Tag Archives: CP Productions v. John Doe

Indiana man ordered to pay over $150,000 in download case

09 Tuesday Apr 2013

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

The first of the Indiana download cases has proceeded to a Final Judgment and the damage amount awarded by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson won’t please the hundreds of other Indiana defendants still facing a default judgment. After he failed to present a defense to the illegal download of “Maryjane’s Second Visit”, a Default Judgment was entered against the Defendant. The damage award, which includes the maximum allowable copyright damages, tallied in at $151,425. No matter your view on pornography or copyright infringement, that’s a pretty steep fine for the digital equivalent of sneaking in the back door of a nudie show.

What do you think of the judgment? Did the Judge apply discretion in awarding the maximum amount? Either way, Judge Magnus-Stinson has now provided the other Indiana download defendants with an upper limit on how much they should spend on a defense.

CP Productions v. John Doe – Doe Files Objection to Subpoena, Plaintiff Responds

20 Monday Aug 2012

Posted by in Indiana, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

See below for the two latest filings in the CP Productions v. John Doe lawsuit. One of the John Doe defendants, filing simply as an IP address, filed an objection that the subpoena is “an invasion of privacy.” What do you think of Plaintiff’s response that peer-to-peer file-sharers have limited privacy interest? Let’s see if any of the other defendants file a more substantive objection.

Stay tuned for updates.

Objection to Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or objects or to permit inspection of premises in a Civil Action:

Plaintiff’s Response to Movant’s Objection:

CP Productions v. John Doe – Motion to Subpoena Internet Service Providers

15 Friday Jun 2012

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, ,

For those following the CP Productions v. John Doe BitTorrent lawsuit filed recently in the Southern District of Indiana, I thought I’d detail the first steps in the Plaintiff’s litigation strategy. First, Plaintiff uses its “proprietary P2P network forensic software” to monitor and collect IP addresses of BitTorrent downloaders. They then file a Complaint in the jurisdiction du jour (over the last two years they’ve been filing all over the U.S. looking for courts willing to play along…CP Productions v. John Doe is the first lawsuit of this type filed in Indiana). Plaintiff then files a motion asking the Court to issue a subpoena to the downloaders’ Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to obtain the personal information (name, address) of the John Does. Most courts have granted this motion (see example below).

Once an ISP receives a subpoena, it will contact the downloader, alerting them to the subpoena and that their personal information will be disclosed by a set deadline. Some ISPs have decided to challenge the subpoena, but most have simply played along, presumably happy that they’re not included in the lawsuit. From there, it’s up to the downloader to decide whether to settle, defend themself or just wait and hope the lawsuit gets thrown out. If nothing is done by the ISP’s deadline, the ISP will share the downloaders’ information and the downloader will receive a new letter directly from Plaintiff.

Stay tuned for more updates as the case proceeds. If you have questions, feel free to leave them in the comments. However, there are numerous helpful websites already out there with general information about BitTorrent download cases. I’ll be trying to focus primarily on the specifics of this Indiana case. Coming up…profiles of Plaintiff’s counsel and Judge Magnus-Stinson.

CP Productions, Inc. v. John Doe
Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-00808-JMS-DML

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference:

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference:

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – CP Productions v. John Doe

14 Thursday Jun 2012

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Just weeks after getting its own keyword advertising case, Indiana now has its very own BitTorrent download case. The Plaintiff, CP Productions, is an Arizona-based adult entertainment company and the file allegedly downloaded is “GH Hustlers – Maryjane’s Second Visit.” The Defendant, currently unidentified, is described as a “serial infringer of copyrights in adult content.” Besides a copyright claim, the Plaintiff also makes claims of Civil Conspiracy and Contributory Infringement and provides a list of 448 IP addresses alleged to have participated in a BitTorrent swarm with the named Defendant. If you’re a BitTorrent user, you’ll want to check the list (see Exhibit A below) and see if your IP address appears. If so, you could soon be a part of this lawsuit. That doesn’t mean it’s time to worry but you will want to begin to educate yourself on the case.

I’ll be following this lawsuit closely and will provide updates as it proceeds. If you’re interested in reading more now, check out DieTrollDie, an informative blog discussing this type of download case. Similar cases are going on all over the country with mixed results. Judge Magnus-Stinson is a no-nonsense judge, so it will be interesting to see whether this case can find any traction in her courtroom.

CP Productions, Inc. v. John Doe

Court Case Number:    1:12-cv-00808-JMS-DML
File Date:    Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Plaintiff:     CP Productions, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel:     Matthew Edward Dumas of Hostetter & O’Hara
Defendant:     John Doe
Cause:    Copyright Infringement, Civil Conspiracy, Contributory Infringement
Court:    Southern District of Indiana
Judge:     Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Exhibit A – IP Addresses of “Civil Conspirators”