Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Strike 3 Holdings Copyright Infringement Defense Tips
Strike 3 Holdings Copyright Infringement Defense Tips
Go to our popular Legal Channel for great videos about copyright infringement
defense. Over 38k subscribers and 4 mil video views. AttorneySteveVideos.com
Introduction
When a person gets the so-called “love letter” from their ISP notifying them
that their I.P. address was used to download and share their movies without
permission, and setting a deadline for the subscriber to raise any objections or to
seek to quash the subpoena, (not generally an effective strategy for federal court
cases), it can become very stressful to understand what happened, what your rights
are, and to consider if there are any defenses to copyright infringement or other
mitigating factors. This blog contains some important things to note.
There are several instances where raising the proper defense against Strike
3 Holdings can help you avoid paying their large settlement demands (which can
be as high as $50,000). Here are a few items to think of for anyone caught in their
IP enforcement web. This company files HUNDREDS upon HUNDREDS of lawsuits
each year and will likely hit the 10,000 case filings mark next year.
In Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (73.225.38.130) in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington is a case concerning copyright infringement.
Strike 3 Holdings sued “John Doe” for downloading and sharing their films without
permission. The court granted Strike 3 Holdings' motion for expedited discovery
and allowed them to subpoena the Doe's internet service provider (ISP) to learn his
identity. The court also denied Doe's motion to quash the subpoena, finding that
Doe failed to demonstrate how the requested information was overly broad,
unduly burdensome, or harassing. This is how each BitTorrent case typically starts.
However, in this case, the Defendant denied any file sharing of their digital
content and disputed their claims and filed a counterclaim for declaratory
judgment for non-infringement of copyright.
• IP address spoofing;
• the existence of unsecured routers;
• the ability of malware to crack passwords or open backdoors;
• the sharing of IP addresses among family members, roommates, guests,
neighbors, and others;
• and the random assignment of IP addresses to a general location if a more
specific one cannot be identified by geolocation services. See Strike 3
Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 351 F. Supp. 3d 160, 162 (D.D.C. 2018);
• Moreover, dynamic IP addresses might be reassigned to many different
individuals during a short timeframe, and these frequent changes create a
significant chance of misidentification. See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, 2019
WL 5446239 at *11 (D.N.J. Oct. 24, 2019).
These are some other things that should be reviewed in every case.
Courts around the nation have expressed increasing concerns that, given the
nature of the films at issue, defendants may feel coerced to settle these suits
merely to prevent public disclosure of their identifying information, even if they
believe they have been misidentified. See, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No.
2:18-cv-00824-CB, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130803, 2018 WL 3688415, at *1 n.2 (W.D.
Pa. Aug. 3, 2018).
("Of particular concern is the possibility that the names and addresses that
the service providers will connect to the IP addresses identified in the complaint
may not be those of the individuals who actually downloaded the
film."); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 18-cv-2648-VEC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 587,
2019 WL 78987, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2019) ("As numerous district courts in
this Circuit have pointed out, copyright holders such as Plaintiff are repeat litigants
who have, in the past, engaged in 'abusive litigation practices,' including coercive
settlement practices."); Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 1:18-cv-2205-RC-GMH,
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182800, 2018 WL 5297816, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2018).
("[T]here is a real risk that a defendant might be falsely identified and forced
to defend themselves against unwarranted allegations or that an innocent
defendant may be coerced into an unjust settlement with the plaintiff to prevent
the dissemination of publicity surrounding unfounded allegations.")
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:21-cv-993 (MPS), 2021 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 196955, at *2-3 (D. Conn. Oct. 13, 2021) – Geolocation technology
challenges?
• virtual private networks and onion routing spoof IP addresses (for good and
ill);
• routers and other devices are unsecured;
• malware cracks passwords and opens backdoors;
• multiple people (family, roommates, guests, neighbors, etc.) share the
same IP address;
• a geolocation service might randomly assign addresses to some general
location if it cannot more specifically identify another
See Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe, No. 3:21-cv-993 (MPS), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
196955, at *3-4 (D. Conn. Oct. 13, 2021). These are still more defenses to consider
in defending the accused downloader.
Conclusion
This blog scratches the surface on legal concepts that may be important in
defending Strike 3 Holdings, LLC copyright infringement claims. Our firm has
handled hundreds of these cases and saved our clients millions of dollars in
settlements over the years. Strike 3 employees a team of regional copyright
lawyers who bring these federal court cases in states such as California, Texas,
Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Florida and other states.
This blog was written by Steven C. Vondran, IP & Technology lawyer based in
San Francisco, California. We can be reached at vondranlegal.com or by phone at
(877) 276-5084. This is general legal information only and not legal advice.