Strike 3 Holdings v. Hiley — Court Awards $42,000 for BitTorrent Copyright Infringement

Background

Strike 3 Holdings, an adult-film producer and copyright owner, alleged that 56 of its registered works were downloaded and distributed without permission through BitTorrent. Its monitoring system identified the activity at a particular internet-protocol address, and the associated internet service provider identified subscriber Nigel Hiley after receiving a subpoena.

Strike 3 amended its complaint to name Hiley, served him, and waited nearly three years without receiving an answer or other response. After the clerk entered default, Strike 3 sought a default judgment, statutory damages, a permanent injunction, and destruction of the unauthorized copies.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Sean D. Jordan granted default judgment. The court found the procedural requirements satisfied because Hiley had been properly served, the grounds for default were clearly established, and nothing suggested excusable neglect or a good-faith mistake. His failure to participate also halted the adversarial process and prejudiced Strike 3.

The admitted allegations supplied a sufficient basis for copyright liability. Strike 3 alleged ownership of valid registrations for all 56 works and presented evidence that its monitoring system directly connected to Hiley’s address and downloaded files identical or strikingly similar to those works. By defaulting, Hiley admitted the well-pleaded facts that he copied and distributed the works without authorization, violating the copyright owner’s reproduction and distribution rights.

The court awarded $42,000 in statutory damages—$750 for each of the 56 works. Strike 3 had requested the minimum statutory award rather than enhanced damages for willful infringement, and the court found the amount mathematically determinable without an evidentiary hearing.

The court also permanently enjoined Hiley from downloading, copying, or distributing the works without permission and ordered him to permanently delete and remove all infringing copies from his computers. It reasoned that monetary damages alone would not prevent continued distribution, that Hiley had no legitimate interest in continuing infringement, and that enforcing federal copyright law served the public interest.

Key Takeaways

• A properly served defendant who fails to respond admits the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations, but the court must still determine whether those facts establish copyright liability.
• Copyright owners may elect statutory damages instead of proving actual loss; here, the court applied the $750-per-work minimum to 56 registered works.
• Technical evidence linking BitTorrent activity to an address, combined with subscriber identification and a default, supported liability for unauthorized copying and distribution.
• Default relief can include both a permanent injunction and an order requiring destruction of unauthorized digital copies.

Why It Matters

The ruling illustrates the complete enforcement path in an anonymous online-infringement case: forensic monitoring, early discovery directed to an internet provider, identification and service of the subscriber, and ultimately default judgment. It also shows that even when liability is uncontested, a copyright plaintiff must present registered works and pleaded facts that connect the defendant to copying and distribution.

For defendants, ignoring a properly served complaint does not avoid scrutiny or cap the available remedies. A default may establish the pleaded facts and lead to damages, injunctive relief, and mandatory deletion of infringing files without a trial.