Siemens PLM | Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Piracy Lawsuit

Siemens Industry Software Inc. (formerly known as Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc.) lawsuits have been filed in federal courts since 2011.  The goal here is to keep up to date on this plaintiff, and to discuss their various cases.  Should you learn of any updates regarding one of their cases, please post it here using the following format — (e.g., “Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-268 (Case No. 4:23-cv-00498) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas).  Please also feel free to post new cases you find where Siemens Industry Software Inc. is listed as the plaintiff.



Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does Lawsuits

Siemens Industry Software Inc. has been known for suing John Doe Defendants across the US for the unauthorized use of their NX, Solid Edge, Star CCM, Femap, FloTHERM, Simcenter Testlab, and Jack software versions.  Recent lawsuits have expanded the software to include a mix of other copyrighted titles owned by Siemens Industry Software.  The lawsuits are all copyright infringement lawsuits filed in the Federal Courts, and each lawsuit sues for statutory damages of $150,000.

Remember to please exercise discretion when posting (e.g., do not post your real name or e-mail address), and as usual, avoid using vulgar or offensive language (both towards the plaintiff and towards other users).

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


Siemens Industry Software Inc. (formerly known as “Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc.” or “Siemens PLM Software”) has been filing lawsuits against John Doe Defendants in federal courts across the US since 2011. Their most recent lawsuit was filed in February, 2023.

In 2011, Siemens Industry Software Inc. started their lawsuits in New York (NYSD) with two innocuous cases containing 50 John Doe Defendants which spanned NX 7 users living across the US. This led Siemens PLM to sue TWIVision Engineering Group, LLC in the Texas Eastern District Court (TXED) later in the year.

In 2012, they sued 50 John Doe Defendants in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (PAED).

From 2012-early 2014, there was a lack of lawsuits from Siemens, but in 2014, they sued 100 John Doe Defendants AGAIN in New York (NYSD). Later, they again reached into Texas (TXED), but this time, they sued a number of engineering companies, including BTL Machine, Inc., and Mercury Metal Forming Technologies, LLC. They also initiated two John Doe lawsuits, Case Nos. 4:15-cv-00582, and 4:15-cv-00017.

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

2014-2015 Siemens Industry Software Inc. continued its litigation strategy in the Texas Eastern District Courts for the remainder of 2015.

2016 was a busy year for Siemens Industry Software Inc., as they filed large 100-Defendant cases against John Doe Defendants, this time in the Houston-based Texas Southern District Courts (TXSD). They also reached their individual lawsuits into both Ohio (OHSD) and Connecticut (CTD) where they sued Manufacturing Services International, Inc. and Demin, an individual defendant.  The main “100-person John Doe” lawsuits eventually suffered procedural issues of Siemens missing deadlines to name and serve defendants, and the lawsuit was dismissed.  However, even after the lawsuit was dismissed, Siemens continued to contact select defendants soliciting $50K+ settlements.

In 2017-2023, Siemens Industry Software Inc. has continued filing lawsuits in the Texas Southern District Court (TXSD), most recently in their Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-268 (Case No. 4:23-cv-00498) lawsuit.

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

Siemens Industry Software Inc. lawsuits in Texas

The cases of note currently in Texas are:

Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-268 (Case No. 4:23-cv-00498) — this is their most recent lawsuit, filed in February, 2023.

Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-100
(Case No. 4:22-cv-00588), filed in February, 2022.

Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-142 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00385), filed in February, 2021.

Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-150 (Case No. 4:20-cv-00798), filed in March, 2020, and
Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:20-cv-00801), filed on the same day as the Does 1-150 case.

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-118 (Case No. 4:19-cv-02448), filed in July, 2019, and
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-150 (Case No. 4:19-cv-00129), filed in January, 2019.

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-107 (Case No. 4:18-cv-02344), filed in July, 2018, and
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-97 (Case No. 4:18-cv-00397), filed in February, 2018.

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-93 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01796), filed in June, 2017.

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-03552), filed in December, 2016, and
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-01422), filed in May, 2016.

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

As of writing this page, most of the attention and controversy will be surrounding the February 2023 4:23-cv-00498 case here in Texas.  As such, to learn how a Texas defense attorney should handle a Siemens Industry Software Inc. case based on their past filings, click here.


To learn about the Siemens cases in depth, click here.


In short, it appears as if the Siemens Industry Software Inc. strategy is as follows:

1) File a large 100+ Defendant lawsuit (most recently, v. 268+ defendants), encourage the court to approve early discovery allowing Siemens Industry Software Inc. to obtain the contact information for each of those 268+ John Doe Defendants.
2) Contact each of those defendants, convert accused defendants into paying customers (where the cost of the software can range from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars).
3) Expand the lawsuit inquiry to the employer of the accused defendant engineer, and ascertain whether they have purchased volume licenses for their engineer employees.
4) Name and Serve and/or sue one or so defendants in a court outside the jurisdiction of the original court (this demonstrates that their reach is not limited to the courts in which they filed their original lawsuit). Unclear whether this is to obtain a $150,000 judgment for copyright infringement, or to convince that company to comply with their software licensing demands. I understand the goal of the lawsuits is to convert accused defendants into customers.
5) Proceed over the next three years contacting the various John Doe Defendants [even after the case is dismissed <– this has happened]. File a new lawsuit against 100+ more John Doe Defendants, and repeat Steps 1-5.

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


Articles Written on the Siemens Industry Software Inc. cases (most recent first):

Siemens Industry Software Inc. – Software Piracy Lawsuits — “They’re Back!”, on 7/30/2017 (modified for each of the subsequent lawsuits filed, most recently on 2/28/2023).

Siemens Industry Software Inc. NX-based lawsuits – converting accused engineers into loyal customers, on 1/9/2017.

Software Developers are now tracking piracy through the USE of downloaded software, on 9/9/2016.

The Siemens Industry Software Inc. Case IS a File Sharing Case, on 6/20/2017.

What to do about the Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does case (TX), on 1/16/2016.

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


Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. et al v. Demin (Case No. 3:16-cv-00553)

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1 – 100 (Case No. 1:14-cv-01926)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-50 (Case No. 1:11-cv-08469)

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software In v. Manufacturing Services International, Inc. (Case No. 3:16-cv-00182)

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

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-50 (Case No. 2:12-cv-06795)

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. BTL Machine, Inc. (Case No. 4:14-cv-00506)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:15-cv-00582)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Mercury Metal Forming Technologies, LLC (Case No. 4:14-cv-00002)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does (Case No. 4:15-cv-00017)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. TWIVision Engineering Group, LLC (Case No. 6:11-cv-00679)

*NEW* Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-268 (Case No. 4:23-cv-00498)
Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:22-cv-00588)
Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-142 (Case No. 4:21-cv-00385)
Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-150 (Case No. 4:20-cv-00798)
Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-10 (Case No. 4:20-cv-00801)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-118 (Case No. 4:19-cv-02448)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-150 (Case No. 4:19-cv-00129)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-107 (Case No. 4:18-cv-02344)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-97 (Case No. 4:18-cv-00397)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-93 (Case No. 4:17-cv-01796)
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-03552)

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1-100 (Case No. 4:16-cv-01422)

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


Because software-based copyright infringement cases are especially concerning the John Doe Defendants who are accused of using pirated software (such as what is going on right now with the Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-268 [4:23-cv-00498] case in Texas), I thought it would be beneficial to take a few moments and simplify the process. That way, when you pay an attorney, you will know exactly what the attorney will be doing.

Here are the steps your attorney (us, or anyone else) should be taking on your behalf — specifically with the Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Does 1-268 (Case No. 4:23-cv-00498) case:

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


Once your plaintiff attorney learns that you are represented by an attorney, all communication must be with that attorney alone. Phone calls or letters to client directly once a notice of representation is provided can jeopardize that attorney’s law license.


Siemens Industry Software Inc. likes to research the claims, and they take their time in getting the entire picture before discussing settlement. It is important to share truthful information with your defense attorney so that claims against you can be disputed with facts and dates. And obviously, your attorney should have the common sense to discuss the claims without admitting guilt on your behalf.

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


Normally the plaintiff attorneys in a copyright infringement lawsuit (or more frequently, an IP address-based “copyright troll” lawsuit) will immediately approach a settlement regardless of guilt or wrongdoing. This is not the case with the Siemens Industry Software lawsuits. Rather, it appears as if they are seeking to convert those using unlicensed versions of their software into paying customers. For this reason, once the investigation is completed and claims are discussed, settlement options are discussed as well. This might include purchasing software, paying a settlement, or negotiating a license based on the limited past use of the software.

The “no settlement” option is obviously the scenario where the client did not do the download. Because Siemens Industry Software Inc. software is expensive (costs can range from a few thousand dollars to over thirty thousand dollars), there is no reason to negotiate a settlement if the accused John Doe Defendant did not download or use the software. Rather, the alternative is to provide proof that the John Doe Defendant is not the individual Siemens Industry Software is looking for (it is difficult to prove a negative, but it is doable), or to help Siemens Industry Software Inc. come to the realization that the actual software user is the engineer next door running his business from his home.

Obviously if neither side can agree on anything, then yes, it makes sense to proceed to allow the plaintiff attorney to name and serve your client, file an answer with the court, and proceed with defending your client’s interests in the courtroom.

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


Many accused defendants installed the software for educational purposes — to ‘tinker’ with the softare, to learn the software, or to become conversant with the software. While the intention of the unlicensed use is noble (e.g., that user would later be working with a licensed version of the software at their workplace or in their business), for the moment, there was folly in their initial use of the software. This is our goal — to have these specifics be relevant and useful in a negotiation with Siemens Industry Software Inc. to arrive at a settlement price the client can afford.


These are two separate steps. The settlement agreement should be specific to the claims of copyright infringement, and they should include the nuances of Texas contract law in order to ensure the agreement is enforceable. The software license also is full of nuances and words that requires an attorney who knows what terms mean in software licenses (because certain words have meanings in the context of a software license which are contrary to the plain meaning of the word), and who is forceful enough to be willing to argue for terms or clauses which protect the client’s rights. Lastly, the software license should provide the accused John Doe Defendant the right to use the software in the way the accused defendant wants or needs to use the software in the future. It makes no sense to negotiate a limited software license to cover only past use when the defendant is an engineer and will be needing to use the software again in the future.

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


This is self explanatory. Siemens Industry Software Inc. is not bound to an agreement until they sign it (or until their attorney with authority to sign signs it on their behalf as their agent). Attorneys generally try to get the John Doe Defendant to sign first and pay their settlement fee, and then ‘maybe’ the plaintiff attorney will sign it, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will accept the payment, and ‘maybe’ the attorney will release that defendant from liability once the settlement is received. These are games a plaintiff attorney may play, and for this reason, it is advisable to have the defense attorney insist that the plaintiff attorney sign the agreement first in order to bind their client to the terms of the agreement… before their client signs the agreement or pays a penny in settlement of the claims against them.


Once again, this is self explanatory, but unfortunately, it must be a step. Too often, plaintiff attorneys have the clients sign first and pay first, and then when they get around to it, they’ll sign the agreement and release that defendant from liability. However, this could take weeks or months.

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

The reason for this is because once their client has their money, without being contract-bound to release the defendant from the lawsuit, the John Doe Defendant who paid their settlement fee becomes a lower priority to the busy plaintiff attorney (who is juggling sometimes hundreds of defendants in multiple cases) who is more worried about the due dates for their other cases, or who is more worried about extracting settlements from other defendants. This is why it is important in STEP 6) for the plaintiff attorney to sign the agreement first.

Nevertheless, even with a signed agreement, sometimes the plaintiff attorneys need ‘reminders’ to do what they are duty-bound to do. Thus, your attorney should not close the client’s file when payment is sent, but rather, the attorney should stay on top of the plaintiff attorney until the dismissal is actually filed in the court dismissing that John Doe Defendant from liability.

In sum, copyright infringement cases are all similar, but each one has its nuances. The steps described in this article apply to any John Doe Defendant in any copyright infringement lawsuit, and for this reason, I wrote this article 1) to not only give the client an understanding of the steps which are required in representing a client prior to being named and served in a John Doe lawsuit, but more importantly, 2) to allow that client to hold their lawyer’s toes to the fire and make sure they are being represented carefully and individually.

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


ONE LAST THING — I wanted to discuss LEVERAGE. A copyright infringement lawsuit is in federal court, which means that out-of-state attorneys may attempt to solicit clients to engage in settlement negotiations only. However, with a client as serious as Siemens Industry Software Inc., especially with the financial backing of the corporation and the millions of dollars they can pour into their lawsuits, it is probably a good idea to retain an attorney who can step foot into the courtroom if something goes wrong (and things DO go wrong). The Siemens Industry Software Inc. attorneys at Reed Smith LLP can recognize an out-of-state attorney who has little leverage to negotiate versus an in-state attorney who is willing to pull the settlement off of the table and proceed with defending the case if the plaintiff is not being cooperative in resolving the claims against the client. In short, an attorney with leverage will get a better result for his client as compared to an out-of-state attorney without leverage.

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

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.

    A word on Kodi Add-ons


    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 IP address file sharing networks can get users sued in federal court for copyright infringement.

    [This follow-up article about Kodi Add-ons was written on 8/2/2017 (and I edited it in 2023 because of censorship). 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 track users downloading movie content without a license.]

    IP address file sharing networks are generally bad news for end users these days.  There are already so many movie copyright trolls who are watching the IP address-based file sharing networks and are suing end 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 unlicensed websites, 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 file sharing software can get the downloader of unlicensed content caught because their IP address is exposed in the download of the content. However, Kodi (when tweaked) never used the IP address-based file sharing backbone. 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 file sharing 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 a file sharing backbone 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 file sharing software. 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

    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 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 (or, 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 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.


    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” ( or “Recoveries Anonymous” (

    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 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], 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: 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, 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.