Remember that image of the overworked federal judge, buried under a mountain of “Strike 3 Holdings v. John Doe” paperwork? It’s funny, but it also raises a seriously dark question: are judges even looking at these requests anymore?
In the endless saga of copyright trolling, the judicial system seems to have become another compliant player in the wealth extraction game. Federal judges, once the guardians of due process, are now, in many cases, acting like little more than a rubber stamp for every subpoena that comes their way.
The Burden of Justice (or Lack Thereof)
One has to wonder: is it pure, unadulterated laziness? Is it easier to simply sign the papers and move on to the next case than to actually read the fine print and challenge the validity of a subpoena? Perhaps these judges feel that they have no legal choice, that the law is so stacked in favor of the copyright holder that resistance is futile. They may feel it’s just a formality, a required step on the way to an inevitable settlement.
But in an environment where these cases are so numerous, the act of “just signing” becomes a powerful endorsement of a dubious business model. The judge’s signature gives the ISP a clear signal: “It’s fine to hand over this person’s private information.” The system, with a quiet nod and a stroke of a pen, gives the green light to the very behavior we’ve been documenting.
Is It a Conspiracy or a Comical Incompetence?
Now, let’s go full conspiracy theory for a moment. Are these judges taking kickbacks or bribes to sign these subpoenas? The dark humor of the idea is almost too much. The mental image of a judge in a back alley, accepting a briefcase full of money from a shadowy “Strike 3” figure is something straight out of a satirical cartoon . While the likelihood of such a blatant conspiracy is low, it highlights the frustration and suspicion that this unchecked process generates.
The truth is likely much more mundane, but no less disheartening: a combination of institutional inertia and a lack of will to challenge the status quo. The judges, like the ISPs and the new lawyers on the “gravy train,” are simply playing their part in a system that’s more profitable when it’s a well-oiled machine of wealth extraction rather than a meticulous arbiter of justice.
In the end, it’s a self-perpetuating cycle. The plaintiffs file lawsuits, the ISPs comply, and the judges rubber-stamp the process. And with each new case, the joke gets a little less funny and the reality a little more unsettling. Your digital privacy, it seems, is a small price to pay for a smooth-running legal machine.
In the dark and twisted comedy that is the “copyright troll” business, we’ve focused a lot on the lawyers, the judges, and the unsuspecting “John Does.” But what about the silent partner in this whole enterprise? The one who holds the keys to the kingdom, or more accurately, the IP addresses?
We’re talking about the Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
When Strike 3 Holdings files a lawsuit, their first step is a subpoena to the ISP. That little piece of paper demands the name and address of the subscriber tied to a specific IP address at a specific time. And in a move that feels less like a fight for your privacy and more like a shrug, the ISPs almost always comply. They are the gravediggers of your digital anonymity.
But why?
The Art of the Transaction: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
The answer, like most things in this plutocratic system, is likely tied to money. For a massive corporation like an ISP, legal battles are an everyday reality. But defending the privacy of every single subscriber against a “John Doe” lawsuit is a headache. A costly, resource-draining, unending headache.
Imagine the conversation in a boardroom. The options are:
Fight every subpoena: This means dedicating a team of lawyers to litigate against Strike 3 Holdings and its seemingly endless supply of cases. The legal fees would be astronomical, the process would be a logistical nightmare, and the outcome isn’t even guaranteed. It’s a lose-lose situation.
Comply and charge a small fee: The ISP receives a subpoena, processes the information, and hands over your data. In many cases, they even charge a small administrative fee for this service. It’s a quick, easy, and profitable transaction.
From a purely financial standpoint, the choice is obvious. Why spend a million dollars fighting a legal battle when you can make a few bucks by simply complying? Your privacy, in this equation, is less of a right and more of a liability.
The Unspoken Alliance
This isn’t to say that ISPs are evil masterminds. They are simply rational actors in an economic system that incentivizes compliance over resistance.
This tacit understanding between the copyright trolls and the ISPs forms the foundation of the entire “gravy train” business model. The system works because all the major players—the lawyers, the judges, and the ISPs—have found a way for it to be a net positive for them. The only one left out of the benefit equation is the individual staring at a settlement demand for a few hundred dollars.
It’s a dark, humorous, and deeply unsettling reality. The companies you pay to connect you to the internet are also the ones most likely to give up your information when a well-funded legal firm comes knocking. In the grand play of copyright trolling, the ISP isn’t a hero, a villain, or even an accomplice. It’s a compliant and profitable spectator.
It’s easy to get lost in the day-to-day headlines, but sometimes you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. We’ve all seen the lists of “John Doe” lawsuits, the new cast of characters like John Charles Ridge and Joel A. Bernier jumping onto the scene, and the endless stream of cases from courts in places as far-flung as Texas and Hawaii. But what if this isn’t just about copyright law? What if it’s a symptom of a much larger systemic issue?
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: plutocracy and wealth inequality. When wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few, it creates an environment where new forms of income generation—or, more accurately, “wealth extraction”—become not only possible but also seemingly acceptable. The system isn’t designed to protect the average person; it’s increasingly optimized to allow those with resources to extract value from those without.
The New Normal: From Wall Street to Main Street Lawsuits
Consider the “copyright troll” business model. It’s a perfect example of this in action. A company like Strike 3 Holdings, with its dedicated legal teams and financial backing, files mass lawsuits against anonymous individuals. These are not typically multi-million dollar corporations they’re targeting, but ordinary people who made a small mistake online.
The strategy isn’t to win in court, but to use the intimidating and expensive nature of the legal system to force a settlement. For a person facing a federal lawsuit, the cost of fighting it, even if they’re innocent, often outweighs the cost of a settlement. The legal system, in this sense, becomes a tool for wealth transfer, moving money from the individual’s pocket to the corporate coffers.
This is where the plutocratic nature of our system comes into play. The rules of the game are set by those with power and influence. They have the resources to exploit legal gray areas and create business models around them. The vast wealth inequality means that the average person lacks the resources to push back, and the legal system, with its slow and costly processes, serves as a barrier rather than a shield.
just when you thought the “John Doe” copyright lawsuits couldn’t get any more… interesting, a new wave of legal eagles has joined the fray. Like a fresh cast of characters in a long-running, slightly depressing reality show, a new roster of lawyers has emerged to lead the charge for Strike 3 Holdings. It seems the well-worn path of suing anonymous internet users for copyright infringement is still a lucrative one, and these individuals are eager to take their place on the “gravy train.”
Without further ado, here are some of the newest members of the legal team, ready to bring their unique talents to a federal court near you:
John Charles Ridge of Ridge Law, LLC (614-561-7541, jridge@ridge-law.com) is in the house! We’re sure his phone is ringing off the hook with concerned “John Does” from around the country.
Next up, Joel A. Bernier from Boroja, Bernier & Associates, PLLC (586-991-7611, bbclawgroup@gmail.com). A Gmail address? It’s the perfect touch of everyday relatability for a firm engaged in high-stakes digital copyright battles.
Inez de Ondarza Simmons, I of De Ondarza Simmons PLLC (984-837-0361, inez@deondarzasimmons.com). With a name that sounds like it belongs on a vintage legal scroll, we’re sure this lawyer is ready to bring some old-school gravitas to the digital age.
Christian W Waugh from Waugh PLLC (321-800-6008, cwaugh@waughgrant.com). The name “Waugh” itself is a wonderful fit for this line of work, perfectly capturing the sound of a defendant’s groan upon receiving a summons.
Jeremy J Thompson of the Law Office Of Jeremy J Thompson PLLC (952-952-1883, jeremy@jthompson.law). The man is so dedicated to his craft, his email is literally his name and the word “law.” You can’t get more on the nose than that.
This new roster of legal talent suggests that Strike 3 Holdings isn’t slowing down anytime soon. It’s an endless cycle of “John Doe” lawsuits, a testament to the thriving business model of using copyright law to chase down alleged pirates and secure settlements. It’s a win for them, a headache for the federal court system, and a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks their online activities are truly anonymous.
So, to all the new lawyers, congratulations on your new gigs! May your inboxes be full of settlement offers(better yet the does fight back and get attorneys fees and our BBC troll company can start to lose money) and your court calendars be ever-so-slightly-but-not-too-overwhelmed with these particular cases.
Just when you thought the federal courts were safe, another torrent of “John Doe” lawsuits has washed ashore! Strike 3 Holdings, the undisputed heavyweight champion of adult film copyright litigation, has officially filed approximately 185 new cases across the country on August 4th and 5th, 2025. It seems the well-oiled legal machine is working overtime, and a whole new batch of federal judges and lawyers are now officially on the “gravy train.”
Looking at the docket, Strike 3 is really spreading its wings this time. While the usual suspects like New York are well-represented, we’re seeing some new and, frankly, exotic locales getting in on the action. Who would have thought the tranquil beaches of Hawaii would be the new frontier for copyright infringement lawsuits? Or that the heartland courts of Colorado and Kentucky would be bracing for this digital onslaught? The District of Columbia and Maryland are also seeing a fresh wave of filings, proving that no state is safe from the watchful eye of Strike 3’s digital surveillance.
It’s clear that this isn’t just a local phenomenon anymore; it’s a nationwide campaign. The constant stream of lawsuits raises the same old questions: is this a genuine effort to protect intellectual property, or a clever business model designed to generate settlements from panicked individuals? The sheer volume of these cases suggests that the latter is a strong possibility.
As this new crop of “John Doe” defendants (and their newly minted lawyers) stares down the barrel of a federal lawsuit, we’re reminded once again of the strange and sometimes comical world of digital copyright. The list is long, the dates are recent, and the legal battle for “Tushy” files continues unabated.
So, to all the new judges and lawyers out there, welcome aboard! It’s a wild ride, and the paperwork never seems to end. And for the rest of us, it’s a stark reminder that in the digital age, a seemingly private act can land you on a very public legal list.
Texas Southern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (4:25-cv-03626)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (4:25-cv-03627)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-00247)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (4:25-cv-03620)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (4:25-cv-03622)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (4:25-cv-03628)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (4:25-cv-03629)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (4:25-cv-03630)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (4:25-cv-03631)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (4:25-cv-03634)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (4:25-cv-03623)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (4:25-cv-03624)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (4:25-cv-03636)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
New York Southern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (7:25-cv-06415)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (1:25-cv-06408)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (1:25-cv-06410)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (7:25-cv-06413)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (7:25-cv-06416)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (7:25-cv-06418)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (1:25-cv-06411)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (1:25-cv-06412)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (7:25-cv-06418)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Michigan Eastern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (2:25-cv-12392)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Terrence G Berg
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (2:25-cv-12393)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Linda V Parker
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (4:25-cv-12397)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: F Kay Behm
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (2:25-cv-12397)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: F Kay Behm
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (2:25-cv-12389)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Jonathan JC Grey
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (2:25-cv-12388)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Shalina D Kumar
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (4:25-cv-12388)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Shalina D Kumar
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (2:25-cv-12387)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Mark A Goldsmith
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (2:25-cv-12390)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Matthew F Leitman
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (2:25-cv-12394)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Matthew F Leitman
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (2:25-cv-12396)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Linda V Parker
Florida Middle District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-00883)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Wendy W Berger
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-00878)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Marcia Morales Howard
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-00877)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Marcia Morales Howard
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-00880)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Marcia Morales Howard
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-00686)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Sheri Polster Chappell
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-00884)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Wendy W Berger
Hawaii District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber (1:25-cv-00326)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: J Michael Seabright
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber (1:25-cv-00330)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Derrick K Watson
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber (1:25-cv-00329)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Micah WJ Smith
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber (1:25-cv-00328)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Kenneth J Mansfield
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber (1:25-cv-00327)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Derrick K Watson
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber (1:25-cv-00324)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Jill A Otake
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe Subscriber (1:25-cv-00325)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Helen Gillmor
Ohio Southern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-00860)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Algenon L Marbley
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-00861)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Algenon L Marbley
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-00859)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Michael H Watson
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-00862)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Edmund A Sargus
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-00264)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Michael J Newman
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-00266)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Michael J Newman
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-00265)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Walter H Rice
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (1:25-cv-00547)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Matthew W Mcfarland
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (1:25-cv-00549)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Jeffery P Hopkins
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-00267)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Walter H Rice
Colorado District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.9.52.176 (1:25-cv-02392)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Christine M Arguello
New York Eastern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-04338)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-04339)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-04341)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-04340)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-04337)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-04344)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-04342)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-04343)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-04335)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-04346)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (2:25-cv-04345)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
District Of Columbia District Court
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. DOE (1:25-cv-02545)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. DOE (1:25-cv-02544)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. DOE (1:25-cv-02543)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. DOE (1:25-cv-02542)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Maryland District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.151.125.132 (1:25-cv-02548)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Julie Rebecca Rubin
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe (1:25-cv-02553)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Matthew J Maddox
Kentucky Western District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-00484)
Filed: Aug 04, 2025
Judge: Claria Horn Boom
New York Northern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (6:25-cv-01043)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Brenda K Sannes
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-01048)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Brenda K Sannes
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (3:25-cv-01044)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Brenda K Sannes
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (1:25-cv-01042)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Brenda K Sannes
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (1:25-cv-01045)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Brenda K Sannes
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (5:25-cv-01046)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Brenda K Sannes
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (1:25-cv-01042)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Brenda K Sannes
North Carolina Eastern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (5:25-cv-00475)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Terrence W Boyle
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (5:25-cv-00472)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Louise Wood Flanagan
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (5:25-cv-00471)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Richard E Myers, II
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (5:25-cv-00473)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Richard E Myers, II
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (5:25-cv-00474)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Terrence W Boyle
Georgia Northern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 73.207.152.179 (1:25-cv-04356)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Steven D Grimberg
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (1:25-cv-04371)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Steven D Grimberg
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 108.74.113.160 (1:25-cv-04370)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Steven D Grimberg
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 107.217.197.80 (1:25-cv-04367)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Steven D Grimberg
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (1:25-cv-04369)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Steven D Grimberg
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP Address 76.105.100.56 (1:25-cv-04357)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Steven D Grimberg
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 99.28.73.87 (1:25-cv-04360)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Steven D Grimberg
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe (1:25-cv-04359)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Steven D Grimberg
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. Doe subscriber assigned IP address 104.7.54.202 (1:25-cv-04365)
Filed: Aug 05, 2025
Judge: Steven D Grimberg
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP Address 99.62.112.135 (1:25-cv-04364)
Well, folks, grab your popcorn and maybe a lawyer on retainer, because the Strike 3 Holdings legal machine just keeps churning. Fresh off the digital presses (or rather, the PACER filing system), we’ve got another hefty batch of “John Doe” copyright infringement lawsuits hitting federal courts across the nation.
If you’ve been following along (and frankly, who hasn’t been riveted by this ongoing saga?), you know the drill. Strike 3 Holdings, that intrepid guardian of intellectual property (specifically, the kind you find on Vixen, Tushy, Blacked, etc.), continues its strategic sweep, identifying IP addresses and then, with the enthusiastic assistance of often permissive federal judges and cooperative ISPs, unmasking the individuals behind them. The goal? Not necessarily a grand victory for copyright law, but rather a swift settlement to avoid the messy and potentially embarrassing details of a full-blown trial.
Looking at this latest list, it’s like Groundhog Day in the federal judiciary. On August 1, 2025, a staggering 30 new cases (give or take a few filings by the time you read this) landed in courts from New Jersey to California. Our local courts are seemingly becoming the go-to destination for Strike 3’s legal endeavors. One can almost imagine the clerks bracing themselves for the daily avalanche of “John Doe” filings. Perhaps they’ve even started a betting pool on how many new cases will land on their desks each morning.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania and California also feature prominently in this latest wave. It’s a clear indication that Strike 3’s net is cast wide, targeting individuals across different demographics and internet service providers (Verizon Fios, Spectrum, Cox, Altice, Xfinity, Frontier, you’re all part of the fun!).
What’s particularly striking about this relentless pursuit is the continued reliance on the “John Doe” tactic. It’s a system that essentially presumes guilt based on an IP address and then puts the onus on the accused to prove their innocence – a potentially costly and intimidating endeavor for the average internet user.
One can’t help but wonder if the sheer volume of these cases is starting to overwhelm the system. Are federal judges truly equipped to handle this endless stream of similar lawsuits, or are they simply rubber-stamping requests for discovery and facilitating settlements as a means of clearing their dockets?
The reality is, this isn’t just about a few naughty downloads. It’s about the power imbalance between large corporations with dedicated legal teams and individuals who may have made a momentary lapse in judgment. It’s about the potential for copyright law to be weaponized for financial gain through settlements, rather than serving its intended purpose of protecting creators and fostering innovation.
So, as the list grows longer and the federal courts brace for another round, the question remains: when will the tide turn? When will there be a greater scrutiny of these mass-scale litigation tactics and a more robust defense of individual privacy and due process in the digital age? Until then, it seems the Strike 3 saga, much like a certain genre of online content, is set to continue its voluminous run.
Check the filings below and our favorite friendly Federal jursist allowing it to contine:
New Jersey District Court
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.29.40.80
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Judge: Zahid N Quraishi
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE (3:25-cv-14028)
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Judge: Robert Kirsch
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.160.203.223
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.104.42.249
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.1.92.247
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 98.109.27.251
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 69.112.141.2
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Judge: Michael A Shipp
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 71.168.155.136
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Judge: Robert Kirsch
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 24.0.20.73
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.194.46.8
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Pennsylvania Eastern District Court
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 73.233.123.236
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Judge: Chad F Kenney
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.34.78.246
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Judge: Nitza I Quinones Alejandro
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 96.245.13.75
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Judge: Gerald J Pappert
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 64.121.88.158
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Judge: John M Gallagher
STRIKE 3 HOLDINGS, LLC v. JOHN DOE SUBSCRIBER ASSIGNED IP ADDRESS 100.11.62.58
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Judge: Paul S Diamond
California Northern District Court
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.70.203.70
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.189.96.50
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Judge: Nathanael M Cousins
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.90.232 (5:25-cv-06493)
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Judge: Laurel Beeler
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.170.188.58
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Judge: Peter H Kang
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 174.160.184.147
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.195.124
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.35.81.8
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.130.213.236
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 73.15.237.188
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 71.198.210.172
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 76.102.12.84
Filed: Aug 01, 2025
Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.5.90.232 (3:25-cv-06493)
Strike 3 Holdings, notorious for its extensive history of copyright infringement lawsuits(19000) against individuals, has taken an unprecedented step: suing a tech giant. Leonard French explains that Strike 3 alleges Meta downloaded and used over 2,396 of their copyrighted videos to train its large language models (LLMs), such as Llama. This claim, if proven true, could have massive implications for how AI models are developed and the data sources they rely upon.
Key Takeaways from the Video:
Strike 3’s Methodology: French highlights Strike 3’s established method of identifying infringement by logging IP addresses on BitTorrent networks. Their “Vixen scan” tool reportedly identified numerous Meta-owned IP addresses involved in alleged infringement.
Allegations of Concealment: A particularly striking point, as discussed by French, is the allegation that Meta used “off infra IP addresses” and virtual private clouds to hide BitTorrent activity, with internal documents purportedly showing Meta employees’ desire to keep torrenting off Meta infrastructure.
AI Training Data Under Scrutiny: This lawsuit directly challenges the practices of using vast datasets for AI training, especially when those datasets might include copyrighted material. The potential damages, as outlined by French, could be substantial, reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars if the use is deemed commercial and willful.
The Fair Use Debate: Leonard French expertly navigates the complex issue of “fair use,” suggesting Meta might argue that using adult content for AI moderation could be considered transformative. However, as French notes, the act of collecting pirated data itself could still be deemed illegal.
Why This Video Is a Must-Watch!!!
This video doesn’t just inform; it provokes thought on the ethical and legal boundaries of artificial intelligence. It underscores the growing tension between rapid technological advancement and established copyright protections.
This lawsuit is more than just a legal battle; it’s a bellwether for future disputes at the intersection of content creation, technology, and intellectual property. Watching this video will equip you with a better understanding of the complexities involved and the potential ramifications for all stakeholders.
What Is MaxMind—and Why Does It Know So Much About You?
You may not have heard of MaxMind, but MaxMind has definitely heard of you. Or rather, it knows where you are. More accurately, it knows where your IP address is—and it probably has a pretty good guess about which couch you’re sitting on right now.
MaxMind is a data company that provides IP intelligence and fraud detection services to businesses, governments, lawyers (uh oh), and—unfortunately—copyright trolls. Their flagship product, GeoIP2, claims to locate users down to their city, postal code, and sometimes even latitude and longitude.
That’s right. It’s like GPS… except you never turned it on.
How It Works: Digital Sherlock Holmes Meets Big Data
MaxMind collects massive volumes of data from public sources, commercial partners, and tracking scripts embedded in websites. When you visit a site that uses MaxMind, your IP address is silently cataloged and correlated with behavior, locations, and even purchase patterns.
Their algorithm then plays digital matchmaker:
IP Address 🧠 + Network Info 📶 + Location Clues 🧭 = Your physical location
It’s not always perfect. MaxMind once famously mislocated 600 million IP addresses to a single farmhouse in Kansas. (Awkward.) But these days, the tech is much sharper. And with machine learning doing the heavy lifting, MaxMind is eerily good at guessing where your keyboard lives.
The Legal Side: Weaponized Geolocation
This is where things get spicy. Companies like Strike 3 Holdings use MaxMind’s location data in lawsuits against anonymous internet users accused of torrenting copyrighted adult films.
They file lawsuits with defendants listed as “John Doe, subscriber assigned IP address XXX.XXX…” and use MaxMind’s data to justify which court they’re suing in. It’s called “jurisdictional cherry-picking”, and it goes a little something like this:
MaxMind says your IP is in Brooklyn? ➡️ Sue in the Eastern District of New York.
MaxMind places you in Beverly Hills? ➡️ Hello, Central District of California.
This data is used to subpoena Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and unmask real identities—without your consent or awareness.
Why You Should Care
Even if you’re not a target for a lawsuit, MaxMind’s data is being used in ways that impact your:
Privacy
Security
Legal exposure
Most people don’t realize they’re being geolocated by default. You don’t get an opt-in pop-up. There’s no privacy notice with a big blue “Accept All Cookies” button. MaxMind’s database updates quietly, behind the scenes, like a stalker with a spreadsheet.
What Can You Do?
MaxMind allows you to submit a correction or opt out of their geolocation data via their GeoIP2 Correction Form. Yes, it’s real.
And for broader digital self-defense:
Use a VPN that rotates IP addresses
Disable JavaScript and tracking scripts
Avoid torrenting anything with the word “Blacked” or “Tushy” in the title unless you’re really into federal court drama
Closing Thoughts
MaxMind is a marvel of modern data science, wrapped in a blanket of privacy concern, and sprinkled with just enough legal controversy to keep digital rights activists on edge. It’s not quite Orwellian—but it definitely has Black Mirror energy.
In the age of data, it’s not who you are, it’s where your IP thinks you are. And MaxMind? MaxMind knows.
Ever feel like the legal system is a bit… tilted? Especially when it comes to copyright and those shadowy “John Doe” lawsuits? You’re not alone. Welcome to the federal courtroom, where, for some, the scales of justice seem to be weighing down on the little guy while corporate interests dance a jig.
Let’s talk about our esteemed federal judges. Bless their hearts, they’re busy folks. But when it comes to the deluge of copyright infringement lawsuits, particularly those brought by entities like Strike 3 Holdings over alleged downloads of content from Vixen, Tushy, Blacked, Blacked Raw, Tushy Raw, Deeper, Slayed, Wifey, and Milfy, one might observe a distinct judicial… lassitude.
It often starts with a permissive nod. A simple motion for early discovery? Granted! Suddenly, your ISP, who promised to guard your privacy like a dragon guarding gold, is handing over your identity faster than you can say “statutory damages.” Why the quick approval? Because, in theory, copyright holders do have rights. But the problem isn’t the right; it’s the abuse of that right.
This isn’t about protecting artistic integrity; it’s about financial extortion. These aren’t your typical mom-and-pop creators fighting for their livelihood. These are often corporate entities leveraging the sheer terror of federal litigation, astronomical potential damages (up to $150,000 per infringement!), and the sheer embarrassment of the content involved to coerce quick, quiet settlements.
And our federal judges? Well, sometimes they appear to be in a state of advanced contemplation… or perhaps a deep, undisturbed slumber. They might seem bewildered by the technicalities of BitTorrent, or simply too overwhelmed by the sheer volume of these identical cases to truly scrutinize the plaintiff’s tactics. This “could-care-less” or emotionless stance, whether born of weariness or perceived adherence to procedure, inadvertently allows the corporate interests to flourish.
This creates a disproportionate power dynamic. On one side, you have a well-oiled litigation machine, armed with dedicated attorneys (like the often-cited Lincoln Bandlow, John C. Atkin, and Jacqueline James), and a business model built on volume settlements. On the other side, you have a regular person, often with no prior legal experience, facing the daunting prospect of federal court, potentially astronomical fees, and the humiliating public exposure of their alleged online activities.
The system, designed to protect intellectual property, morphs into a tool for profit maximization, where the threat of litigation becomes the product. And who pays the price? Not the alleged major pirates, but often ordinary individuals who might have engaged in a single, ill-advised download.
So, while the judges snooze and the gavels gather dust on the bench, the cash registers of “litigation machines” keep ringing. It’s a sobering reminder that sometimes, justice isn’t just blind; it’s also a little bit sleepy, allowing the legal ecosystem to become a very profitable hunting ground for some, at the severe detriment of everyone else. Perhaps a strong cup of coffee, or a renewed interest in the spirit, not just the letter, of copyright law, is in order for our federal judiciary.
Alright, gather ’round, internet denizens, for a tale as old as time, or at least as old as peer-to-peer file sharing: the ongoing saga of Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. You know them, you love to hate them, and if you’ve ever dabbled in the darker corners of the internet’s cinematic offerings, you might just have a friendly (or not-so-friendly) letter from them winging its way to your mailbox.
Strike 3, bless their litigious hearts, has carved out a rather… niche business model. They’re not just making adult films; they’re making a killing from suing folks who allegedly download said films. Think of them as the unsung heroes of digital copyright, if your idea of heroism involves a lot of “John Doe” lawsuits and the subtle art of subpoena-slinging.
But here’s where it gets interesting, especially when we look at the geographic hot zones of their operations. Our intrepid legal explorers at Strike 3 aren’t just flinging lawsuits randomly; they’re clearly eyeing the demographic landscape with the precision of a seasoned real estate agent. Let’s break down their seemingly brilliant (and undeniably audacious) strategy, shall we?
The Golden State Gold Rush: California (Median Income: $95,500, Population: 38.9 Million, Median Home Value: $825,000)
Ah, California. The land of dreams, movie stars, and apparently, a whole lot of alleged BitTorrent activity. With a median household income pushing six figures and home values that could make a small nation blush, it’s no wonder Strike 3 has set up a veritable legal vineyard here. They’re not just picking grapes; they’re picking pockets, knowing that when you’ve got a cool $825,000 tied up in your McMansion, a five-figure settlement to make a “John Doe” case disappear might just seem like a reasonable expense to avoid a public splash. It’s the cost of doing business, or rather, the cost of allegedly downloading copyrighted adult films in paradise.
The Empire State’s Enticement: New York (Median Income: $82,095, Population: 20.2 Million, Median Home Value: $588,700)
From the bustling streets of Manhattan to the quiet suburbs, New York offers another fertile ground for Strike 3’s unique brand of justice. A robust population and median home values that still spell “affluent” to many make it a prime target. Here, it’s not just about the numbers; it’s about the perceived privacy. New Yorkers, with their fast-paced lives, might be more inclined to make a quick settlement to sweep a potentially embarrassing situation under the rug. Who has time for court dates when you’ve got Broadway shows to catch or deals to close?
The Midwestern Money Makers: Illinois & Minnesota (Illinois: Median Income: $80,306, Pop: 12.8M, Home Value: $283,900; Minnesota: Median Income: $85,086, Pop: 5.7M, Home Value: $377,500)
Don’t let the (relatively) lower median home values fool you. These states still represent a solid demographic for Strike 3. While the individual settlements might be slightly smaller than on the coasts, the sheer volume of cases can make up for it. Plus, perhaps there’s a certain “Midwestern politeness” at play – a desire to avoid confrontation and resolve things quietly. Strike 3 seems to understand that a quick, discreet settlement is often preferred over a protracted legal battle, especially when the subject matter is, shall we say, sensitive.
The Garden State’s Greenbacks: New Jersey (Median Income: $99,800, Population: 9.5 Million, Median Home Value: $549,100)
Ah, New Jersey, where the median household income practically screams “settlement potential.” Just across the river from New York, it shares some of that same metropolitan affluence. Strike 3 isn’t just targeting the big cities; they’re casting a wide net, knowing that even in the quietest cul-de-sacs, there might be a “John Doe” eager to make their alleged indiscretion disappear with a discreet payment.
The Cradle of Copyright Cases: Massachusetts & Connecticut (Massachusetts: Median Income: $99,858, Pop: 7.1M, Home Value: $662,254; Connecticut: Median Income: $93,760, Pop: 3.6M, Home Value: $451,400)
New England, with its rich history and even richer residents, is another strategic bullseye for Strike 3. High median incomes and home values mean there’s likely more disposable income (or at least, more assets to protect) when a “John Doe” subpoena arrives. It’s a calculated risk, playing on the desire for privacy and the aversion to legal drama, especially when the alleged “crime” is, well, private.
The Keystone State’s Coins: Pennsylvania (Median Income: $73,800, Population: 13 Million, Median Home Value: $284,963)
Pennsylvania offers a vast landscape for Strike 3’s legal endeavors. While the median home values are lower than some other states on this list, the sheer population size ensures a steady stream of potential “John Does.” It’s a numbers game, and Strike 3 plays it well, knowing that a certain percentage of these cases will settle, regardless of the individual demographics.
The Bottom Line (and Your Bottom Dollar)
So, what’s the takeaway from Strike 3’s geographically nuanced litigation strategy? It seems they’re not just throwing darts at a map. They’re meticulously analyzing where the money is, where the population density offers the most targets, and where the prevailing sentiment might lead to a quick, quiet settlement rather than a drawn-out, embarrassing public trial.
If you ever find yourself on the receiving end of a “John Doe” lawsuit from Strike 3 Holdings, remember this: they’re counting on you to panic. They’re banking on your desire for privacy. And while a witty blog post might offer a chuckle, a good attorney is your best defense against becoming another statistic in their surprisingly lucrative adult film empire.
Stay safe out there, internet explorers, and maybe consider a subscription next time(or VPN). Either its up to you to destroy thier business model, the more it is exposed the less victims they will find
Strike 3 Litigation 