Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe
MEMORANDUM/ORDER denying 30 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 9/15/2016. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
MALIBU MEDIA, LLC,
Civil Action No. TDC-15-1042
Subscriber Assigned IP Address
On April 11,2015, Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC filed this action against Defendant John
Doe for copyright infringement. ECF NO.1.
Malibu Media alleges that Doe "copied and
distributed" a large digital media file containing 127 copyrighted pornographic movies over the
BitTorrent file distribution network without authorization. CompI. ~~ 2, 31-33, ECF No. 1.
Malibu Media initially identified Doe only by an Internet Protocol address ("IP address"). With
leave of the Court, Malibu Media subpoenaed records from the internet service provider
associated with the IP address in question in order to identify Doe as the account subscriber for
that IP address. Pending before the Court is Doe's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim. ECF No. 30. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.
To defeat a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the
complaint must allege enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is plausible when the facts pleaded allow "the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
conclusions or conclusory statements do not suffice. Id. The Court must examine the complaint
as a whole, consider the factual allegations in the complaint as true, and construe the factual
allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
(1994); Lambeth v. Bd. ofComm'rs
Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268
of Davidson Cly., 407 F.3d 266,268 (4th Cir. 2005).
Doe argues that the facts presented are insufficient to establish a plausible claim for
To state a claim of direct copyright infringement, a plaintiff must allege
facts that, when credited, establish that the plaintiff owns a valid copyright in the work allegedly
infringed upon and that the defendant has copied "constituent elements of the work that are
original." Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Servo Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991).
Here, Malibu Media adequately alleges the necessary elements.
The Complaint asserts
that Malibu Media is the registered copyright owner of the movies in question.
further asserts that Malibu Media's investigator downloaded from Doe's IP address "one or more
bits of' a digital media file "containing a zip folder with 127 of Malibu Media's audiovisual
works," and that the investigator "downloaded a full copy" of the digital media file and then
verified that it contained copies of Malibu Media's copyrighted works. Compl. ~~ 20,23-24.
Doe does not dispute that Malibu Media had a copyright in the movies.
argues that the zip file (also referred to as a zip folder or siterip file) is not itself entitled to
copyright protection because it contains no original expression.
Doe also contends that, absent
allegations that Doe unzipped the folder to access and copy the movie files within it, Malibu
Media has not adequately pleaded a copyright violation because the claim that Doe had access to
the zip file does not establish that Doe copied any copyrighted works.
Doe's arguments fail. Regardless of whether a zip file, without more, would constitute
protectable material, Malibu Media's allegation that Doe downloaded a zip file containing copies
of movies for which it holds the copyright is sufficient to state a claim for copyright
infringement. See Pearson Educ., Inc. v. Ishayev, 963 F. Supp; 2d 239,250 n.9, 251 (S.D.N.Y.
2013) (distinguishing zip files from hyperlinks and holding that "[c]onsistent with a uniform
body of case law" the transmission of "zip files containing digital copies" of copyrighted
material constitutes infringement); see also Malibu Media, LLC v. Goodrich, No. 12-CV-01394WYD-MEH, 2013 WL 6670236, at *10 (D. Colo. Dec. 18, 2013) (finding that Malibu Media
sufficiently alleged copyright infringement by demonstrating that its investigator downloaded a
siterip file containing copies of copyrighted works). This allegation is supported by the fact that
Malibu Media's investigator was able to download portions of the contents of the zip file from
Doe's IP address. Given the nature of the BitTorrent file distribution system, a reasonable
inference can be drawn that Doe downloaded the zip file containing the movie files from the fact
that Doe had access to the zip file at his IP address. See Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. PWG13-365, 2014 WL 7188822, at *4 (D. Md. Dec. 16, 2014) ("The inference that the person from
whom Malibu's investigator downloaded the Films likely had downloaded them first and was
copying and distributing them clearly is plausible .... ").
Doe also contends that Malibu Media does not state a plausible claim because it does not
specify the portions of the copyrighted works that were copied by Doe, when they were copied,
or how they were copied. As described in the Complaint, the BitTorrent system facilitates
distribution by "break[ing] a file into many small pieces called bits" which are then exchanged
among users. Compl. ~ 14. While it may prove to be the case that Doe copied only portions of
works contained in the zip file, as opposed to the entirety of the works, this possibility "does not
render plaintiff's claim implausible" because "there is a nonnegligible probability that a user
who has a piece of a file constituting a movie on his computer also has the remaining pieces."
Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe, No. 13-C-0213, 2013 WL 5876192, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 31, 2013).
At the pleading stage, the aim is not probability or conclusiveness, but plausibility.
556 U.S. at 678 ("The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,'
but it asks
for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.").
allegations sufficiently meet this bar.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Malibu Media has alleged sufficient facts
to state a plausible claim for relief. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Doe's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, ECF No. 30, is DENIED.
Complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order.
Doe shall file an Answer to the
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A).
Date: September 15,2016
United States Di
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?