrent.

The party serving the interrogatory drafts targeted questions, such as asking a defendant to identify IP addresses, which devices they might have used for file-sharing, or witnesses with knowledge of alleged infringement. Their responses must be signed under oath by the party or their attorney certifying completeness.

Plaintiffs leverage interrogatory responses as admissible evidence to establish ownership, access, and copying—key elements under 17 U.S.C. § 501—supporting summary judgment or trial proof, such as admissions of using specific software like BitTorrent clients. More frequently, the use the admissions as ammunition to force the defendant to agree to pay them a large settlement payment.

• In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe cases (e.g., numerous district court rulings in E.D.N.Y., M.D. Fla.), plaintiffs serve interrogatories asking defendants to admit or deny downloading specific pornographic films via BitTorrent. They also ask them to list or detail household network users, to produce router logs, which could give them direct evidence of unauthorized distribution. Courts uphold these as proportional discovery, rejecting overbreadth objections.
  
  
• In Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, 2021 WL 1117177 (N.D. Ill.), interrogatories confirmed that the defendant’s IP address matched the IP address observed in the swarm data, advancing the plaintiff’s prima facie case. Similar use occurred in Malibu Media cases and other BitTorrent-based copyright infringement suits, where interrogatory responses were used to satisfy the “volitional conduct” requirement (per cases like Coqui LLC v. Sling TV, 2021 WL 3622938 (D. Colo.).

Understanding the Flaw: Why Lack of Evidence Doesn’t Mean You Win The Lawsuit

Even if you believe that the plaintiff is lacking evidence to prove guilt, and you demonstrate that the plaintiff’s attorney does not have evidence that you downloaded a substantial amount of the copyrighted file, and even if you demonstrate that the plaintiff’s attorney does not have any evidence that you did anything other than observing that an IP address assigned to your internet account was observed connecting to a BitTorrent swarm…

ADMITTING GUILT UNDER OATH could undo any argument that you make about them lacking evidence of guilt against you.

As one astute attorney pointed out on social media:

“I can be the most educated, smartest, wizardly genius attorney ever to exist. No legal argument can change the fact that my client downloaded the film.”

-Rob Cashman, attorney and owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC

This statement captures the essence of the problem. The legal intricacies of your defense mean very little in the face of an admission of guilt.

Even if you are correct that the plaintiff does not have any evidence against you, if they obtain testimony from you that you participated in the infringement of their copyrighted work, you will have provided them with everything that they will need to overcome their burden of proof.

The testimony under oath that you provide them can and will undo any claim of yours that they lack evidence. Your testimony will be used to prove that you were most likely the downloader, and as a result of your testimony, you could be found liable for copyright infringement of the plaintiff’s infringed works.

Return to Top

Plan Your Defense Strategy Early to Avoid Costly Mistakes

In copyright infringement cases, particularly those involving alleged downloading via BitTorrent, defending against a lawsuit based solely on the reliance that the plaintiff does not have evidence that you were the downloader (or that all they have is IP Address Evidence) is foolish, and it could cause you to lose the lawsuit.

If you are named and served and in the discovery process you will be providing them testimony that you downloaded their copyrighted titles [or that you are a downloader of other titles] (whether you do this through a discovery, an interrogatory, or via any other method of them obtaining evidence from you), then it is wiser to not engage in the litigation at the outset.

Before getting named as a defendant, an account holder should proactively look inward and determine whether he did what the plaintiff claimed that the IP address ‘was observed doing’ while the lawsuit is still asserting their claims against an unknown “John Doe” fictitious entity. The account holder can make use of the advance notice of the potential lawsuit given to them by the ISP subpoena notification letter.

Thus, an account holder has the time and anonymity (for the moment) to decide how to proceed based on whether engaging in litigation would cause them to ‘admit guilt’ under oath at the discovery phase of the lawsuit. If so, this article introduces alternative strategies to better approach the lawsuit if answering questions under oath would be problematic.

If the account holder decides that defending the claims against him in litigation would result in him losing the lawsuit, then he should focus on alternative strategies that minimize his damage and exposure, which is the subject of the next section.

ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES TO DEFENDING THE CLAIMS AGAINST YOU IN LITIGATION

Just because you are implicated as a defendant in a lawsuit does not mean that you need to defend the claims against you in court.

Defending against lawsuits is not only an analysis of the laws and applying them to the facts to determine whether they can satisfy their burden to prove that you committed the unlawful acts for which the plaintiff is suing you.

Defending a lawsuit also involves analysis of probabilities, and the various ways a lawsuit can play out. This could involve topics such as:

• whether to proactively speak with the plaintiff’s attorney about your guilt (or non-guilt) before you are named and served as a defendant;
  
• whether to file an answer to the complaint and initiate litigation yourself;
  
• whether to negotiate a settlement payment in order to release you from liability;
  
• whether to watch the docket and check whether the plaintiff’s attorney will name and serve you or whether he will dismiss your lawsuit if you do nothing;
  
• whether to completely ignore the lawsuit and wait to act until you are named and served.

WHETHER TO PROACTIVELY SPEAK WITH THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS GUILT / NON-GUILT

If you did not do the downloading and you want to proactively avoid being named and served as a defendant, sometimes a useful strategy is to hire an attorney to open the lines of communication between you and his/her client.

In the communications between your attorney and the plaintiff’s attorney, the two of them would discuss guilt, non-guilt, whether you did the downloading of his copyrighted titles, or not.

If you weren’t the downloader but you have a good idea of who did do it, here is where you can discuss this with the plaintiff’s attorney. That way, when he/she decides who to name and serve when amending the complaint, it would be the person who did the downloading, and not you.

Lastly, if you did the downloading, but you cannot afford to pay them anything to settle the claims against you (or you have a condition that would preclude you from being able to defend a lawsuit against you), perhaps here would be a good time to do it.

If the plaintiff’s attorney sees your financial circumstances (or your health circumstances) and agrees that you cannot pay them any kind of settlement that they would accept, then when it comes time for them to determine whether to name and serve a defendant, they might just decide instead to dismiss the lawsuit.

The reason they might do this is very often, these lawsuits are aimed not at bringing the defendant to justice and getting a judgement against the defendant, but rather, at securing a settlement. If they have already seen your financial circumstances (or your health circumstances), they might just decide that it is not worth their effort to continue the lawsuit against you.

WHETHER TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT AND INITIATE LITIGATION

If you did not do the downloading and you are willing to give the plaintiff’s attorney testimony under oath, and if you do not want to wait the many months it might take before you are named and served (or you want to cut off the plaintiff’s attempts to solicit a settlement from you and just move to the evidence, “the truth will set you free,” then you can simply file an answer with the court and move forward with litigation on the merits of the case.

WHETHER TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT

If you did do the downloading and you do not want to engage in litigation (where you know that you would end up giving the plaintiff testimony under oath that you were the one who did the downloading of their copyrighted works), then through your attorney, you can negotiate a settlement (which is a cash payment in return for them releasing you from liability and dismissing the lawsuit against you).

The best time to settle a lawsuit is before you become named and served as a defendant (while you are still implicated as a “John Doe” Defendant, where the court does not yet know your name).

WHETHER TO LEARN THE PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS PATTERNS AND “WAIT AND SEE”

Not all attorneys name and serve each and every defendant. Some manage their lawsuits and dismiss cases simply because they don’t want to ask the court for an extension of time to name and serve a defendant (for example, when the procedural deadlines come due requiring the plaintiff to name and serve a defendant, ask the court for an extension of time, or dismiss the lawsuit).

Here, a “wait and see” strategy would not be ignoring the lawsuit. Rather, you or your attorney would be regularly checking the docket for new filings, determining and calendaring the plaintiff attorney’s procedural due dates for your case, watching what he does with other cases which are similar to yours, and you would always be running a ‘risk analysis’ on what the likelihood would be that you will be named and served.

If the risk goes above your comfort level, you can switch to another strategy, e.g., a settlement, initiating discussions with the plaintiff’s attorney about guilt or non-guilt, or a proactively filing an answer with your case and proceeding to litigation.

WHETHER TO IGNORE THE LAWSUIT ENTIRELY

Some people determine that they have nothing to lose, and they don’t care if they are named and served. They are unwilling or unable to engage in any of the other options, and if the unspeakable happens (where they are named and served and thrown into litigation), they know they would be losing the lawsuit anyway if they participate in their defense.

And, even if they ignore the case entirely and end up with a default judgement against them, they have obtained legal advice from an attorney licensed in their state telling them that they could file for bankruptcy to discharge the civil judgement against them.

…Or, an attorney licensed in their state has informed whether they are considered ‘judgement proof’ and thus even if they end up with a judgement against them, there is no way that a plaintiff could collect a judgement against them.

Nothing here is to be taken as legal advice to act (or not act) in a certain way, or to engage in one strategy or another. These are all very different strategies, each one of them tailored to a different kind of defendant with different circumstances and tolerances of risk. Before deciding to do ANY of these, you should speak to an attorney who is familiar with your case and the plaintiff’s attorney who sued you.

Return to Top

IP ADDRESS EVIDENCE IN PLEADINGS

Although most defendants will never litigate a copyright infringement case through pleadings, courts routinely assess IP address evidence at the pleading stage when determining whether claims may proceed.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint in a must allege enough factual content about the case make the claim plausible.

​In a copyright infringement lawsuit where the plaintiff is asserting that it observed an IP address engage in activity which infringed its copyright rights, courts generally IP Address evidence alone as weak and insufficient to prove that a particular named individual is the infringer.

Federal pleading standards

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) teaches that a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” which the Supreme Court interprets (Twombly/Iqbal) to require enough well‑pleaded facts to make the claim “plausible on its face,” not just conceivable. In IP cases, this typically means facts supporting (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) copying or distribution of protected works by the defendant.​

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 requires that factual statements have or are likely to have evidentiary support after reasonable investigation. This is relevant when the plaintiff sues unknown “John Doe” Defendants identified only by their IP addresses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) provides the mechanism for challenging the sufficiency of such pleadings; if the IP-address-based allegations do not plausibly link the alleged infringing activity to the specific defendant, dismissal is possible.​

Use of IP address evidence in BitTorrent pleadings

In BitTorrent copyright infringement cases, plaintiffs frequently file complaints against a “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address 123.45.678.90.” They allege that they used monitoring software which observed this IP address participating in a BitTorrent swarm distributing their copyrighted works at specified dates and times. The complaint typically attaches a list of copyrighted works (as their Exhibit A), hash values associated with their titles, and timestamps tied to that IP address to show repeated or “persistent” infringement.​

To meet the plausibility requirement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, courts often look for additional factual detail beyond bare IP logs, such as:

• geolocation tying the IP to the forum,
• multiple instances of infringement over time, and
• an explanation of the monitoring method used to capture BitTorrent activity.

Several courts have allowed such complaints to proceed at least far enough to permit early discovery, finding that allegations that an identified IP address repeatedly participated in swarms sharing specific copyrighted works can state a plausible claim against the unknown John Doe subscriber.​

Case law skepticism about IP-only identification

At the same time, many decisions emphasize that the IP address alone does not reliably identify the person who actually downloaded or uploaded the work. Courts note that the ISP account holder might not be the infringer because others in the household, guests, or even unknown third parties connecting to the account holder’s unsecured wi-fi router. Any of these other non-parties could have engaged in the online infringing activity. One decision in a cluster of In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, 296 F.R.D. 80 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) likens relying on an IP address as evidence of guilt to assuming that the person who pays a telephone bill made a particular phone call.​

Because of these concerns, courts have sometimes denied or limited early discovery; they have either severed or consolidated mass John Doe cases, or they have warned plaintiff copyright holders against using IP address-based subpoenas as leverage for coercive settlements in pornography cases. Other decisions (for example, cases involving Malibu Media) have permitted subpoenas but expressly recognized that the subscriber information is only a starting point and does not by itself prove liability at trial.​

Practical sufficiency standards in copyright infringement complaints

Putting the rules and case law together, the sufficiency analysis usually turns on:

• Whether the complaint pleads copyright ownership and registration (or eligibility for registration) for each work in suit with some specificity.​
• Whether the pleading describes the BitTorrent activity with factual detail: the protocol used, the works’ hash values, dates/times, and the number of observed “hits” by the IP address.​
• Whether the complaint plausibly links the IP address to the defendant, at least as much as identifying a particular John Doe subscriber and tying that subscriber to the forum via geolocation, so that early discovery may be justified.​

The plaintiff’s attorney will often argue that, although an IP address does not identify a specific individual, it is enough to establish probable cause for the lawsuit. At a minimum, they are able to satisfy the pleading requirement according to the relevant statutes and current case law, and file the complaint against an unknown John Doe Defendant with an IP address. However, courts require them to obtain more evidence to satisfy their burden of proof under the lawsuit, and to find an accused named-and-served defendant guilty.

Return to Top

SUMMARY: Understanding why ‘no evidence’ is a weak argument can prevent you from jeopardizing your defense. But what should you do instead? A thorough understanding of your position and a solid strategy for protecting your identity are key to ensuring the best possible outcome.

For a comprehensive guide to navigating your defense, continue to our concluding article: Article 8: “Protecting Your Identity: Strategies for John Doe Defendants in Copyright Lawsuits”.

That final article serves as a conclusive piece that ties together all the strategies discussed in the previous articles, helping John Doe defendants protect their identity and make informed decisions about their defense.

You will learn:

• “Before Filing: Assess the Allegations and Potential Risks”
• “Finding the Right Attorney: Why Early Legal Counsel is Key”
• “Valuing Your Anonymity: Protecting Your Identity from Exposure”
• “When to Fight: Understanding When Litigation is Worthwhile”
• “Final Thoughts: Reassessing Your Strategy for Best Results”

Return to Top

THIS HAS BEEN A LAWSUIT-NEUTRAL ARTICLE WRITTEN FOR THE TORRENTLAWYER UNIVERSITY.

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your matter, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info@cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

CONTACT FORM: Alternatively, sometimes people just like to contact me using one of these forms.  If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Patent Valuation Methods: Market Pricing vs. Expert Analysis (Two Decades Later)

TL;DR – Ocean Tomo pioneered market-based patent valuation nearly two decades ago, introducing auctions and the Bid-Ask Market® to bring transparency, liquidity, and consensus pricing to IP transactions. While traditional analyst-driven valuation remains critical for litigation, licensing, and complex portfolios, Ocean Tomo’s hybrid approach—combining market signals with expert analysis—represents the most balanced method for determining patent value today.

Nearly twenty years ago, Ocean Tomo’s market-based patent valuation methods—live auctions and the Bid-Ask Market®—brought transparency, liquidity, and consensus pricing to intellectual property transactions at a time when valuation was dominated by individual analysts. Today, their hybrid model—blending market signals with expert analysis—remains the most balanced approach for assessing patent value, providing insights essential to IP professionals, patent attorneys, investors, and technology strategists.

I recently read an article titled “Ocean Tomo reinforces its expertise in radio frequency, wireless technology and spectrum with the addition of director Dan Sleeter,” which prompted me to revisit my reflections on patent valuation nearly two decades ago. Back in 2008, I observed Ocean Tomo’s innovative efforts to introduce market-based patent valuation and liquidity into intellectual property transactions—a departure from traditional, analyst-driven models where a single expert determined a patent’s worth.

At the time, I noted that Ocean Tomo appeared to be moving patents “from being property that can be sold … to a commodity that can be valued and traded by public opinion and/or rules of supply and demand, akin to stocks in the stock market.” Their approach combined early patent auctions with transparent price discovery mechanisms, creating a market-driven framework that was virtually unprecedented in the IP space.

Even then, I cautioned that consensus-based patent valuation carries risks: auction dynamics can be influenced by strategic bidding, thin participation, or speculative behavior that may misrepresent a patent’s true economic value. Nearly twenty years later, these observations remain relevant, though Ocean Tomo’s tools and hybrid models for valuation have grown considerably more sophisticated.

Patent Valuation Methods: Then and Now

In November 2008, I published an article titled “Ocean Tomo and Patent Valuation Methods,” in which I discussed what I then viewed as an innovative—and somewhat untested—attempt to introduce market-based pricing and liquidity into patent transactions. At the time, patent valuation was still dominated by a relatively small group of analysts (a role I once occupied myself), typically operating in private, bilateral settings and often serving the interests of a single buyer, seller, or transaction.

In that article, I wrote:

“Ocean Tomo appears to be the next step in moving patents … from … being property that can be sold … to a commodity that can be valued and traded by public opinion and/or rules of supply and demand, akin to stocks in the stock market.”

I also acknowledged what I believed then—and still believe now—to be the principal risk of consensus-driven markets: that pricing can be distorted by behavior that undermines reliable valuation, including thin participation, strategic bidding, or speculative dynamics untethered from underlying economic value.

Why Patent Auctions Struggle With Liquidity

At the time, I was not certain whether Ocean Tomo would succeed in its mission. What was clear, however, was that they were serious. They assembled a strong team, ran a professional operation, and positioned themselves deliberately at the higher end of the market—emphasizing quality over volume in how they presented both their services and their clients’ intellectual property.

Looking back, I am genuinely pleased to see that much of that early effort has paid off. That said, the broader ambition—making intellectual property routinely tradable in a mainstream marketplace—remains a work in progress. But even today, buying and selling patents does not resemble the liquidity or visibility of traditional financial markets, and I remain uncertain whether it ever fully will—though incremental progress toward liquidity remains essential for any market-based model to succeed.

One reason for this persistent gap is structural. Unlike stocks or commodities, patents are not fungible assets. Each patent is economically unique, and its value is highly context-dependent—shaped by claim scope, validity risk, infringement posture, market adoption, jurisdictional considerations, and the strategic objectives of specific buyers and sellers. These factors resist standardization, which in turn constrains liquidity and complicates efforts to rely on purely market-based pricing mechanisms. As a result, even well-designed marketplaces struggle to achieve the participation depth necessary for stable and reliable price discovery.

Ocean Tomo was not only an innovator in patent sales, acquisitions, and licensing—they were a trailblazer in attempting to operationalize intellectual property as a market asset. That pioneering role was both their greatest strength and their greatest challenge. They entered a field long characterized by structural inertia, opacity, and friction, but in doing so they also confronted a fundamental problem: insufficient transaction volume and market attention, particularly in the early auction years, which would skew pricing outcomes, and would ultimately endanger their patent auction model.

Their early live patent auctions made this tension visible. While the 2006 auction included hundreds of patents, many failed to meet reserve prices. This illustrated a structural limitation of using patent auctions to create a pure marketplace for the buying and selling of intellectual property. And yet, despite these challenges, Ocean Tomo still advanced their proof-of-concept: that patents could, in fact, be sold in an open market setting.

Market-Based Patent Valuation Models

Nearly twenty years later, the core tension I identified in 2008 remains unresolved: market forces versus expert analysis. What has changed is the sophistication with which that tension is now managed.

Any reassessment of patent valuation since 2008 must also account for the evolving legal landscape. Over the last two decades, changes in subject-matter eligibility doctrine, the rise of administrative validity challenges through post-grant proceedings, and refinements in damages jurisprudence have materially increased uncertainty around patent enforceability and monetization. These developments have affected not only how patents are litigated, but also how they are valued—further complicating attempts to rely on market mechanisms alone to reflect economic reality.

Ocean Tomo did not cling to their single model of using patent auctions. Instead, they adapted—sometimes decisively—while continuing to experiment with how intellectual property can be valued, transferred, and understood.

Market-Based Patent Valuation Models in Practice: Ocean Tomo Since 2008

1. Public Patent Auctions as a Valuation Mechanism

Ocean Tomo originated the world’s first public, multi-lot live patent auctions in 2006. These auctions created one of the earliest transparent forums for patent price discovery at a time when most transactions were private, opaque, and highly negotiated. While the auction model revealed participation and pricing challenges, it also produced real transactional data and permanently altered how the industry thought about patent liquidity.

2. The Intellectual Property Bid-Ask Market®

In 2008, Ocean Tomo launched the Intellectual Property Bid-Ask Market®, a platform designed to publish bids, asks, and completed transaction prices. Unlike traditional auctions, this model reduced friction, avoided the expense and spectacle of live events, and provided a more continuous mechanism for market-based price discovery. Over time, this approach proved to be a more scalable and efficient alternative.

3. Patent Indexes and Quantitative Valuation Tools

Ocean Tomo also developed proprietary analytical tools, including the Ocean Tomo 300® Patent Index, designed to measure patent value relative to corporate market capitalization. These patent-based indexes were published on major exchanges and, at times, outperformed traditional benchmarks—underscoring a point that is now widely accepted: intangible assets, particularly patents, are material drivers of corporate value.

4. Expert Analysis Through Strategic Integration (J.S. Held and TechPats™)

In 2022, Ocean Tomo was acquired by global consulting firm J.S. Held, integrating its intellectual property expertise into a broader technical, financial, and strategic advisory platform. In 2023, that platform expanded further with the integration of TechPats™ (formerly Technology, Patents & Licensing, Inc., based in Doylestown, Pennsylvania)—a firm long known for its deep technical patent analysis, reverse engineering, and patent intelligence capabilities. Having worked as a patent analyst at TPL earlier in my career, I am familiar firsthand with the rigor of its analytical approach and the type of technical depth it brings to complex valuation, licensing, and enforcement matters. That expertise is particularly relevant in technically dense areas such as wireless communications, RF systems, and spectrum-dependent technologies.

5. Ongoing Market-Based Transactions

While Ocean Tomo moved away from traditional live auctions years ago (selling that portion of the business in 2009), the Bid-Ask Market® remains active, facilitating real patent transactions and public price signaling. Recent listings of specialized portfolios—such as anti-counterfeiting systems and mixed-reality navigation technologies—reflect a more targeted, industry-specific approach to market participation.

Expert Analysis in Patent Litigation and Licensing

When I wrote in 2008 about patents being recontextualized as commodities, I was observing a shift away from purely analyst-centric valuation toward market-based price discovery. Today, both models coexist—and both have limits.

Market Consensus Models

Strengths

• Transparent price discovery through observable transactions
• Reduced reliance on a single analyst’s assumptions
• Real liquidity where participation exists

Limitations

• Thin markets in many technology sectors
• Behavioral distortions and strategic bidding
• Prices that may reflect negotiation dynamics rather than economic contribution

Analyst-Driven Valuation

Expert valuation remains indispensable in contexts where markets alone fail to capture value, including:

• Litigation and expert testimony
• M&A due diligence
• Tax, accounting, and financial reporting
• Strategic licensing and portfolio development

In these settings, experienced economists and technologists can surface value drivers—such as infringement leverage, technological substitutability, or revenue attribution—that market pricing alone may obscure.

Hybrid Models for Patent Valuation

If patent value exists on a continuum, then neither pure market pricing nor pure expert opinion is sufficient on its own.

Market pricing works best where participation is deep and frequent. Expert valuation is essential where technologies are unique, information is asymmetric, or value is realized indirectly. In 2008, I cautioned that consensus markets invite behavior that can distort value. In 2026, that caution still holds.

Market mechanisms are effective at price discovery, but price discovery is not the same as value determination. Without being grounded in technical, legal, and economic analysis, bid and ask prices may reflect negotiation posture, strategic signaling, or informational asymmetries rather than the intrinsic or realizable economic value of a patent.

For that reason, I view Ocean Tomo’s evolution toward hybrid valuation models—combining market signals with rigorous expert analysis—as the most intellectually honest approach to patent valuation today. It reflects a mature understanding of both the promise and the limits of commoditizing intellectual property.

Looking forward, advances in data aggregation, patent intelligence, and artificial intelligence may further narrow the gap between market signals and expert valuation. Automated claim analysis, infringement detection, and comparative portfolio analytics increasingly support more informed pricing decisions. Still, even as tools improve, informed judgment—legal, technical, and economic—will remain central. Patents derive value not only from what they claim, but from how, where, and by whom they can be asserted or licensed.

Conclusion: The Future of Patent Valuation

Nearly twenty years after my initial article, market-based patent valuation is more sophisticated, more transparent, and more structurally supported than it was in 2008. Ocean Tomo has played a meaningful and consistent role in that evolution—not only as an innovator, but as a trailblazer willing to test ideas that the market was not yet ready to fully absorb.

The tension between liquidity and analytic rigor remains. But for practitioners, litigators, and innovators alike, understanding when to rely on market signals—and when to lean on expert judgment—is essential to making sound legal and commercial decisions about intellectual property.

For that reason, I continue to cheer Ocean Tomo on from the sidelines. From the beginning, they sought to solve a real and persistent problem in intellectual property law: how to move valuable innovation from one set of hands to another in a way that is transparent, credible, and economically meaningful.

For those interested in the original foundation of these thoughts, my 2008 article remains available here:
👉 https://www.cashmanip.com/ocean-tomo-and-patent-valuation-methods/

Ansys Software Lawsuit Walkthrough: What to Do If You Received an ISP Subpoena or John Doe Notice

Ansys software lawsuits are civil copyright infringement actions filed in federal court against anonymous John Doe defendants. Ansys identifies alleged infringers through IP addresses and uses ISP subpoenas to obtain account holder information. These cases are not criminal and do not automatically require settlement.

Defendants generally fall into categories such as non-users, non-commercial “tinkerers,” commercial users, or individuals unable to afford settlement demands. Filing a Motion to Quash an ISP subpoena is usually ineffective. Defense strategy should focus on early categorization, controlled communication, and avoiding unnecessary escalation.

TL;DR – If you received a notice from your ISP stating that Ansys, Inc. is trying to identify you in a federal copyright lawsuit, do not panic and do not rush to file anything with the court.

These lawsuits are civil copyright infringement cases, not criminal matters. Ansys uses ISP subpoenas to identify account holders tied to an IP address — not to prove who actually downloaded or used their software.

Most defendants make things worse by:

• Filing a Motion to Quash (which almost always fails)
• Speaking directly to Ansys’ attorneys without understanding the strategy
• Assuming settlement is mandatory or inevitable

The correct first step is understanding what category of defendant you fall into (non-user, tinkerer, commercial user, or someone who cannot afford settlement demands) and deciding whether it even makes sense to open settlement discussions at all.

Quick Answers:

What is an Ansys software lawsuit?
A civil copyright infringement lawsuit alleging unlicensed downloading or use of Ansys engineering software.

Is this a criminal case?
No. These are civil lawsuits seeking monetary damages.

Should I file a Motion to Quash?
In most cases, no. Motions to quash ISP subpoenas almost always fail.

Do I have to settle?
No. Settlement is one option, not a requirement.

Ansys Software Lawsuits – A Walkthrough for Accused John Doe Defendants (2026 Update)

Who This Article Is For

This article is written for engineers, designers, students, hobbyists, and professionals who:

• Received an ISP subpoena notice related to Ansys software
• Were named as a John Doe defendant in an Ansys, Inc. lawsuit
• Downloaded Ansys software but did not use it commercially
• Installed or tested Ansys software for learning, experimentation, or curiosity
• Cannot afford Ansys’ demanded settlement amounts
• Are unsure whether to fight, negotiate, or stay silent

If you fall into one of these categories, read this entire article before taking any action.

What Are the Ansys, Inc. Lawsuits About?

Ansys, Inc. files civil copyright infringement lawsuits in federal court against unnamed “John Doe” defendants. These lawsuits allege that Ansys engineering simulation software was downloaded, installed, copied, or used without a valid license.

These are not criminal cases. They are civil copyright actions seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000 per alleged act of infringement—numbers that are used primarily as leverage in settlement negotiations.

Ansys does not initially know the identity of the accused users. Instead, it identifies IP addresses and then subpoenas internet service providers (ISPs) to reveal the names and addresses of account holders.

Ansys lawsuits look very similar to Siemens Software Lawsuits. But beware — there are big differences, and accused defendants should not assume the same strategy.

Understanding the ISP Subpoena Letter (Read This Carefully)

If you received a letter from Comcast, AT&T, Spectrum, or another ISP, it likely:

• Mentions a federal lawsuit filed by Ansys, Inc.
• Lists an IP address and date/time of alleged infringement
• Suggests you may file a Motion to Quash the subpoena

This is where many defendants make their first mistake.

Filing a Motion to Quash almost always fails, costs money, and rarely changes the outcome. The subpoena is lawful, routine, and approved by the court in nearly every case.

The real decision is not whether your ISP will disclose your information—but what happens next.

The Four Options Every Accused Ansys Defendant Has

1. Litigation – Fight the case outright. This is expensive and rarely proportional to the claim.
2. Settlement – Negotiate a resolution, with or without purchasing a license.
3. Do Nothing – Risk being named and served as a defendant.
4. Strategic Communication – Open lines of communication to define who you are, what you did, and what category you fall into.

Most defendants benefit from Option #4—before any settlement discussions begin.

Categories of Accused Defendants in Ansys Lawsuits

Not all defendants are the same. Treating them as if they are is a mistake.

1. Non-Users

Some account holders did not download or use Ansys software at all. This may include:

• Shared internet connections
• Family members or roommates
• Workplace networks

These cases require a very different strategy.

2. The “Tinkerer” (The Most Misunderstood Category)

A tinkerer is someone who:

• Downloaded Ansys software out of curiosity
• Installed it briefly for learning or experimentation
• Used it for training, education, or personal projects
• Did not monetize the software
• Did not run a business using Ansys

This category exists in Siemens lawsuits—and it exists in Ansys cases as well, whether Ansys acknowledges it or not.

3. Commercial Users

These defendants used Ansys software in revenue-generating activities, consulting, or engineering services.

4. Defendants Who Cannot Afford Settlement Demands

Ansys settlement demands often exceed realistic financial capacity. This fact matters.

Why Ansys Cases Are Different from Siemens Software Lawsuits

Siemens Industry Software lawsuits are often focused on license conversion—turning unlawful users into paying customers.

Ansys lawsuits, by contrast, often feel punitive:

• High initial settlement demands
• Aggressive asset inquiries
• Inconsistent numbers
• Hostile negotiation posture

Understanding this difference between Ansys and Siemens is critical to choosing the right defense strategy.

Defense Strategy: Open Communication Without Capitulation

The goal is not to panic.

The goal is to:

• Define the defendant’s category
• Explain the circumstances clearly
• Prevent unnecessary escalation
• Decide whether settlement discussions make sense

Sometimes, the best move is not to negotiate at all—at least not yet.

Final Thoughts

Ansys lawsuits are intimidating by design. But intimidation is not the same as liability.

Before you file anything, disclose anything, or pay anything—understand your position.

FAQs

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Ansys, Inc. copyright cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your circumstances), you can e-mail us at info@cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Ansys, Inc. case, or you can SMS / call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number) ].

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Ansys Software Lawsuits vs. Siemens Software Lawsuits: Why Defendants Should Not Assume the Same Strategy

Ansys software lawsuits and Siemens software lawsuits are both civil copyright infringement actions involving alleged unlicensed use of engineering software. However, Siemens lawsuits historically emphasize license compliance and customer conversion, while Ansys lawsuits often involve high-pressure settlement demands, asset inquiries, and punitive negotiation strategies. Defense approaches that may work in Siemens cases may be ineffective or harmful in Ansys cases. Defendant categorization, intent, and timing of settlement discussions differ significantly between the two.

TL;DR – Ansys and Siemens Lawsuits Look Similar, but They Are Strategically Different

Both Ansys and Siemens file civil copyright infringement lawsuits involving alleged unlicensed use of engineering software. Both rely on identifying defendants through IP addresses, subpoenas, and forensic tracking of software use.

That is where the similarities largely end.

Siemens lawsuits have historically focused on license conversion — turning unlawful users into paying customers.
Ansys lawsuits, by contrast, tend to focus on punitive settlement demands and aggressive financial leverage.

Defendants should not use the same defense strategy for both.

Engineers and software users accused in Ansys, Inc. lawsuits often make a critical mistake: they assume that all “software piracy” lawsuits work the same way.

They do not.

Although Ansys, Inc. and Siemens Industry Software Inc. both file federal copyright infringement lawsuits related to unlicensed software use, the strategy, goals, tone, and settlement dynamics of these cases are materially different. Defendants who assume that an Ansys lawsuit will unfold like a Siemens lawsuit frequently make decisions that increase risk, expense, and exposure.

This article explains why.

Quick Comparison:

Are Ansys and Siemens software lawsuits the same?
No. While both involve copyright infringement claims, their goals, settlement strategies, and negotiation posture differ significantly.

Is Siemens more willing to sell licenses instead of demanding cash?
Historically, yes.

Are Ansys settlements more aggressive?
Based on experience, Ansys settlement demands are often higher and less predictable.

Superficial Similarities That Mislead Defendants

At a glance, Ansys and Siemens lawsuits appear nearly identical:

• Federal copyright infringement lawsuits
• Filed against John Doe defendants
• Identification through ISP subpoenas or software tracking
• Allegations of unlicensed downloading, installation, or use

These similarities lead defendants to assume that:

“If I handle this the same way people handled Siemens cases, I’ll be fine.”

That assumption is often wrong.

What Siemens Industry Software Lawsuits Are Really About

In my experience representing defendants in every wave of Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuits, Siemens’ primary goal has usually been compliance, not punishment.

Key characteristics of Siemens cases include:

• A strong interest in selling licenses
• Willingness to discuss discounted or alternative software packages
• Clear categorization of defendants (commercial users vs. tinkerers)
• Relatively consistent pricing logic
• Professional, predictable negotiation posture

Even when Siemens demanded significant sums, those numbers were often tied to:

• Actual license pricing
• Number of software “seats”
• Commercial use of the software

Siemens lawsuits tend to function as a compliance and deterrence mechanism, not a revenue-maximization scheme.

What Ansys Software Lawsuits Are Really About

Ansys lawsuits are structurally similar but strategically different.

In Ansys cases I have handled, the focus was less on converting defendants into customers and more on extracting the maximum possible settlement based on perceived ability to pay.

Common characteristics of Ansys cases include:

• Very high initial settlement demands
• Lack of consistent pricing logic
• Aggressive financial and asset inquiries
• Settlement numbers that shift during negotiations
• A noticeably hostile negotiation posture

Rather than asking, “What license would resolve this?” the subtext often feels like:

“How much can this defendant afford to pay?”

This difference fundamentally changes how defendants should respond.

Why Defendant Categorization Matters More in Siemens Cases

In Siemens lawsuits, defendant categorization has historically mattered a great deal.

Siemens has recognized distinctions such as:

• Commercial engineering businesses
• Employees or contractors working without proper employer licensing
• Students, hobbyists, and non-commercial “tinkerers”

These categories influenced:

• Whether Siemens pursued the case aggressively
• What type of license was offered
• Whether settlement discussions even made sense

This framework allowed defense counsel to contextualize use early and de-escalate many cases.

Why Defendant Categorization Is Ignored—At First—in Ansys Cases

In Ansys lawsuits, categorization often appears irrelevant at the outset.

Ansys’ initial posture typically treats all unlicensed use as equivalent, regardless of:

• Intent
• Duration
• Revenue generation
• Level of sophistication

This does not mean categorization is irrelevant — it means asserting it too early or incorrectly in a settlement negotiation can backfire.

The timing and framing of a defendant’s story matters far more in Ansys cases than in Siemens cases.

Settlement Strategy: License Conversion vs. Financial Leverage

Siemens Settlement Logic

• “You used our software unlawfully”
• “Here is the license cost”
• “Let’s legitimize your use”

Ansys Settlement Logic (as experienced)

• “You used our software unlawfully”
• “Here is a very large number”
• “Now show us your finances”

These are not the same negotiation environments.

A strategy that works well with Siemens — early engagement, transparency, and license discussions — can create unnecessary exposure in Ansys cases.

Why Defendants Should Not Assume Settlement Is the Best First Move

Many defendants believe:

“If I just settle early, this will go away.”

In Siemens cases, that is often true.

In Ansys cases, early settlement discussions can:

• Invite asset fishing
• Increase demanded amounts
• Lock defendants into punitive framing
• Eliminate strategic flexibility

Sometimes the smartest move in an Ansys case is not to negotiate at all — at least initially.

Litigation Risk Is Evaluated Differently by Ansys and Siemens

Siemens has demonstrated a willingness to:

• Narrow claims
• Dismiss cases
• Pursue compliance outside of court

Ansys litigation strategy appears more oriented toward:

• Maintaining pressure
• Preserving leverage
• Using statutory damages as a negotiation weapon

This affects how defendants should assess risk and cost.

The Biggest Mistake Defendants Make

The most common mistake I see is this:

Defendants copy a Siemens defense playbook and apply it to an Ansys lawsuit.

That mistake can:

• Escalate demands
• Increase scrutiny
• Reduce options

Understanding which company sued you matters just as much as understanding why.

FAQs

Final Thoughts

Not all software lawsuits are created equal.

Treating Ansys and Siemens lawsuits as interchangeable is a mistake that costs defendants time, money, and leverage. Defense strategy should be driven by how the plaintiff actually behaves, not by how the lawsuit is labeled.

Understanding these differences early can prevent irreversible decisions later.

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Ansys, Inc. copyright cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your circumstances), you can e-mail us at info@cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Ansys, Inc. case, or you can SMS / call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number) ].

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

Should You Settle an Ansys Software Lawsuit? What Accused Defendants Need to Know

Ansys software lawsuit settlement is optional and depends on defendant circumstances. Factors include commercial use, duration of use, ability to pay, and risk tolerance. High settlement demands are often used as leverage rather than reflective of actual damages. Strategic evaluation should occur before engaging in settlement discussions.

TL;DR: Ansys Software Lawsuit Settlement Is a Choice, Not a Requirement

Ansys settlement demands are often extremely high and frequently disconnected from how the software was actually used.

Settlement may make sense if:

• You used Ansys commercially
• You want the matter resolved quickly
• A license purchase aligns with your business needs

Settlement may not make sense if:

• You did not use the software
• You are a non-commercial tinkerer
• You cannot afford the demanded amounts
• Negotiation itself creates unnecessary exposure

The goal is not speed — it is control.

Quick Answers:

Do I have to settle an Ansys lawsuit?
No. Settlement is voluntary.

How much does Ansys typically demand?
Reported demands often range from hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Is settlement always cheaper than litigation?
Not necessarily.

Understanding Ansys Software Lawsuit Settlement Demands

Reported demands often range from $200,000–$350,000, regardless of use duration or intent.

These numbers are leverage—not verdicts.

Factors That Affect Settlement Strategy

• Category of defendant
• Duration of use
• Revenue generated (if any)
• Ability to pay
• Risk tolerance

When NOT to Settle

• Non-use cases
• Tinkerer cases with no commercial activity
• Situations where settlement opens unnecessary exposure

When an Ansys Software Lawsuit Settlement May Make Sense

• Clear commercial use
• Desire to close the matter quickly
• Strategic license acquisition

The Real Goal: Control the Narrative

Ansys lawsuits move fast—but defendants should not.

The right approach can prevent costly mistakes.

FAQs

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Ansys, Inc. copyright cases and options on how to proceed (even specifically for your circumstances), you can e-mail us at info@cashmanlawfirm.com, you can set up a free and confidential phone consultation to speak to us about your Ansys, Inc. case, or you can SMS / call us at 713-364-3476 (this is our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC’s number) ].

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

This document will be updated as new Ansys lawsuits are filed.

Why Actual Damages — Not Statutory Damages — Are the Proper Remedy in BitTorrent Copyright Infringement Lawsuits Based on IP Address Evidence

An Attorney Opinion on the Misuse of Statutory Damages in IP Address–Based BitTorrent Litigation

By Rob Cashman, Esq.
Cashman Law Firm, PLLC

Attorney Position

I do not believe statutory damages should be awarded in BitTorrent copyright infringement lawsuits that are based solely on IP address evidence. In my experience, these cases are routinely filed without proof that any copyrighted content was actually downloaded, often without a PCAP file, and almost never with the intent to litigate the case on the merits.

Instead, statutory damages are used as leverage to extract settlements from internet account holders who are accused — but not proven — to have infringed a copyright. That is not what statutory damages were designed for.

Where a copyright holder cannot prove actual infringement, the proper remedy is actual damages only, measured by the real economic loss, such as a lost rental or subscription fee, plus legitimate costs of recovery. Anything more misuses the federal courts and deprives accused defendants of the protections the law was meant to provide.

To Internet Subscribers Who Received a Subpoena Notice

If you received an ISP subpoena notice identifying your IP address in a BitTorrent copyright lawsuit, this article explains — from an attorney’s perspective — why the damages being threatened in these cases misuse the remedies copyright holders are provided by the law.

Statutory damages for clicking on a link seems unreasonable to the average internet user, and threatening them to solicit a settlement before ascertaining your ‘guilt’ is even more inappropriate — as the account holder, you should not presumed guilty just because your IP address was observed engaging in activities which harmed the plaintiff. These cases are confusing for an accused defendant, and many people are confused into agreeing to settlements because they are told they could face enormous statutory damages based solely on an IP address. In my experience, that fear is often misplaced.

An IP address does not identify a person, and a subpoena notice is not a finding of infringement. This article explains why I believe the damages being threatened in these cases are often legally inappropriate, and why internet subscribers deserve stronger protections than they are currently being given.

This article explains why, in my view as a copyright litigation attorney, actual damages — not statutory damages — are the appropriate remedy in BitTorrent copyright lawsuits based on IP address evidence.

Introduction: A Different Attorney Perspective on BitTorrent Copyright Lawsuits

In BitTorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits, copyright holders routinely seek statutory damages under the U.S. Copyright Act based solely on allegations that an IP address was “observed” participating in a BitTorrent swarm.

While statutory damages are a lawful remedy in appropriate copyright cases, I differ from many copyright plaintiffs and their attorneys in my professional opinion regarding their application to lawsuits against individual internet subscribers based on IP address evidence alone.

In my view, actual damages — not statutory damages — are the more appropriate and equitable standard in BitTorrent copyright infringement cases that rely on IP address identification and lack forensic proof of an actual download.

This opinion is grounded in how statutory damages were intended to function, how BitTorrent evidence is commonly gathered, and how these cases are actually litigated in federal courts.

The Purpose of Statutory Damages Under Copyright Law

Statutory damages exist for two primary reasons:

1. To make it easier for copyright holders to recover losses when actual damages are difficult to calculate
2. To deter infringement by imposing consequences that outweigh the perceived benefit of violating copyright protections

Congress designed statutory damages as a reward and enforcement mechanism for copyright owners who:

• Create original works
• Register their copyrights properly
• Bring legitimate infringement claims
• Prove infringement in court under the civil standard of proof

In civil copyright cases, plaintiffs must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not (51%) that the defendant committed the infringement.

When a copyright holder meets this burden through admissible evidence, the law allows statutory damages — up to $150,000 per work — even if the actual financial loss was far lower.

However, statutory damages were never intended to transform federal courts into settlement-generation mechanisms untethered from proof of actual infringement.

How BitTorrent Copyright Lawsuits Based on IP Address Evidence Depart from This Purpose

BitTorrent copyright lawsuits against individual internet subscribers typically follow a very different pattern.

These cases almost always rely on IP address evidence, claiming that an IP address was observed participating in a BitTorrent swarm associated with a copyrighted work.

Critically, many of these lawsuits lack the most important piece of forensic evidence:

The PCAP file — the packet capture data showing that the copyrighted content was actually downloaded or transmitted.

Without a PCAP file, plaintiffs often cannot prove:

• That the full copyrighted work was downloaded
• That any protected content was actually distributed
• That infringement occurred at all

Yet lawsuits are filed anyway.

The Procedural Structure That Amplifies the Problem

In IP address–based BitTorrent cases, copyright plaintiffs routinely:

• File lawsuits against a “John Doe” defendant, not a known individual
• Treat the internet account holder as the infringer, even though the account holder is often not the downloader
• Use an ISP subpoena to obtain subscriber information
• Allow ISPs to forward subpoena notices that confuse subscribers about their rights
• Demand multi-thousand-dollar settlements based on alleged statutory damage exposure
• Leverage fear of litigation costs, public exposure, and reputational harm
• Particularly exploit stigma when the copyrighted works involve adult content

When subscribers do not settle:

• Plaintiffs name and serve them as defendants
• Force them to incur substantial defense costs
• Dismiss the case before a ruling on the merits once a defense is mounted

This pattern ensures plaintiffs avoid:

• Proving infringement at trial
• Facing adverse rulings
• Paying attorney fees to wrongly accused defendants

Why This Litigation Model Undermines the Statutory Damages Framework

Each of these practices alone raises concerns. Taken together, they reveal a systemic misuse of statutory damages.

In these cases:

• Plaintiffs rarely intend to prove entitlement to statutory damages at trial
• Lawsuits are filed primarily to solicit settlements
• Defendants are deprived of the opportunity to obtain fee-shifting remedies
• Courts are used as leverage rather than adjudicators

Statutory damages are meant to be awarded after proof — not used as a threat to extract settlements.

When plaintiffs file suit without evidence of actual infringement, particularly without PCAP data, they are not pursuing the remedy Congress intended.

Why Actual Damages Are the More Appropriate Standard in IP Address–Based Cases

In my professional opinion, actual damages are the proper remedy in BitTorrent copyright infringement cases based on IP address evidence.

Actual damages are designed to compensate copyright holders for real, measurable losses caused by unlawful conduct.

Examples of Actual Damages in BitTorrent Cases

For movies or television content:

• The loss of a movie ticket
• The loss of a DVD or Blu-ray sale
• The loss of a rental fee (e.g., Amazon Prime, Apple TV)

For adult content:

• The loss of a subscription fee
• The loss of licensed access revenue

In addition, copyright holders should be entitled to recover:

• Court filing fees
• Reasonable attorney fees incurred to recover actual losses

Applying this standard:

• Fully compensates copyright holders
• Preserves deterrence
• Aligns liability with proven harm
• Removes incentives for abusive settlement practices

It also sends a clear message: legal access is cheaper than infringement — without weaponizing statutory damages.

Why Statutory Damages Are Inappropriate in These Circumstances

Statutory damages should not be awarded where:

• Plaintiffs lack evidence of actual infringement
• Lawsuits are filed without PCAP files
• Claims are based solely on IP address observations
• Plaintiffs dismiss cases to avoid rulings on the merits
• The litigation model depends on settlement pressure rather than proof

Filing lawsuits without evidence of actual injury, for the purpose of extracting settlements, is commonly referred to as copyright trolling.

Entities that aggregate copyrights solely to pursue infringement litigation — without creating the underlying works — are often described as Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs).

Many copyright plaintiffs in BitTorrent lawsuits are organized as non‑practicing entities — entities that hold or monetize copyright rights without having created the underlying work, and often operate in ways that prioritize litigation revenue over creativity. For a deeper analysis of why I believe NPE status should be applied to such entities and how their litigation practices harm defendants.

In my view, copyright trolls and NPEs should not be rewarded with statutory damages in IP address–based BitTorrent cases lacking proof of infringement.

Many internet subscribers reach this point with questions because these lawsuits rely on technical legal procedures and IP address allegations that are often misunderstood — the following answers address the most common points of confusion.

Frequently Asked Questions About Damages in BitTorrent Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

Conclusion: Why Actual Damages Are the Only Appropriate Remedy in These Cases

For all of these reasons, I do not believe that statutory damages should be awarded in BitTorrent copyright infringement lawsuits based on IP address evidence alone.

When copyright holders file lawsuits without PCAP files, without proof of actual downloading, and without the intent to litigate cases on the merits, they are misusing the remedies that copyright law provides them.

Statutory damages were never meant to be a threat used to extract settlements from internet subscribers who may not have infringed anything at all.

In these cases, actual damages are the correct standard — because they compensate copyright holders for real losses, discourage infringement in a proportional way, and prevent the federal courts from being used as settlement factories.

If copyright holders want the benefit of statutory damages, they should be required to do what the law intended: prove infringement with real evidence, in court, against the actual infringer.

The Secret Why Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits Will Never End.

Piracy cannot be stopped, but Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits will continue forever. WHY? Because Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits are based on monitoring the internet activities of downloaders, and they are simply too profitable for Strike 3 Holdings LLC to ever end them.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

INTRODUCTION – WHY THESE STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUITS WILL NEVER END.

I used to wonder whether copyright infringement lawsuits like the thousands of Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits filed each year (or the hundreds each month) would ever stop. As the owner of the Cashman Law Firm PLLC, and as an activist, I still do not believe that copyright holders should use the federal courts to extort a $10,000+ settlement for the download of a few copyrighted videos.

I have, however, come to understand that piracy will never end, and the copyright trolls (those copyright holders who choose to sue accused downloaders) will never stop suing.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >

Below are reasons why I do not think the Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuit Settlement Scheme will ever end:

REASON #1: To sue and obtain a settlement is much cheaper than to spend that same money to obtain customers on their subscription-based adult film websites.

Let’s start with a bit of sarcasm. It is probably too much to ask them to return to the traditional business model of selling $100/year subscriptions to their adult film websites… not when they could make $10,000+ in settlement per person they sue.

Quick Logic — if you understand this, you’ll understand why they keep suing people.

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC can either spend their money trying to get customers on their adult film websites, or they can spend that same money suing ISP account holders who might have downloaded their copyrighted videos illegally using bittorrent in return for a windfall settlement payment.

• $100/year subscription for one person;
• $10,000+ Strike 3 Settlement Amount for one lawsuit…
• CONCLUSION: $10,000/lawsuit vs. $100/year subscription is the equivalent of them selling 100 SUBSCRIBERS PURCHASING ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR ONE YEAR. How much would it cost them in advertising dollars to gain 100 subscribers? Or, they could pay $400 and file one Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit against ONE ISP account holder in return for one rewarding settlement payment.

As you can clearly see, it is cheaper to just sue downloaders rather than to try to make a profit the traditional way (trying to sell their subscription-based adult film services).

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

REASON #2: The settlement money they receive is a VERY PROFITABLE return for their “investment” (the filing fee they pay to file each lawsuit).

You must understand that it is simply TOO PROFITABLE for someone like Strike 3 Holdings LLC to file a lawsuit against an accused “John Doe Subscriber assigned IP address” as Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits often do. Why? Because the cost to file a lawsuit in a federal court is cheap compared to the rewards the copyright holders will get in return for filing that lawsuit.

[PERHAPS LINK HERE TO A SHORT ARTICLE ON STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUITS & SETTLEMENT AMOUNTS.

IN THAT ARTICLE, LINK TO THE MORE IN-DEPTH ARTICLES]

Strike 3 Holdings LLC, a copyright holder of adult-film brand names only pays a filing fee of ~$400 per lawsuit to sue an IP address or an ISP account subscriber in federal court.

In return for their “investment” of paying the filing fee for each lawsuit, they can potentially make a return on their investment of $10,000+ per lawsuit.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

SIDE ARTICLE: STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS MIAMI-DADE COUNTY-COURT FILINGS PROVIDE STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUITS A CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE TO FILING IN FEDERAL COURTS.

NOTE: There are even CHEAPER ways to sue an accused defendant (in State and County Courts). Although improper, Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits still make use of these improper venues because nobody stops them from doing so.

Why would Strike 3 Holdings file lawsuits in the Miami-Dade County Court (a STATE court, and not a FEDERAL court where copyright infringement lawsuits belong)?

Strike 3 Holdings Miami-Dade County Court Lawsuits are cheaper to file than federal court lawsuits.

STATE FILING FEES TO FILE A LAWSUIT (cheap) vs. FEDERAL COURT FILING FEES TO FILE A LAWSUIT (less cheap).

• A Federal Court copyright infringement civil lawsuit costs ~$400/lawsuit to sue ONE DEFENDANT.

• A state or county-based “Bill of Discovery” lawsuit costs around the same amount of money (~$350/lawsuit), BUT STATE-BASED LAWSUITS ARE CHEAPER because companies like Strike 3 Holdings could sue HUNDREDS of defendants IN ONE LAWSUIT FILING instead of suing ONE “John Doe Subscriber Assigned IP Address XYZ” defendant in ONE $400 federal court lawsuit.

As you can see, the filing fees to sue a defendant are cheap — whether Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits are filed in federal court, or obscenely moreso, whether they file the lawsuit in a state or county court under some obscure state law.

For that $400 filing fee in federal court, (or for that $350 filing fee in a state court), Strike 3 Holdings LLC hopes to achieve a return of TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS in settlement money to Strike 3 Holdings LLC in return for that small $350-$400 filing fee.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

REASON #3: Strike 3 Holdings LLC odds of success are high because they sue downloaders who likely downloaded their copyrighted titles.

I am saying this again — STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS ODDS OF SUCCESS ARE HIGH BECAUSE BECAUSE THEY SUE DOWNLOADERS WHO LIKELY DOWNLOADED THEIR COPYRIGHTED TITLES.

Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits are not filed until they have accumulated enough “damages” to ask for a large settlement which is multiplied by how many titles they believe you downloaded.

Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits use an “EXHIBIT A” spreadsheet and your IP Address history to prove their claims of infringement.

I originally went into too much depth discussing this topic. If you are interested in the topic, please click here to read what I wrote about Strike 3 Holdings’ EXHIBIT A spreadsheets.

REASON #4: Because most Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits settle out of court (and those that do not settle do not go to trial).

It would be a terrible hinderance to the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuit strategy if each and every accused defendant proceeded with litigation and eventually trial, even if they did the downloading of Strike 3 Holdings’ copyrighted videos.

Why? Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits really are an out-of-court settlement scheme. They have a limited number of attorneys compared to the hundreds of lawsuits that are filed every single month.

Strike 3 Holdings LLC simply do not have the resources to push each and every defendant through the federal court system, from pre-trial hearings to discovery, to summary judgement motions, to trial and onward.

If every defendant fought his case — guilty or not — Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits would end tomorrow.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

However, let’s be real. Think of the prisoner’s dilemma. Nobody wants to be the one person who takes their case to trial. These lawsuits are REAL copyright infringement lawsuits filed with the full force and enforcement of the federal courts.

A $150,000 judgement will destroy anyone’s financial future, and this is enough of a deterrent to prevent each and every person from proceeding with litigation.

Even if a small handful of you retain me to litigate your cases — even if you did the downloads — it’s terrible for me to say this, but for the same price you would have paid me to take you through the pre-trial stages of litigating this case, you probably could have settled the claims against you for less money.

This is why I personally find these cases as evil (in a morally “good vs. evil” kind of way). The little guy has no choice except to resolve the claims out of court [if he did the downloads], or he is at the mercy of the plaintiff attorneys who will decide how far into the lawsuit they want to push him without him being able to fight back (or to pay an attorney to represent him to fight back).

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

What if I did not download the Strike 3 Holdings videos?

This is only if the accused defendant actually did the downloads. If he did not do the downloads, then the process of being found not guilty in these lawsuits is VERY EASY (and I could explain them to you).

Simply put, it is not your job to prove that you DID NOT download a particular video. It is THEIR JOB to prove that you did. The Strike 3 Holdings Lawsuits do this with your testimony at the deposition under oath (e.g., “sitting in front of a court reporter and answering their questions.”)

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

Enlisting the help of politicians and federal judges.

In sum, until some politician gets involved and stops these bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits (or, call them “piracy” lawsuits or whatever), these lawsuits will continue because it is too profitable for the copyright holder to file these lawsuit and solicit settlements in return for not proceeding with litigation and eventually trial.

We have been successful over the years in changing the minds of federal judges one at a time — see our “policy letter” that we used to send to judges — and we have been successful in showing up in court and explaining that the copyright holder has no interest or ability to proceed with this case, and they are only using this lawsuit to force a settlement from the defendant — but this is a long and tedious road.

Judges own their own courtrooms, and they allow these cases to proceed. Some don’t — many don’t — but as soon as you receive an ISP Subpoena Notification Letter in the mail that you were implicated in a copyright infringement lawsuit against you, your judge has let the case proceed.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

REASON #5: It is easier for a federal judge to let this case proceed rather than stop it because these cases settle out of court eventually with minimal effort.

I would hate to blame the judges for allowing the thousands of Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits to proceed, but really, with lawmakers which are not focused on copyright issues, for the last decade+, they have been the only gatekeepers who are legally able to stop these lawsuits. They have not.

I expect that since most Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits settle out of court (for “guilty” defendants), and the others are dismissed (e.g., after the deposition where the defendant did not do the downloads), these cases ALMOST NEVER GO TO TRIAL.

So as long as the judge rubber-stamps the case, gives the plaintiff freedom to do whatever they want to do, the case will be dismissed on its own in just a few months with little-to-no effort by the judge.

Problem solved for the judge. Problem solved for the copyright holder. The little guy gets financially destroyed in the process, and this is truly unfortunate.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

FINAL REASON #6: Because we do not value our privacy, and we let ourselves be tracked and sued. Because we do not protect our internet traffic with a VPN.

HOW STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS LAWSUITS COULD GO AWAY FOREVER. USE A VPN.

Disclaimer: Understand that as an attorney, I am never advocating that anyone break the law. I am also not advocating that anyone download someone else’s copyrighted videos without a license. Stealing is wrong.

I think I have made my point with the headings. The final reason why Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits continue is because we do not value our personal privacy. We do not take steps to prevent others from snooping on our activities, and we do not protect our internet traffic with a VPN.

I have said this for years — IF everyone used a VPN to hide their IP address, then these cases would stop literally overnight. Most VPN providers are outside of the US, and they do not keep logs on their users’ activities.

If there is an ISP subpoena sent to a VPN provider about a particular account, and that VPN provider does not keep logs on who was assigned a particular IP address at a particular date and time, there can be NO CONNECTION between the downloader and the IP address he used when connecting to the VPN.

Hence, the copyright holder would never have been able to determine who was the ISP account subscriber assigned a particular IP address because it would have been the VPN’s protected IP address that connected to the Bittorrent swarm, not the IP address assigned to the subscriber by the ISP.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

There is so much to say here, but this article is merely discussing the financial benefits to the Strike 3 Holdings LLC plaintiff to keep filing these Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits forever (and why I believe they will never stop suing downloaders).

The best I could do is suggest a way that there are no longer any downloaders to receive their lawsuits. If everyone used proper VPNs that protected the identities of their VPN subscribers, then these lawsuits would end overnight.

The reality, however, is that there will always be DNS leaks even when using a VPN (this is avoidable with a kill switch), and there will be individuals who do not value their privacy or individuals who think they will never get caught downloading copyrighted materials.

There will also be an endless supply of internet users who are simply unaware that it is wrong to download copyrighted videos without a license, so these Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits will likely continue forever.

IN CONCLUSION:

Obviously I would like to see these bittorrent-based copyright infringement “John Doe Subscriber” lawsuits disappear overnight. But the reality is that they are here to stay because there will always be an endless supply of potential defendants to sue for copyright infringement.

I would love for there to be a capitalist response to the piracy problem — perhaps make copyrighted content more readily available and for cheaper. Perhaps Strike 3 Holdings, LLC and similar companies need to find a more profitable way to sell access to their videos without having to resort to copyright infringement lawsuits, apparent extortion, and heavy-handed settlement demands.

For now, the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits seem to be the most profitable method of enforcing their copyrights, so I expect that they will continue for the time being, and this is truly unfortunate.

Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > >

—

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info[at] cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.

One more attempt at a brief Strike 3 Holdings overview.

These articles are never brief, no matter how hard I try to make them concise. 🙂 Have you ever heard of our Strike 3 Holdings Reddit Overview? This is it!

Strike 3 Holdings has been causing quite a stir on Reddit and other social media platforms lately – and for good reason. The company specializes in subpoenaing infringers of their copyrighted content. Unfortunately, they’ve recently become notorious for filing lump-sum settlement demands against these individuals. This has led to an increase in legal cases around this issue over the years.

So what is Strike 3 Holdings LLC really all about? Stick around as we break down this emerging monster of litigation law – from who they are targeting to how much money people can be expected to pay them upon settlement or court judgement. Let’s briefly dive into the Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits.

However, I am embarrassed to say that this article was written just to get your attention. If you want actual content that can help you figure out exactly what to do with the ISP subpoena letter that you received in the mail, instead of reading on, I strongly suggest that you instead read these articles:

ESSENTIAL ARTICLES:

• STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS SUBPOENA LAWSUITS – JUST THE FACTS.
  
• WALKTHROUGH: WHAT IS THE EASIEST WAY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISP SUBPOENA NOTIFICATION LETTER THAT I RECEIVED AND WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS ON HOW TO PROCEED?

IN-DEPTH ARTICLES:

• Strike 3 Holdings LLC John Doe Subpoena Lawsuit – In Depth – FAQ
  
• Strike 3 Holdings: SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS and SETTLEMENT PRICES: More Than You Ever Wanted to Know

ALSO, THESE ARTICLES ARE “IMPORTANT TO KNOW.”

• Beware of the defense attorney “settlement factory.”
  
• “Anonymous Settlements”
  
• REVISITED: Why Motions To Quash an ISP Subpoena Have Failed.

[FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info [at] cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.]

What Is Strike 3 Holdings?

Strike 3 Holdings may sound like the name of a rebellious punk band, but it’s actually a company with a very different agenda. In fact, it’s one that has raised some eyebrows and sparked some controversy in recent years. So what exactly is it?

Imagine a company that creates thousands of adult films and sells subscriptions to those videos online. Then imagine that someone (them?) leaks their videos onto the online file sharing networks. Then imagine that this company is so upset that they feel the patriotic duty to use the federal courts to right the wrongs they have suffered by suing each and every internet user who allegedly clicked on a link and viewed one of their copyrighted films. That is Strike 3 Holdings.

What does Strike 3 Holdings own?

Strike 3 Holdings LLC is a company that has filed thousands of cases in Federal Courts over copyright infringement from adult entertainment films. These cases are filed in the District Courts (for example, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, etc.). The lawsuit is usually filed against an unknown defendant identified as “John Doe,” and to reveal the identify of the ISP subscriber, they ask the court to allow them to send a subpoena to the Internet Service Provider (ISP) where the downloads allegedly happened.

The plaintiff in these cases argues that each defendant has downloaded one or more of their adult films without permission and accuses them of copyright infringement. In response, defendants are faced with an uneven playing field — do they spend thousands of dollars to respond to the claims against them, or do they spend thousands more to settle with Strike 3 Holdings?

Based on the ISP subpoena letters and the way they are written, the account holders often are told to file a motion to quash the subpoenas, however, I’m pretty sure that is a bad idea.

In some cases, so-called “defense attorneys” who often merely run a volume-based settlement business (I call them “settlement factories”) claim representing accused defendants sell them on agreeing to anonymous settlements with Strike 3 Holdings.

These attorneys use fear-based tactics to scare would-be clients into settling. They rush that accused defendant into hiring them so that they could quickly (dare I say, with minimal time invested) resolve the claims against their new client. That way, any personal information regarding who was sued does not become public record.

For those looking for further information on how this process works and what happens when a company wins a lawsuit against individual infringers, Reddit forums like /r/piracy are sometimes useful resources as people share experiences and advice associated with Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits and subpoenas.

Lawsuits Pursuing Infringers In California

Ah, California – land of sunshine, surfers, and…lawsuits? Well, when it comes to Strike 3 Holdings, that seems to be the case. This adult entertainment company has been pursuing infringers in California through its many lawsuits.

I guess what is important to know is that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is run out of California, and their main attorney — Lincoln Bandlow — runs their lawsuits from there.

Motion to Quash

Motion to Quash? People often ask me if our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC will do a Motion to Squash (this is terrible humor, but I do hear it called this almost weekly). But in all seriousness, if you’ve received a subpoena from Strike 3 Holdings, you may be wondering what a motion to quash entails.

I’ve written about this topic multiple times, and since it always comes up, you can read more about a Motion to Quash here.

How do you settle with Strike 3 Holdings?

Uh oh, do you think you might need to settle? Don’t panic just yet. If you’re looking to settle with this adult film company, there are a few things you need to know first.

Let’s do a deep-dive on settlements, and how you can potentially resolve this legal issue and move on with your life.

[Just so you know, I don’t encourage these, and in that article, you’ll find a bunch of reasons and strategies on how NOT to settle. But for those of you who don’t want to sit in front of a court reporter (once named and served) and answer questions under oath, yeah, I get it.]

Since this is a brief overview article, I am covering Anonymous Settlements NOT because I believe in them, but because the other attorneys who’s “Google AdWords-sponsored website ads” that you clicked on will for sure be pushing these things on you.

Anonymous Settlement

So, you decided you want to settle, and you don’t want anyone to know about this. After all, just being associated with these kinds of lawsuits can harm your reputation, your marriage, and more. But, don’t panic just yet!

Did you know that an anonymous settlement is possible? That’s right – it’s possible to reach a settlement without revealing your identity. However, please take me seriously when I share some real reasons why an anonymous settlement for this kind of lawsuit could be a really bad idea.

Strike 3 Holdings Reddit Posts

With its massive user base, Reddit is often a go-to source for all kinds of information and discussion about Strike 3 Holdings LLC cases. Depending on the time of year, searching “Strike 3 Holdings” on the Reddit platform will reveal an abundance of threads that range from questions about individual cases to debates over copyright law. Though it can be difficult to parse through the sometimes complicated legal jargon, at first glance, Reddit’s wealth of resources and insights can provide valuable insight into understanding the ins and outs of Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits.

But as always, be wary of people who are offering “legal advice,” especially if they are not licensed attorneys. Going one step further, I can’t believe “Strike 3 Reddit” is actually a think I need to write about. I looked online there (I visit Reddit on my personal device, but only for fun), and I saw a bunch of questions being answered by… you guessed it — settlement factories. I did let out a sigh in frustration when I saw them recommend a settlement… even when the person asking a question didn’t do the download. Uch!

Some common topics on Reddit include:

• s Subpoena issued by Strike 3 Holdings;
• Settlements with Strike 3 Holdings;
• Whether or not their owner, James Gibson, is a real person;
• Federal District Court assigned case numbers for each lawsuit;
• How many defendants are named in each case; and how much settlements have been offered to them; and – Whether or not a Motion To Quash was filed against some particular Plaintiff.

Additionally, discussions around whether enough evidence has been provided by the plaintiff attorneys in order to prove infringement (the link I just provided here is the answer — that the so-called evidence they would need is the PCAP file, and this is missing in almost every one of their lawsuits) is present can also be seen on these threads.

It’s important to note that while this kind of information can be helpful when trying to decide whether or not you should settle a claim with Strike 3 holdings, it should always be taken as just one factor among many when making such decisions. If you don’t mind cringing for a moment, you should really consider speaking to an attorney (me or anyone else) rather than taking advice from people who are just as curious about these lawsuits as you now are.

PS – Just in case you wanted to see this article on Reddit, here you go.

What happens when a company wins a lawsuit?

Well, well, well. Looks like somebody won a lawsuit. Congrats to them — they must be feeling pretty good right about now. But what does this ever happen with Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits?

Haha, sorry, no. These lawsuits end after discovery is completed, before either side files for a motion for summary judgement. Yeah, that was not English.

Once a John Doe Defendant is named and served as a defendant, he enters into litigation. Once he files an answer with the court denying all of the claims against him, each side gets to prove their case. The plaintiff attorney likely does not have evidence that you actually did the downloading (their “EXHIBIT A” is not sufficient evidence to find you guilty of copyright infringement).

Thus, he will try to get you to agree to attend a deposition, where he would ask you questions “under oath” (which means your answers will be considered ‘testimony’). If you did the downloading of their copyrighted videos, it will be here that you’ll be admitting guilt to copyright infringement (which means you’ll be settling soon after the deposition). If you didn’t do it, it will be here that the plaintiff attorney will be dismissing you from the lawsuit.

All said and done, these cases almost NEVER go to trial. They die or defendants are forced to settle after the deposition.

Conclusion

Strike 3 Holdings LLC is a company that pursues copyright infringement cases on behalf of adult content creators. The company is successful in going after alleged infringers, and has been able to achieve many settlements outside of the courtroom.

The company is able to use the federal court subpoena system to force the ISPs to uncover the identities of the accused downloaders who thought their internet activities were anonymous. These same accused defendants get thrust into a litigation world they don’t know anything about, and because they don’t realize that filing a motion to quash is usually not a good idea, they end up sucked into some reality where they just paid someone $2,500 to file a motion to quash only to learn that they lost.

Then, that defendant is manipulated by the attorney into settling the claims against him — even if he did not do the downloading. If he does not settle, he is told that he will be named and served as a defendant, and this is not always the case.

But, I guess if there is any advice I can give, I would concede that while there might be enough information about Strike 3 Holdings LLC lawsuits available on Reddit and other similar forums, this is my advice. It is important for anyone considering any interaction with Strike 3 Holdings LLC (whether settling, whether filing a motion to quash, or whether employing any of the many strategies we share on the TorrentLawyer website), to do their own research and consult with an attorney first before doing anything that could enmesh them in a spider web of annoyance which will cost them more money they would have ever wanted to spend on questionable lawsuits like the Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits.

—
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Again, if you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a lawsuit, 1. and 2. (below) are the TWO (2) main articles you should read immediately:

1. “ISP Subpoena Notification Received – WALKTHROUGH.”
   
2. “JUST THE FACTS.”
   
3. “Everything You Need To Know in One Page About Your Lawsuit [FAQ]”
   
4. “In-Depth.  Their Lawsuits, Their Strategies, and Their Settlements”

FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY: To set up a free consultation to speak to an attorney about your lawsuit, click here.  Lastly, please feel free to e-mail me at info[at] cashmanlawfirm.com, or call 713-364-3476 to speak to me now about your case (I do prefer you read the articles first), or to get your questions answered.

CONTACT FORM: If you have a question or comment about what I have written, and you want to keep it *for my eyes only*, please feel free to use the form below. The information you post will be e-mailed to me, and I will be happy to respond.

NOTE: No attorney client relationship is established by sending this form, and while the attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me, I do not become your attorney until we sign a contract together.  That being said, please do not state anything “incriminating” about your case when using this form, or more practically, in any e-mail.