A word on Kodi Add-ons


[This follow-up article about Kodi Add-ons was written on 8/2/2017. I never hit the “publish” button [probably because I wanted to add more information at the time], but I am doing so now because our firm regularly receives questions about Kodi add-ons. At the time I wrote this article, copyright infringements filed against users of the Kodi software was rare, but I foresaw that copyright enforcement companies would begin using the behind-the-scenes capabilities of the add-ons to “catch” users pirating movie content.]

I just finished drafting the article entitled, “Why Kodi users are being sued for copyright infringement.” The purpose of writing that article was to voice the real threat that Kodi Add-ons which connect to bittorrent networks can get users sued in federal court for copyright infringement.

Bittorrent networks are generally bad news for pirates these days.  There are already so many movie copyright trolls who are watching the bittorrent networks and are suing bittorrent users for copyright infringement, regardless of whether they actually did the download or not. There are even “common troll” copyright enforcement entities such as RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT (RIGHTSENFORCEMENT.COM) which [we understand] contact movie production studios and convince them to license the rights to enforce (think, “sue for copyright infringement”) the copyrights owned by the production company who made the failed movie. If you view RIGHTSENFORCEMENT’s site and click on “clients,” you’ll see a huge list of movies which, if acquired via bittorrent, can get the downloader sued for copyright infringement. This list of movies is growing, and Growing, and GROWING. In sum, stay away from bittorrent like the plague. It is filled with those looking to sue for the unlawful download of their copyrighted films.

As for Kodi: The reason I did not like writing the article “Why Kodi users are being sued for copyright infringement,” was because while I do not condone, encourage, or cheer on those who violate the copyrights of others, I do have a “stake” in the copyright debate. Violating copyright is theft, and while I believe that much of the fault of copyright infringement falls on the content producers 1) for making unoriginal junk that does not succeed in the theaters (I call these “floppers”), and 2) for not properly making their copyrighted content available for lawful movie watchers to gain access to the copyrighted content (e.g., think, HBO and the Game of Thrones issue). It is my opinion that many would-be pirates would happily pay for content if it was more readily available (which is why Netflix and Amazon Prime are so successful).

However, Kodi and the concept of “whether an internet user can get caught streaming music or movies” has always been an interesting topic for me. The reason for this is very simple — from a legal perspective, using bittorrent can get the downloader caught because their IP address is exposed in the download of the content. However, Kodi (when tweaked to allow piracy) never used bittorrent. Rather, they STREAMED content which was being held unlawfully on some server that the copyright holders had a difficult time shutting down based on the DMCA laws, and where those servers were located. In other words, Kodi presented a technology challenge to those copyright trolls who sought to sue downloaders for the unlawful download of their films.

A few months ago, I was intrigued by the PornHub lawsuits, where I discovered that by using a MPAA-friendly company such as Google, downloaders of even streamed music could get caught. I realized that copyright infringement lawsuits could be filed against internet users who STREAMED movie content, even though their viewing activities never touched a bittorrent network. Kodi [when tweaked] was the vehicle which made this content available, and Google Analytics was the mechanism copyright holders could use to unmask the IP addresses of the downloaders accessing the copyrighted content. Kodi + Google Analytics allowed copyright holders to bypass the bittorrent networks altogether, and this is why it was such a hot topic for me as a defense attorney.

Thus, I wrote the article “why (with the assistance of Google Analytics) a person CAN get sued streaming movies and copyrighted content,” (which exposed to me the future of copyright infringement lawsuits), and why even using Kodi on an Amazon Fire TV stick could get someone caught (even though this was a futuristic topic based on lawsuits that have not happened yet).

So can you understand why I think this article (Why You CAN Get Sued Using Kodi Add-ons) is such a “cheap” topic for me? Obviously a plug-in which uses bittorrent can get someone sued.

In sum, the  article was not about getting caught using Kodi or getting caught streaming; rather, it is why you can get caught using bittorrent. There is nothing new to share here — a Kodi Add-on lawsuit is identical to the bittorrent lawsuit, and it should be treated the same way.

[2020 UPDATE: This is where I ended the article. Again, I am posting this article for historical accuracy. Obviously we are 3 years later, but I still regularly get questions about whether it is safe to put Kodi on an Amazon Fire TV stick, and other such questions.]

VIXEN – Not to be confused with a rock band, clothing line.


If you are here looking for VIXEN GROUP videos, you came to the wrong place. BUT *PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO READ THIS BEFORE CONTINUING TO YOUR VIXEN ADULT FILM VIDEO*. Vixen, along with Tushy, Blacked, and “Deeper.” are all website porn brands belonging to Strike 3 Holdings, LLC.

If you are looking for the Vixen music band – the all-female rock band from the 80’s. They can be found at VixenOfficial.com.

The Vixen Music Band also has a Vixen All-Female Rock Band Facebook Page.



On the topic of VIXEN PORN VIDEOS, there is a woman named Micheline Pitt who started a clothing line (more on this in a second). Pornography videos often scenes of abuse, sexual assault, or even rape, and I am happy to see that she is taking a stand against these.

Micheline Pitt has started a campaign #VIXENNOTAVICTIM to bring awareness to survivors of sexual assault, rape, and abuse. For every piece of clothing that you purchase, Micheline Pitt will donate 30%-40% (or more) to RAINN to help survivors and prevent sexual violence.

If you came here looking for Vixen porn, I am not “guilting you” into buying her clothing or making a contribution to RAINN (the “Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network”), but yeah — if you are providing clicks and ad revenue to the porn industry, at least spend a few dollars balancing things out and donating to RAINN or buying Micheline Pitt’s clothing.

Just so it is said, Micheline Pitt’s website sells an interesting line of clothing called “VIXEN BY MICHELINE PITT,” which has “GOOD THINGS FOR BAD GIRLS – SIZES XS – 4X.” Her clothing lines include “PET SEMATARY,” “THIS IS HALLOWEEN,” “FLORAL AFFAIR,” and probably a number of others that I have not seen.

In short, if you are watching Vixen porn videos, put some balance into the world and donate money or buy products which benefit those who are hurt and who have their lives ruined by the porn industry.


If you are actually looking for Vixen porn videos (e.g., VIXEN GROUP adult film videos related to the Vixen Blacked, Tushy, and Deeper. brand names), you do not need to go to illegal sources which can get you sued.

If you are looking for the VIXEN GROUP, the “legal” and legitimate source of the Vixen porn videos which will not get you sued, then click here.

Vixen porn videos (along with the Tushy, Blacked, and “Deeper.” porn video brands) all belong to the Strike 3 Holdings, LLC copyright troll company. I am the owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC and the TorrentLawyer.com website. I have been watching being getting sued almost daily for viewing these adult film videos since March, 2017.

So please, do not become a victim of Strike 3 Holdings by downloading their Vixen, Blacked, Tushy, or Deeper. branded films… NOT from illegal sources (where you can provide them ad revenue), and NOT from legal sources by paying for their content.


Those who watch porn videos usually get caught by downloading the videos using bittorrent software. “Tushy,” “Blacked,” and now “Deeper.” are all video brands owned by Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, and can be found [think, were LEAKED AND ARE MONITORED BY COPYRIGHT TROLLS] on the bittorrent websites.

I don’t care which software you use: Bittorrent, uTorrent, Transmission, Vuze (Azurus), or any other software that uses BitTorrent.

You visit a website, whether it is 1137x.to (or 1337x.gd), The Pirate Bay, or any other website that allows you to browse adult film torrents and download Vixen mp4 xxx files, you click on a link, and open up your bittorrent software and download the Vixen mp4 xxx movies. THAT is how you get caught downloding their porn videos.


For many years, I was of the opinion that you would not get sued for viewing porn videos using the YouTube-like websites.

Vixen porn videos (along with Tushy, Blacked, and “Deeper.” branded videos) are illegally shared on the internet using YouTube-like websites. I do not need to name them, because no doubt you can find them.

Notably, however, are the Pornhub lawsuits where users using the Pornhub.com website to view Vixen, Tushy, or Blacked films were exposed and sued for copyright infringement.

[I learned about in the context of analyzing whether someone can get caught for using the Kodi software, and more specifically, whether someone can get sued for putting Kodi software on an Amazon Firestick.]


I believed that you could get caught watching porn videos [like Blacked, Tushy, Deeper., etc.] either through a plaintiff attorney sending a subpoena to Google Analytics, Cloudfront, or any other website plug-in company that tracks the IP address and activities of users who visit their site (be careful what trackers your Tube-like porn streaming sites use).

However, once the plaintiff attorney gets the list of IP addresses of the Blacked porn site viewers, the plaintiff attorneys then needed to take the extra inconvenient step of filing one or more copyright infringement lawsuit in federal courts against “John Doe” defendants (the Blacked porn video viewers) who were assigned that particular IP address at that date and time.

They would ask the court for “Expedited Discovery” (FRCP Rule 26), and then they would send subpoenas to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) forcing them to hand over the identities of their subscribers who viewed the Blacked or Tushy videos — their IP addresses would be the ones they were assigned on the dates and time they viewed or streamed the Blacked / Tushy / Vixen videos. Those porn video viewers would receive ISP Subpoena Notification Letters letting them know that they have been sued as a “John Doe” defendant in their copyright infringement lawsuit.

Once the plaintiff attorney received the Blacked / Tushy / Vixen website visitor’s identities (which really were merely the account holders’ identities) from their ISPs, only then can the adult film Copyright Trolls (Strike 3 Holdings, LLC) begin to engage in the extortion portion of what is an elaborate settlement extortion scheme (settle for thousands or dollars or else we will NAME AND SERVE you in the federal court lawsuit).


Creative plaintiff attorneys have found loopholes in the legal system to shortcut the “Expedited Discovery” two-step method of obtaining the identities of Vixen porn video watchers who visited a website and exposed their IP address causing them to be caught and sued.

Instead of suing for copyright infringement in the federal courts, they sue in state courts (such as the Miami-Dade, Florida county court, the Maricopa, Arizona county court, or even St. Clair, Illinois county court). They sue using quasi-legal theories, such as equity or Bill of Discovery, and they ask the state or county court to reveal the identity of those accused of viewing, streaming, or downloading their client’s copyrighted videos.

With the Blacked / Tushy / Vixen adult videos, VIXEN GROUP’s own Florida attorneys — Rachel Walker & Tyler Mamone — engaged in this kind of state-based lawsuit with their Miami-Dade County, Florida Bill of Discovery Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits. This is an ongoing problem for those who viewed or streamed Vixen, Tushy, Blacked, or most recently, “Deeper.” videos without a license.

Kerry Culpepper of Culpepper IP (who appears to represent the conglomerate of movie companies who sue defendants for the copyright infringement of their lawsuits) skirted the federal courts as well. Culpepper did this by suing accused downloaders and exposing their identities using Hawaii’s Rule 512(h) rules.

Most recently, Culpepper sent subpoenas to Cloudfront to determine which IP addresses viewed his movie clients’ films without a license.

* 9/16/2020 UPDATE *: Attorney Joshua Lee of Culpepper IP appears to be the attorney who is now working for Kerry Culpepper. Joshua Lee is also the name which is appearing on many of the Culpepper IP settlement demand letters.


Nobody likes to talk about this topic, but it if nobody mentions it, you as the adult film viewer might not be aware of the problem.

There *is* such thing as having an addition to pornography. Major sources have spoken about pornography addiction (albeit in a boring, medical kind of way), and popular groups such as Reddit’s “No-Fap” Support Group has been a great way to speak to others about what you might be going through.

Other more formal groups include “Sexaholics Anonymous” (sa.org) or “Recoveries Anonymous” (r-a.org).

As soon as you start spending losing hours at your computer viewing adult film websites, you might have a problem. Once your adult film viewing habits start interfering with your work and your everyday life (e.g., effects from lack of sleep, or relationship problems and the like), you might have a problem.

Bottom line, pornography addiction is essentially a dopamine addiction where the affected person seeks a “dopamine high” which they get from pornography. It must be noted that other activities, e.g., running, sex, relationships, parenting, movies, etc. also provide dopamine highs as well.

If you suspect you might need help for such a pornography addiction, then by all means, reach out to one of these groups. For privacy purposes, I might just create a fake account on reddit.com so that I can get help without pasting my name everywhere on my posts, but the official groups are set up to preserve your privacy and your anonymity as well.


OK, so you came here looking for Blacked / Tushy / Vixen pornography videos. I hope I have given you a few things to think about along the way.

As an attorney and the owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC, I support my family by representing clients who are sued by copyright trolls. This being said, if I could save you from being my client by NOT being sued in the first place, I would be just as happy with the result.

If I could inspire you to take actions to heal the damage that pornography viewing causes — either through getting help through Reddit’s Pornography Addiction resources, by buying clothing and supporting companies like VIXEN BY MICHELINE PITT, or by outright making donations to RAINN (the “Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network”), you will help to take a stand against sexual abuse, sexual assault, or even rape.

Lastly, no doubt YOU YOURSELF might not engage in these acts and your adult film viewing habits might be innocent, you cannot deny that there are others that watch pornography, and act out the abuse, sex acts, or rapes on those around them, willing or not.

Whether it is the adult films (the pornography) which is to blame or those who engage in violent acts against others, by watching pornography YOU MUST CONSIDER that you give financial benefit (in the form of power, ad revenue, and sometimes outright cash) to the pornography industry by watching porn videos, legal or not.

What you do with this information is up to you. Let’s hope you never need my services as an attorney.

[CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about what I have written here, 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 situation, or you can 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.

    Choose authentic content. Avoid settlement factory websites.

    Picture suggesting settlement factory websites are faked.

    It just occurred to me that some settlement factory websites are not written to educate you, but rather to lure you in to click on that law firm’s webpage or blog.

    Obviously every business writes a website to grow their business — law firms (including mine) are no different. However, I have been well aware that some of us attorneys write useful content for the purpose of educating you — the accused defendant. Other attorneys just write contentless keyword-spammed articles which are written to show up at the top of search engines.

    "68 John Doe Defendants Sued in Florida."
    "23 John Doe Defendants Sued in California."
    ...and so on.

    In this article, I explain why I think these content-less websites are settlement factory websites meant only to lure you in.

    Photo of man fleeing the scene.
    Source: Pixabay.com by Candid_Shots

    We are changing the structure of our websites.

    We have been doing “spring cleaning” of the TorrentLawyer blog these past few weeks; I am not sure you have noticed. Most of the changes are “under the hood” — I’ve been re-categorizing older content, and updating useful information with today’s lawsuits so that our content is more orderly… for myself and for you.

    In the coming weeks, I will hopefully be updating the structure of the pages themselves so that they are more readable (my articles typically have been horribly content-laden – an older employee once told me that “reading my articles was like walking through mud”). I hope to fix that shortly.

    I researched and wrote every one of my articles.

    This blog has hundreds of articles that I (Rob Cashman, Owner of the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC) personally researched, wrote, and edited. I researched and wrote each article myself. I have never hired someone to write my articles for me, nor do I think doing so is authentic or honest.

    We started this blog to bring clarity to a new area of law.

    I am not a journalist, I am an attorney. However, in 2010 (now ten years ago), I decided that someone should write about the growing number of mass-bittorrent based copyright infringement lawsuits. Even the other attorneys did not understand at the time how intellectual property laws and copyright laws applied to someone accused of downloading music and movies (ugh, now adult films). So I created this blog to hash out those topics.

    Picture suggesting the ghostwriting of blogged content.
    pedrofigueras / Pixabay

    Copyright Trolls, a pimple sprouted from patent trolls.

    We called these companies who file these lawsuits “copyright trolls” after patent trolls who purchase the rights to certain patents for the purpose of extorting others for hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions of dollars. You can read up on these topics on an older blog called “Cashman IP.”

    Now defense attorneys betray their clients.

    Now we are ten years later, and the number lawsuits have grown exponentially, but so too, the number of attorneys claiming to “defend John Doe Defendants against the copyright trolls” have grown exponentially as well.

    Misinformation floods attorney blogs like blood.

    These attorneys pump out “bad information” on their websites, often suggesting motions to quash, or suggesting that John Doe Defendants immediately settle when these two options mask better, more practical approaches.

    But some attorneys appear to have read my articles (and other articles on the web, of course), but they forgot to look up the actual law, and so they grossly misinform accused defendants when they try to get them to sign on as clients. One such attorney [who to my horror is actually at the top of search engines now] knew nothing about copyright law or the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and on many occasions referred to copyright infringement lawsuits as “criminal lawsuits” (you know, where if you are found guilty you go to jail…?!?)

    Calling a copyright case a “criminal” case is criminal.

    I am obviously nobody’s police man, but on a few occasions, I had to physically yell at this attorney to learn the law he is practicing and stop telling John Doe Defendants that copyright infringement cases ARE NOT CRIMINAL CASES. THEY ARE CIVIL CASES FOR MONEY DAMAGES.

    …This guy too has a website and a blog, and he pays Google AdWords for you to visit his website. This (he, and attorneys like him) is why there is so much conflicting information on the internet about these cases.

    BIG difference between copying and theft.

    I always thought that some of these newer attorneys were simply “standing on the shoulders of others.” But the fighting between these attorneys is simply terrible.

    When my research shows up on another attorney’s blog…

    Some defense attorneys copy each other’s websites (try to copy-and-paste content from this blog; I have actually needed to disable the ability to copy content from my website).

    Why? Because my research and experience shows up on their pages, as do case number lists of who was sued in which court, along with other content that I spend time researching.

    I have tested this by making “errors” in the case numbers or title of who the “John Doe subscriber accused IP Address …” was, and I have seen them “lifted” and pasted into other attorneys’ lists and blogs.

    I encourage healthy competition (and even encourage it), but when what I write ends up on another attorneys website, it is rant-worthy (FYI, it is copyright infringement too, as funny as that is considering what we do).

    When what I tell potential clients in phone consultations is copied word-for-word…

    In addition to copying each other’s written content, and some attorneys lack the originality to simply talk to a potential client about his/her circumstances. This is because the defense attorney hires inexperienced attorneys (or, non-attorneys they make you think are attorneys) to take their phone consultations for them. These extra bodies read the same “scripts” to potential clients, often pushing the client to settle or file a motion to quash, etc.

    I too say the same thing (or cover similar topics) each time I speak to a client, e.g., I walk them through the options once they are sued, the probable outcomes of each option, etc. But my conversations are based on MY experience based on MY knowledge from the hundreds (maybe thousands) of cases I have represented accused defendants. Too often, newer attorneys just read scripts, and these “scripts” were copied from other attorneys in their phone consultations.

    I sometimes chuckle when I ask potential clients (e.g., when there is a red flag) show me that they are an actual defendant in a lawsuit in order to take their phone consultation. This is silly, but too often, I have had my law firm’s methodologies and things I literally tell clients — statistics and facts only I would know based on my years of experience — copied by other attorneys (or their newly hired attorneys), word-for-word. I know this because I am often not the first attorney someone speaks to when they speak to me, and I often ask what they were told prior to speaking to me.

    I still believe having defense attorneys in each state benefits defendants.

    I always thought that it was a good idea that defense attorneys too should be located in every state in which the copyright trolls were suing defendants. The whole idea of “one attorney in one state representing every defendant from every state” smelled.

    When one attorney represents all clients from every state (as we saw with hindsight in the settlement factory attorneys, below), too much power concentrated in too few attorneys.

    This scenario invited collusion between the plaintiff attorney and the defense attorney. It suggested to me that if one attorney is handling each and every case in every settlement (or every lawsuit), the defense attorney will not fight hard for their client and will come to malpractice by not properly representing them.

    Settlement Factory Attorneys born in a cottage industry.

    I was right, and for years, I have called out settlement factories and their tactics because their attempts to “cut corners” deprives the accused defendant of proper attorney representation.

    From these mass-bittorrent-based copyright infringement lawsuits was born the “settlement factory” attorney. This is a quantity-based law firm represents clients in a boilerplate fashion. Call it a “discount” law firm because they represent everyone the same way (although I many times objected to them charging a flat rate fee of $2,500 for what amounted to less than $2,500 worth of work).

    Feel secure in the hard-earned money you are paying your attorney.

    The logic was that if a “settlement factory” discount attorney is billing $300/hour, and his “streamlined” settlement negotiation takes him only five hours of time, then he should only bill you $1,500 (= 5 hours x $300/hour), not $2,500. So like so many other “scams” affiliated with settlement factories, even the amount they bill does not match the amount of work they do for a client.

    Refocusing this article back to settlement factory websites not written by the attorneys who host them.

    I have written many articles in the past about settlement factories, but to my surprise, now their settlement factory websites are yet one more scam. These same attorneys plaster the search engines and YouTube sites with ads and pay-per-click links to bring traffic (you) to their websites.

    You click, they pay Google AdWords for you to visit their devoid-of-content site.

    If you only knew how much these same attorneys pay per click (you can look them up on https://www.semrush.com), you would be absolutely floored! Type in “Strike 3 Holdings subpoena” [or the attorney websites who show up in the Google Paid Results to these searches] into SEMrush and you will be horrified if you learned that ONE PARTICULAR ATTORNEY regularly pays $60.00 PER CLICK in their Google AdWords campaigns.

    If I told you that more than one attorney is also paying these crazy fees (rather than writing authentic, real content), you would be horrified and betrayed by these attorneys who fight for your click-juice. [For context, if they were paying $3/click, I wouldn’t balk. And, I have run Google AdWord campaigns in the past and would again in the future, but holy smokes!]

    I would never pay $60 to have someone click on my site. They do, and this should concern you.

    So, I am out of time once again, and I need to get back to work. With a chuckle, I wrote this quick article calling these guys out on their websites and their ghost-blogged content.

    In sum: I always thought that a certain handful of bittorrent defense attorneys post repeating content that was so devoid of content (after all, how much can you write about the same thing?).

    What I did not notice was that the articles these attorneys churn out might not have been written by those attorneys at all.


    P.S. – I wouldn’t be surprised if these same attorneys started panicking and writing “I’m authentic, I write my own content” articles over the coming days and weeks. It is usually the ones that jump who are actually guilty of the thing I have just pointed them out for.

    Secret Strike 3 Holdings Settlement Amount and Methods of Achieving Settlements.


    Strike 3 Holdings Settlement Amounts – How much is an average settlement?

    Strike 3 Holdings settlement amounts vary greatly from one defendant to another based on 1) how many titles that defendant allegedly downloaded, and 2) how much MONEY Strike 3 Holdings believes they can get from that accused defendant. How Strike 3 tries to achieve a Strike 3 Holdings settlement amount from each accused defendant and remain profitable is the subject of this article.

    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC, a quasi-legitimate settlement extortion scheme threatens accused John Doe Defendants with $150,000 copyright infringement lawsuits in federal court if the accused defendant does not come to an agreement to settle the claims against them.

    Strike 3 Holdings settlement amounts range from $750/title allegedly downloaded or unlawfully copied (also known as “minimum statutory damages”), all the way to $500/title… sometimes $300/title, or less. A typical Strike 3 Holdings settlement amount would be $13,000 (which comes out to be $500/title x 26 titles <– the national average of how many titles each accused defendant generally downloads before they a Strike 3 Holdings settlement amount is solicited from them).

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

    However, I have seen a Strike 3 Holdings settlement cost as high as $30,000-$40,000 (e.g., for cases where the accused downloader has downloaded 100+ titles). To be clear: just because Strike 3 Holdings might ask for a $40,000 settlement does not mean they will get it. Really, they need to sue a John Doe Defendant who can actually afford to pay such a settlement.

    [Just so that I do not scare you, the Strike 3 Holdings settlement cost is often just a few thousand dollars because this is literally all my client can come up with. This is where the settlement extortion scheme game is played.]

    Strike 3 Holdings Settlement Amounts | strike-3-holdings-settlement-amount-and-methods
    A Strike 3 Holdings Settlement cost can be tens of thousands of dollars, but if the client does not have that kind of money, they could settle with what they have in their bank account, even if it is much less.

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

    The Strike 3 Holdings Settlement “Extortion Scheme” Explained


    For years, Strike 3 Holdings settlements used to be reached after they paid a $400 filing fee to file a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court against ONLY ONE John Doe Defendant.

    The lawsuit would be filed in the federal court where the defendant lives (they can determine in which state and in which federal court to file the lawsuit based on the IP address).

    They file the lawsuit claiming copyright infringement because the law gives the copyright holder $150,000 in damages [per instance of infringement] for the unlawful copying of their copyrighted films. The copyright laws are federal laws – states cannot pass their own copyright laws. This is why the lawsuits eventually need to be filed in federal courts.

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

    Why would Strike 3 Holdings pay a $400 filing fee without yet knowing the identity of the accused downloader?

    This was literally they was it was done. Strike 3 Holdings cannot achieve a multi-thousand-dollar settlement (or any settlement) without first knowing who the downloader is. But to obtain the identity of the accused downloader, they need to file a copyright infringement lawsuit and then they need to convince the judge to allow them to send a subpoena to the ISP to force them to reveal the account holder’s identity. Only then can they ask for a settlement from someone.

    Does it make sense to pay a $400 filing fee to a federal court to sue someone without knowing whether they will settle?

    The economics of Strike 3 Holdings’ scheme are interesting too. Think of it — a Strike 3 Holdings settlement costs them a $400 filing fee for the expectation that the defendant they sue in the federal court will hire an attorney and will pay Strike 3 Holdings a settlement many, many times more than the $400 filing fee they paid to sue that defendant.

    But, Strike 3 Holdings LLC file the lawsuits BLINDLY — they do not know who the defendant is when they file the lawsuits and pay the $400 filing fee. So how do they know who to sue and who not to sue?

    My understanding is that they decide who to sue by geolocating the IP address to determine statistically which accused downloaders live in a location where the residents of that area have money. They decide to sue those defendants based on the demographics of everyone else who lived there in that town, zip code, or area.

    But really, it is a money game. File one lawsuit, pay $400. File one hundred lawsuits against John Doe Defendants, pay $40,000 (hoping that they will profit at least that much in settlements yielded from their lawsuit campaign).

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

    Strike 3 Holdings lawsuits are filed to obtain settlements.

    It makes financial sense that Strike 3 Holdings, LLC files these lawsuits for the sole purpose of obtaining the identity of each accused defendant so that they could solicit a settlement from each one of them.

    (Obviously, Strike 3 will disagree and will claim that they file the copyright infringement lawsuits to protect the copyright rights provided to them by the law, whether or not that leads to a settlement. They will also claim that they only sue those who actually do the downloads.] Either way, practically, Strike 3 Holdings wants a settlement in the form of a settlement check.

    However, the checks do not come rolling in — they need to first FILE THE LAWSUIT against an internet user who actually downloaded their client’s copyrighted titles, and they need to determine whether that defendant can actually pay a settlement (so that they can decide whether to proceed with the lawsuit or move on to other defendants who can pay a settlement). To do this, they need to figure out who they are suing.

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


    Strike 3 Holdings, LLC first seeks to determine the identity of the accused John Doe Defendant. They achieve this by sending a subpoena (with the court’s permission) to reveal the identity [and often the address] of the account holder who was assigned the IP address at the date and time Strike 3 Holdings’ “investigators” monitored and observed the accused defendant’s account uploading, downloading, and/or streaming their copyrighted adult films using bittorrent.

    Once Strike 3 Holdings LLC obtains the accused John Doe Defendant’s account information, they feed their name and address into a “magic blackbox” to do a search on who that defendant is. Why? They do this do determine whether or not the defendant has MONEY.

    [While I have spent quite a bit of time going into the details of software they use to look up each defendant, really between us, I wouldn’t be surprised if their super-secret-so-called-“research” was really a search of the account holder’s address on Zillow.com to find out how much the property they are living in is worth, and to see a picture of the neighborhood that they are living in. Well, that, and a quick Facebook, LinkedIn or Instagram search of the accused John Doe Defendant to see 1) what he does for a living (Strike 3 Defendants are generally male), 2) whether he is employed, and 3) whether there are any suggestions that he has MONEY.]

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


    There is not much to say here. Once Strike 3 Holdings LLC learns the identity of the account holder AND they determine that he likely has money to pay a settlement for the copyrighted titles he allegedly downloaded, they try to settle the claims against that defendant.

    Very often, this is where Strike 3 Holdings, LLC makes a mistake. They’ll sue a defendant who did not download their copyrighted films (which means that defendant should NOT pay a settlement), or they sue a defendant who cannot afford to settle the claims against them.

    Alternatively, the timing of the lawsuit could cause Strike 3 Holdings, LLC settlement costs to be too high. This can result in cashflow problems, where the money they pay out is less than the money they have coming in.

    Filing so many cases at the same time, each case against one defendant, the numbers can go against them very quickly, making their entire campaign unprofitable.

    This is where the Miami-Dade County, Florida Bill of Discovery cases came in.

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

    How the Miami-Dade County, Florida Strike 3 Holdings cases solved their cashflow problem.

    In the Miami-Dade County Court, Strike 3 Holdings devised a way to unmask the identities of THOUSANDS of defendants without needing to sue each defendant in Federal Court. They did this by exploiting the Florida “Pure Bill of Discovery” laws, which allow Strike 3 Holdings to send subpoenas to ISPs to reveal the identity of the accused John Doe Defendants… without needing to file a copyright infringement lawsuit in the federal courts.

    In other words, Strike 3 Holdings was able to pack HUNDREDS OF DEFENDANTS INTO EACH CASE (essentially paying a $300 filing fee to “sue” hundreds of defendants in one lawsuit). Then they would review each of the hundreds of accused defendants in each Florida Bill of Discovery lawsuit to determine whether they have MONEY using their “magic blackbox.”

    Then, if they cannot get a settlement from that accused Miami-Dade, Florida defendant, they file a lawsuit against that defendant in the federal court where that defendant lives.

    In sum, instead of paying a $400 filing fee to sue ONE DEFENDANT in federal court without knowing whether he could pay a settlement or not, they first “vet” hundreds of defendants together with a $300 filing fee, and only then [if that defendant does not settle the claims against him], they file the lawsuit against that defendant in the federal court.

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

    Do Strike 3 Holdings actually sue those who do not settle in federal courts?

    In short, yes. In February, 2020, I wrote an article asking this very question, and the answer is “yes, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC will sue defendants who do not settle the claims against them.”

    I revisited this same question just yesterday (8/19/2020), and arrived at the same answer. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC is suing those defendants who do not settle the claims against them… if they can pay.


    So as you can see, Strike 3 Holdings LLC is running a “well oiled,” quasi-legitimate settlement extortion scheme. Strike 3 Holdings settlement cost varies greatly based on the number of titles the accused downloader allegedly downloaded, and how much he is able to pay.

    The lawsuits are not initially filed in federal courts (where copyright infringement lawsuits belong), but rather, the accused downloaders’ identities are revealed in a Miami-Dade County, Florida Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuit. Then, each defendant (once their identity is known) then is vetted to determine whether they have MONEY.

    If that defendant does not pay a Strike 3 Holdings settlement amount, then Strike 3 Holdings, LLC follows-up with a lawsuit against that defendant in the federal court in the state in which they live.

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

    [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about the Miami-Dade Florida-based Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases and my experiences with them, 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 send a SMS / WhatsApp message to 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.

      TorrentLawyer Update – July 17, 2020

      Bryan N DeMatteo New York Bittorrent Cases NY

      With COVID-19 on the minds of the citizenry, along with social distancing, masks, and a dizzying set of events relating to social unrest, the court cases relating to copyright infringement have (for the most part) been on pause.


      To my biggest surprise, two huge copyright trolls [for the moment] appear to be out of business — Malibu Media, LLC, and Rightscorp. Malibu Media, LLC had their hands full with an appellate case for some time, and the owners keep suing their own attorneys (and vice versa). There is so much more to say here, but it has literally been MONTHS since I have even thought about them. Relevant to you, ABSOLUTELY NO NEW MALIBU MEDIA, LLC LAWSUITS HAVE BEEN FILED IN MONTHS.

      Same deal with Rightscorp. Rightscorp seemed to be in such a powerful position, especially after the BMG v. COX Communications lawsuit. However, I hear that the owner of Rightscorp has moved on to other matters, and all of the people I used to speak to there appear to no longer be working there.

      On top of that, their website is broken and people who actually want to pay the DMCA notification $20 fee requests sent to them are unable to. Plus, there is nobody answering their phones (“the voice mailbox is full”), other phone numbers are disconnected, and nobody responding to e-mails. In other words, “the lights are on [meaning, they are still sending DMCA notifications… or maybe its a robot running on automatic], but nobody is home.”


      Strike 3 Holdings, LLC was the copyright holder making the most noise over the past few months. First, in late 2019, Strike 3 Holdings filed a slew of “so-called lawsuits” (really, no lawsuit, just a request for a state court to unmask the identities of thousands of accused infringers) in the Miami-Dade, Florida court.

      The immediate confusion was what to do with these ISP subpoena notification letters which went out to hundreds of account holders across the United States [read: not a Florida resident] threatening to disclose their identities to Strike 3 Holdings based on the Florida Bill of Discovery law. But by definition of Strike 3 Holdings’ claims being copyright claims, the Miami-Dade, state-based Florida state court cannot try copyright infringement cases. Plus again, Strike 3 Holdings sued non-Florida residents in a Florida state court (where the court does not have personal jurisdiction over them. Rather, you sue a defendant where the defendant lives, not in some obscure county which enforces state rules which do not apply to that out-of-state defendant.)

      The third confusion was the contradiction between what Strike 3 Holdings told the judges when asking the state court to disclose the identities of the alleged downloaders versus what they actually did with that information. Strike 3 Holdings, LLC attorneys told judges they were seeking the contact information to determine who is the alleged infringer (who downloaded their adult films using bittorrent without permission) so that they could decide whether to sue them in their home state’s federal court or not. But then when they received the contact information of the ISP account holders, they turned around and solicited multi-thousand dollar settlements from each account holder.


      To make things worse, filings such as a motion to quash in a STATE COURT should be filed by an attorney LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THAT STATE. The typical settlement-based out-of-state attorneys have been sticking their sticky fingers into the state court rather than referring the matter to a Florida licensed attorney.

      We at the Cashman Law Firm, PLLC noticed that these out-of-state attorneys are trying (even today) to profiteer off of the Florida state-based cases by offering to file motions to quash in the Florida courts, even though they are not licensed to practice law in Florida. Some of these same attorneys enlist local attorneys who file motions to quash (likely splitting the ill-gotten fees with the local Florida attorneys) with full knowledge that the result of filing an objection with the court (or a motion to quash) is that Strike 3 Holdings LLC immediately threatens to sue that defendant [trying to hide his identity] in his home state’s federal court. Many of the current Strike 3 Holdings, LLC lawsuits filed in the past few months are the result of a failed motion to quash filed by an out-of-state attorney (or their local counsel) in the Miami-Dade, Florida court. [I just wrote that article today, so go ahead and read it to see if you live in a state where they are suing defendants.]

      The problem [with these attorneys practicing law in a state where they are not licensed] is that law degrees are not a national US-based certifications, but rather, each state licenses its own attorneys who are knowledgeable about their state’s laws and procedures. In federal courts (e.g., the US District Court of the District of the Northern District of California, and other federal courts), there is no issue with an out-of-state attorney representing a client [and our law firm does this all the time] because all federal courts run according to the same Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (and the court’s local rules). But state courts are different.

      In my opinion, it is possible for an out-of-state attorney to represent a client in a foreign STATE-based lawsuit (e.g., the Florida county court), but really, to file a motion to quash in the Miami-Dade court [which is what we are speaking about here], you really need a Florida licensed attorney to do so. Anything else is less than adequate.

      I have spoken to many potential clients who have been implicated as “defendants” in the Miami-Dade Strike 3 Holdings, LLC cases, and every time one of them wants to file a motion to quash anyway (even though I have written so many articles explaining why this is a bad idea), I have forward them to certain Florida-licensed attorneys who I know to be knowledgeable and competent about this area (especially since they dealt with this same issue when Malibu Media, LLC sued defendants in the same Miami-Dade Florida state court [and Maricopa County state court] years ago).

      The funny thing is that these same Florida attorneys who dealt with the same Florida “Bill of Discovery” cases when Malibu Media LLC are telling those I send to them that a motion to quash is not an effective strategy. This is the advice which is coming from a Florida-licensed attorney, yet, the settlement factory and settlement-based law firms from other states are pushing for accused defendants to hire *them* to file motions to quash in the Florida courts [even though they are not licensed to practice law in that state]. Amazing.


      All I have to say about that topic is to read the article about “Why filing a motion to quash in a Strike 3 Holdings LLC Miami-Dade Florida case might not be the correct approach.” In this article, I discuss what the out-of-state attorneys are doing, and I discuss what a number of Florida-based attorneys are doing as well (there are “settlement factories” in Florida as well masking their settlement-based practices by selling “motion to quash” services for their clients).

      Otherwise, things at our Cashman Law Firm, PLLC law firm are going smoothly. I am watching the MG Premium Ltd. copyright holder (who has recently filed the MG Premium Ltd v. Does 1-20 (Case No. 3:20-cv-05134) case), and I am watching the activities of other copyright holders who have been actively monitoring all of the millions of US residents who have been sitting in quarantine and using bittorrent to view their copyrighted videos. So far, everything seems quiet, and quiet is good.

      [CONTACT AN ATTORNEY: If you have a question for an attorney about anything I have written here, 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 matter, or you can SMS/Whatsapp 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.

        Skip to content