Malibu Media, LLC v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 07 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | 12 C 6672 |
| Parties | MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DAVID J. REYNOLDS, FELIX STANEK, GREGORY BLAKE and JOHN DOES 2-8, 10, 11, 14, and 15, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC ("Malibu Media"), a California film company that owns copyrights to a large number of pornographic films, filed this suit against David J. Reynolds, Felix Stanek, Gregory Blake, and eleven other anonymous defendants known to Malibu Media only by their alleged Internet Protocol ("IP") address (collectively, the "Defendants").1 Malibu Media alleges that the Defendants committed direct and contributory infringement by copying and distributing a website containing fifteen federally registered copyrighted movies owned by Malibu Media in violation of the United States Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. One of the unidentified defendants, John Doe 15 ("Doe 15"), moves for an Order to Show Cause for why Malibu Media's Complaint should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Doe 15 also moves to quash a subpoena served by Malibu Media upon Doe 15's Internet Service Provider, sever based on improper joinder, and proceed anonymously through the dispositive motion phase of this case. For the reasons stated herein, Doe 15's Motion to Quash and Motion to Show Cause are denied. Doe 15's Motion to Proceed Anonymously is granted. Because theCourt, on its own motion, severs all remaining Defendants in this case with the exception of Doe 15, Doe 15's Motion to Sever is denied as moot.
Malibu Media alleges that the Defendants were all users of "BitTorrent," a file sharing protocol (or set of computer rules) commonly used for distributing and sharing data on the Internet. According to Malibu Media each of the Defendants used the BitTorrent protocol to copy and distribute, without authorization, a torrent file containing fifteen of Malibu Media's registered works (the "Works"). Investigators retained by Malibu Media identified fifteen IP addresses, listed in Exhibit A of Malibu Media's Amended Complaint, that are alleged to have used the BitTorrent protocol to reproduce or distribute the Works. The individuals using these IP addresses are alleged to have engaged in infringing activity on different dates between June 9, 2012 and July 28, 2012 (Pl. Ex. A, Dkt. No. 24-1, p. 1.)
BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer file sharing system used to transfer files over the Internet. The BitTorrent protocol's popularity stems from its ability to distribute large files without imposing a heavy burden on the source computer and network. Before BitTorrent, users seeking to download data through peer-to-peer file sharing networks relied on the single-source technique, which required a user to form a one-to-one connection with a host computer for the purpose of downloading a file from that host. While the single-source method may have been adequate for transferring relatively small amounts of data, it proved cumbersome for users seeking to transfer larger data files. This is because the single source method requires one host computer and network to shoulder the entire burden of uploading a file to a particular user. The BitTorrent protocol overcomes this limitation by allowing users to join a "swarm" of host computers to download and upload fractions, or "pieces," of large files from each othersimultaneously, resulting in a reduced load on any one computer. While use of the BitTorrent protocol itself is not illegal, many of its users use it to unlawfully download and distribute copyrighted works.
In order to join a swarm and use the BitTorrent protocol, a user must first download a BitTorrent "Client Program," a software program that serves as the user's interface during the process of uploading and downloading data. Individuals who join a swarm to download and distribute a particular file are called "peers." A swarm is composed of two types of peers: "leechers" and "seeds." Annemarie Bridy, Is Online Copyright Enforcement Scaleable?, 13 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 695, 700 (2011). When a seed user decides to distribute a new file, he or she uses the Client Program to create a "torrent descriptor file." The Client Program then takes the target computer file, also known as the "Initial Seed," and divides it into segments called "pieces." Once the initial seed is divided into pieces, the Client Program assigns each piece a unique alphanumeric identifier (a "hash identifier") and records each piece's hash identifier within the torrent descriptor file. After the Initial Seed is created and uploaded to a torrent site, other peers may begin to download and upload pieces of the computer file to which the torrent is linked. BitTorrent's groundbreaking feature - its ability to allow users to pull small pieces of a sought-after file from several host computers - ensures that no single host is burdened with the task of uploading the entire file to a particular user. In order to protect the integrity of each piece and to ensure that any modification to a piece can be reliably detected, the hash identifier for a particular piece is compared to the hash identifier recorded in the torrent descriptor file for that piece every time it is downloaded by another user. Thus the hashidentifier works like an electronic fingerprint, identifying the source and origin of the piece and verifying that the piece is authentic, error-free, and uncorrupted.
In order to download a file using the BitTorrent protocol, a peer user must access a "torrent site," which indexes torrent files currently available for copying and distribution. As a peer receives pieces of the seed file, that peer automatically begins to upload those pieces to other peers in the swarm. In this way, BitTorrent's architecture resolves the free-rider problem that plagued older file-sharing networks such as Napster, Kazaa, and Limewire. Unlike its predecessors, which allowed users to download the content they desired without ever having to upload content to other peers, BitTorrent forces every downloader to also be an uploader of the transferred file, "making it architecturally impossible for any peer on the network to take without giving." Id. at 700-01; see also Call of the Wild Movie, LLC v. Does 1-1062, 770 F. Supp. 2d 332, 343 (D.D.C. 2011). The BitTorrent protocol does not entirely avoid the free-rider problem, however, because a peer is only forced to "pay it forward" by uploading to other users while he or she remains connected to the swarm. A peer may still avoid the burden of uploading to other peers by disconnecting from the swarm after obtaining a complete copy of the desired file.
Once a peer user has received every piece of the file, the BitTorrent Client Program rearranges the various pieces into their correct order, resulting in a file identical to the initial seed. This file becomes an additional seed within the same swarm, and remains available to other peers as long as the user that is in possession of the file remains connected to the swarm through the Client Program. The presence of the additional seed file also increases the speed, efficiency, and reliability of downloading activity for future peers entering the swarm. See Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1-27, No. 12 Civ. 3873 (JMF), 2012 WL 2036035, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2012). Therefore, users derive a benefit from the interconnected architecture of the BitTorrentprotocol even though they generally do not communicate with one another and will not have information about other users in their swarm other than their IP addresses. However, if a peer leaves the swarm after obtaining the seed file by closing the Client Program, changing the Client Program's settings to turn off automatic uploading, disconnecting from the Internet, or turning off his computer, peers who subsequently enter the swarm do not benefit from the earlier peer's activity.
As the BitTorrent protocol allows users to share information anonymously, Malibu Media knows the eleven anonymous defendants only by their IP addresses. These IP addresses were assigned to the Defendants by their respective Internet Service Providers. On September 5, 2012, Malibu Media filed a motion for early discovery seeking leave to serve third party subpoenas pursuant to Rule 45 upon the unidentified Defendants' Internet Service Providers prior to a Rule 26(f) conference so that it may learn the Doe Defendants' true identities. Doe 15, one of the yet-to-be identified defendants in this action, argues the following in response to Malibu Media's motion for early discovery: (1) Malibu Media lacks standing to bring this action; (2) the subpoena seeking his identity should be quashed because it would impose an undue burden on Doe 15; (3) Doe 15 has been improperly joined in this lawsuit and should be severed from the case; and (4) Doe 15 should be permitted to proceed anonymously through the dispositive motion phase of the proceedings because his privacy interests outweigh the public's interest in knowing his identity.
In order to acquire standing to pursue a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show the ownership of a valid copyright. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499U.S. 340, 361 (1991); HyperQuest, Inc. v. N'Site Solutions, Inc., 632 F.3d 377, 381 (7th Cir. 2011) () (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 501(b)). Under the Copyright Act, copyright ownership "vests initially in the author or authors of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial