Last Updated on February 10, 2026 by Rob Cashman
Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP is once again making seemingly unnoticed moves in the world of copyright enforcement. This time, he has filed a new lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, leveraging 512(h) subpoenas to unmask the identities of defendants accused of illegally downloading copyrighted content, just as he did in 2019 in Hawaii.
I wrote about what he was doing then in the “Hawaii’s 512(h) subpoenas unmask identities in a sneaky way” article.
The new case, Capstone Studios Corp. v. CenturyLink Communications LLC doing business as Lumen Technologies Group (Case No. 1:24-mc-00071, or more commonly referred to as 24-mc-71), highlights this attorney’s continued commitment to pursuing alleged infringers.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
Table of Contents
What are §512(h) Subpoenas
The §512(h) subpoena that Kerry Culpepper is using in his lawsuits is based on a provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). It allows copyright holders to obtain information about the identity of individuals who may have infringed their copyrights online.
Here’s how it works:
When a copyright holder believes that their work is being infringed upon, they can issue a notice to the online service provider (OSP; throughout our websites, I usually refer to them as internet service providers, or “ISPs”) under DMCA’s “safe harbor” provisions. If the ISP complies by taking down the allegedly infringing content, the copyright holder can then use the 512(h) process to seek the identity of the person responsible for the infringement.
To initiate a §512(h) subpoena, the copyright holder must go to a federal court and request that the court issue a subpoena to the ISP. This document requires the ISP to provide information about the user, such as their name, address, and in these cases, usernames, logins, or other details that he corroborate with the infringing activities. The court generally issues this subpoena if the copyright holder demonstrates that they have a “good faith belief” (a legal term) that the information is needed to identify and potentially pursue legal action against the infringer.
Overall, the §512(h) subpoena is a mechanism designed to balance the enforcement of copyright laws with the privacy rights of individuals, ensuring that copyright holders have a path to address potential infringements while also providing procedural safeguards for those accused. In my opinion as an attorney, 512(h) is flawed, however, because the protection is one-sided — only favoring the copyright holders and their attorneys.
Overview of the 24-mc-71 Case
In the 24-mc-71 case, Culpepper IP is again utilizing 512(h) to obtain the identities of individuals suspected of downloading copyrighted films without authorization. This time, he is doing the same thing in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. This method, which he previously employed in similar cases, has proven effective. With this strategy, he opens up a case, gets the court to authorize a 512(h) subpoena, and then as quickly as the case opened, it closes — seemingly without a trace. But there is a ‘trail of hurt’ that he causes through these filings, because shortly after the case closed, Culpepper starts sending 512(h) subpoenas to the ISPs (here, Lumen) forcing them to turn over the names, address, and other relevant information of their customers who are accused of downloading, streaming, or viewing his clients’ copyrighted titles.
One of the primary focuses of this new case (24-mc-71) is the enforcement of copyright protection for his client, Capstone Studios Corp. The studio is seeking to identify individuals who are accused of illegally sharing and downloading their films. Among the titles referenced in his paperwork are “Breathe” and “Boy Kills World, (appearing as boy.kills.world in the paperwork)” which appear to be central to this filing. The plaintiff attorney’s approach involves sending Lumen subpoenas to CenturyLink, which is doing business as Lumen Technologies Group, to reveal the identities of their customers allegedly involved in copyright infringement.
The Lumen Subpoena and Its Implications
The Lumen subpoena and the letter from Lumen (the “Lumen Letter”) is the first thing CenturyLink subscribers see when they are sent a copy of the 512(h) subpoena in the Colorado 1:24-mc-00071 case. By issuing these subpoenas, Culpepper IP aims to compel the ISP to disclose the personal information of its customers who are suspected of downloading the copyrighted films belonging to his clients. The Lumen letter, which is the formal communication accompanying the subpoena, outlines the legal demand for account holder information and it is the legal basis for the demand. This method of using the 512(h) subpoena appears to be a new ‘stealth’ process to enforce copyright laws and hold alleged infringers accountable.
[This short video is a quick introduction to this article, entitled, “Culpepper’s §512(h) Subpoenas (“Lumen Subpoenas”) in under a minute.“]
Impact on CenturyLink ISP Subscribers and Legal Proceedings
For subscribers of CenturyLink, receiving a Lumen letter now can feel like a serious threat (especially knowing what this attorney has done in the past). The letter from Lumen shares that an IP address assigned to them has been linked to alleged illegal activity, and their personal details may soon be revealed to the requesting party. This can lead to legal consequences, including him threatening you that he might sue you for copyright infringement, along with any financial liabilities you would have to undergo in hiring an attorney, defending the claims against you, and paying any copyright infringement statutory damages (~$150,000 per instance of infringement) if the court eventually finds you guilty of infringement.
However, as I have explained in the past, I do not believe that Culpepper is looking to go after each of the 100+ defendants in the Colorado Federal Court. Instead, I believe the subpoenas may be used to identify the name and address (the physical address), and the contact number (the telephone number) of each internet user identified by the DMCA 512(h) subpoena. Then, he will likely seek a settlement payment for each of the films you and the other accused downloaders have allegedly downloaded over the past three years (the statute of limitations for copyright infringement).
But I do not believe Culpepper’s motivations stop there. He is not a “copyright troll” in the classic way of thinking of one of these; he’s more dangerous — because I believe he is using you (a “smaller fish”) to go after “a bigger fish” (the ISPs). I still think his plan is to go after the ISPs themselves, hoping to secure evidence that the ISPs are not properly ‘policing’ their own networks. While he might still ask for just a few thousand dollars from each of the accused John Doe Defendants in the 1:24-mc-00071 Colorado case referenced in the Lumen subpoena, I believe his ultimate goal is to try to use the existence of the settlements themselves to solicit or achieve a judgement of millions of dollars from the ISP itself.
For the Boy Kills World lawsuit, or the Breathe case (however you want to call it, because last year, the attorney was going after those who downloaded the survival thriller film “Fall“) — proving the copyright infringement on the ISP networks for each of these films are a part of this broader legal action. It exemplifies Culpepper’s strategy in appearing to protect the of content creators, but only [in my opinion] as a distraction while he goes after his real target — whether that is unfettered access to the ISP’s customer’s information, a significantly larger settlement from the ISP or some other entity with ‘larger pockets’, or some other target I have not yet considered.
For now — at least for me — the 24-mc-71 case underscores the need to protect against the re-emergence (and as an attorney, dare I say ‘misuse’) of robust copyright enforcement mechanisms (such as the DMCA 512(h) subpoena). The case also highlights the ongoing efforts by this attorney to secure large settlements, access, and power — all under the seemingly noble goal of attempting to combat piracy for his clients, and stopping unauthorized distribution of his clients’ copyrighted materials.
TorrentFreak also wrote about Culpepper & Lumen Subpoenas.
I also wanted to point out that I am not the only one who has noticed this trend of using DMCA letters to unmask the names and addresses of accused defendants. Ernesto Van der Sar and Andy Maxwell from TorrentFreak also wrote about this in these articles:
Movie Companies Use DMCA ‘Shortcut’ To Expose Alleged CenturyLink Pirates (January, 2022)
Movie Company Exposes 150 Alleged BitTorrent Pirates Using DMCA Shortcut (April, 2023)
…and probably many more articles that I am not referencing here.
So if these articles happened in 2022-2023, then why am I now writing about this in 2024?
I wish the answer were not this simplistic, but the answer is that everything that I wrote about happened in 2022-2023. However, the Lumen Subpoena Letters to account holders were not sent out — at least for the most recent two movies — until now.
And, as the owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC (and the one who usually ends up speaking to people calling into our law firm and asking questions about these cases), people are calling me and asking my opinion about what to do here.
Why? Because I have been tracking the activities of Kerry Culpepper and his law firm for many years.
Some of my older articles on what he is doing:
Does Culpepper IP want to attack the ISPs next? (March, 2021)
The Truth about why Culpepper IP is sending settlement demand EMAILS to YTS users. (September, 2020)
Why Culpepper IP Is Engaging In A Takeover Of The Piracy Trade Names. (September, 2020)
Dark Superhero Story about Kerry Culpepper and Culpepper IP (August, 2020)
The Truth about Kerry Culpepper IP movie lawsuits. (February, 2020)
Hawaii’s 512(h) subpoenas unmask identities in a sneaky way. (May, 2019)
Why I Believe MPAA/RIAA in a Scheme to Break Copyright Law (March, 2017)
Conclusion
Kerry Culpepper’s latest lawsuit, Capstone Studios Corp. v. CenturyLink Communications LLC (24-mc-71), marks a continued effort to protect intellectual property rights through the use of 512(h) subpoenas. By targeting alleged infringers through Lumen subpoenas, Culpepper IP is working to uncover the identities of those involved in the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted films such as “Breathe” and “Boy Kills World.” This case not only reflects the new use of 512(h) subpoenas to unmask the identities of those accused of downloading his clients’ copyrighted titles without a license. This new strategy of using 512(h) subpoenas as a method of achieving copyright enforcement was first seen in 2019 in the Hawaii federal courts, where I wrote about it then. Seeing that it has now spread to Colorado, and that this Colorado lawsuit has cast a wide net over internet users across the US (not only in Colorado) made me take a second look at this new copyright enforcement tool, because I expect to see it copied and used by other copyright holders in many other courts in the coming months and years.
If you are a CenturyLink subscriber who has received a Lumen Letter (or a subpoena from Lumen) referencing the 24-mc-71 case, and you need some guidance on what Kerry Culpepper has done in the past with our previous clients over the years, please let me know. I will do what I can to share what I know, and if I can help you avoid Kerry Culpepper’s lawsuits and his copyright enforcement actions, I would be happy to do what I can.
Lumen Trust Safety FAQs
[Honestly, I don’t care to go into details about this section, and you as the reader will NOT benefit from reading it, so SKIP to the next section].
You might then ask, “So why include it in this article”? Because this was the only way for you to type “Lumen subpoena” and have what I believe should be a useful article for you to show up in the list of results.
That’s tricky, I know, but fair is fair. If you are still reading this article, then you are interested in this content, and I did a good thing by putting this in front of you.
What would Lumen tell you about these subpoenas?
They would tell you that since we are in the intricate realm of data privacy and telecommunications, numerous procedures and protocols are in place to handle sensitive information. For instance, if a plaintiff or anyone (including law enforcement agencies) requires access to data maintained in the normal course of business by Lumen, they must call the Lumen trust and issue a subpoena or court order. This legal demand will state that Lumen must perform an extensive search to retrieve the necessary call records or subscriber information maintained by Lumen. The information may include your name, the associated phone number (including the area code and prefix), and the content of the data — each of these will be released with a subpoena.
For those seeking to trace a call or retrieve voicemail messages, it’s essential to understand that Lumen’s policies govern the release of such data. Lumen’s trust and safety team ensures that any request for data, including legal demands, is handled according to established guidelines.
If you are a subscriber trying to obtain a record or if you have questions regarding applicable fees or the process, you may need to contact Lumen directly. The company provides a customer service number, 877-451-1980, where you can follow the menu options for assistance. Lumen cannot retrieve voice mail messages. Furthermore, Lumen charges applicable feels for retrieving and processing such information, and results will only be released under the legal obligation of a subpoena. Additionally, certain items, like call detail records, may not appear on an itemized bill, and third-party billed calls might also be available under specific conditions. For queries related to this process, you can contact Lumen’s customer service at 877-451-1980 and follow the menu options provided.
For general information, including data privacy and safety FAQs, Lumen’s trust and safety team ensures compliance with regulations and maintains information in the normal course of business.
In cases involving a film or entertainment-related litigation, such as a case involving a film like “Boy Kills World,” the subpoena process would still apply if any telecommunications data needs to be reviewed. For legal matters, the Lumen entity registered to handle such issues might also provide responses or information as required by the legal obligation. Remember, for more precise queries, including those about specific data retrieval or content, contacting the relevant department or consulting legal advice is crucial, and applicable fees may apply.
Have you read enough? Book Now to get help. > > >
FOR MORE INFORMATION: If you have been implicated as a John Doe defendant in a lawsuit, even though your case functions differently from the typical copyright infringement case, you should still read the article below, immediately:
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. The attorney-client privilege (which keeps everything that you share confidential and private) attaches immediately when you contact me. However, 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 in any e-mail.