Single Pro Se Doe Makes K-Beech (Troll Jason Kotzker) Dismiss him WITH Prejudice, 1:11-cv-02371 (Virgins #4), Colorado

This was some great information that shows what a single Doe Defendant can do.  I will try not to get too long-winded, but there are a couple of points to this case that can be applied to other K-Beech case (Virgins #4) still open in CO and other States.

The Beginning of a Fraud

On 8 Sep 11, K-Beech (Troll Jason Kotzker), filed a single Doe defendant case, in the district of CO.  The Troll claimed that on 23 Apr 11, the single Doe illegally downloaded/shared the movie Virgins #4 via BitTorrent.  The Troll claimed the movie had a copyright application of 22 Apr 11, and was first published on 9 Feb 11.  By looking at the copyright application, it also appears to be an original work – no mention of what parts are derived from any other copyrighted material (Remember this).  The Troll made the usual request for actual and statutory damages, legal fees, and anything else the court deemed appropriate.  Complaint_02371(CO)  1:11-cv-02371-CMA, K-Beech v. John Doe, District of Colorado.

Kiss My @#$! Troll & Plaintiff

Well the Doe defendant here is not one to take this lying down.  He starts conducting research and reviewing everything about this case, especially the law regarding copyright application and registration.

  • On 31 Oct 11, the court authorized the Troll to serve a subpoena on the ISP for the Doe defendant’s subscriber information.
  • On 11 Jan 12, the Doe files a motion to quash the subpoena.  The Doe also filed a request to restrict access to his filed motions, so I’m currently unable to view and attach them to the post.
  • On 27 Jan 12, the Troll files a response to the MTQ.

On 2 Feb 12, the court issued a show cause order as to why the defendant has not been served with a summons.  Show_Cause_Order_02371(CO)  The court scheduled a 5 Apr 12, conference so the Troll could show why the case should not be dismissed IAW Rule 4(m) (served with a summons NLT 120 after a complaint is filed).


On 9 Feb 12, the court denied the defendants MTQ and told him he had 14 days to respond with substantial objections if he had any.  Order_Deny_MTQ_02371(CO)  And YES he did!  The Doe responded and EDUCATE the court on a FEW key points IT HAD WRONG.  Doe  Defendant immediately sends the court an objection to the courts recommendation to his motion to dismiss.  Doe_Obj_to_Court_02371(CO)  On 8 Mar 11, the Doe sends the court a motion for reconsideration of defendants objection.  MTR_02371(CO)

  • A valid copyright is required before a claim of infringement could proceed.
  • YES, Plaintiff did make a valid application for the copyright on 22 Apr 11.
  • Copyright office granted the copyright with an “effective” date of 1 Dec 11 – NOT back dated to 22 Apr 11.  John Doe contacted the U.S. Copyright Office directly and they confirmed the REAL date of Copyright is 1 Dec 11.  This was due to Plaintiff not getting ALL the required items to the copyright office as required by law.  Another words, Plaintiff SCREWED UP and forgot to get the Copyright office the required items.  LMAO!!!! 
  • (To quote “Red” from that 70’s Show, “Dumb-ass!”)
  • As the effective date of copyright for Virgins #4 is 1 Dec 11, Plaintiff is NOT entitled to statutory damages (up to $150K) and reasonable legal fees. All plaintiff can try to get is a the cost of the movie – $20.

Fraudulent Copyright Application

Here is the big kicker!  During the course of this entire event, John Doe somehow gets wind that Virgins #4 is a remake of another movie – “Virgins of the Screen 4,” Copyright 12 Feb 08 (Reg #PA0001611218, Combat Zone Corp.).

From some online reviewing, John Doe finds out Virgins #4 is the same movie.  See the image below.  As U.S. Copyright law is pretty clear on only issuing copyrights for an entirely original movie OR a derived one, he started to dig deeper.  Copyright restrictions for Derivative Works – circ14 (  The copyright registration for Virgins #4 DOES NOT show it is a derived work (From Virgins of the Screen 4), so Plaintiff is claiming  everything in his movie is original (Correct me if I’m wrong, but I see nothing in the registration that states it is derived from Virgins of the Screen 4.  Maybe the Copyright office has more information, but I really doubt it.).

John Doe decides to compare the movies side by side and see how much of a copy Virgins #4 truly is.  I don’t think I will surprise anyone with the following information:

With this information in hand, John Doe faxes the court his Memorandum of Support of Reconsideration Motion (Docket #37), 27 Mar 12.  SupportMTR_02371(CO)

Dismissed WITH Prejudice

On 30 Mar 12, the Troll did actually dismiss this John Doe WITH prejudice.  Doe_Dismissed_W_Prej_02371(CO)  Trying to make it go away fast and under the radar.  Not likely to happen Troll.  😉

The Future

I don’t know how many CO Virgins#4 cases K-Beech has or ones in other States, but I hope other Does see this and run with it.  It will be interesting to see what K-Beech does with any of theses open Virgin #4 cases, as they now know that they cannot get statutory damages or attorney fee awarded, only the “actual” cost of the movie – $20.  AND ONLY if they can prove the person (NOT the IP address) downloaded/shared the movie.  If they do not immediately get their Troll lawyers across the U.S. to amend their now inaccurate and fraudulent complaint, this could come back to haunt them.  I wonder if Yuen and McClellan would be interested in running a Virgins# 4 counter-claim case against K-Beech.
This will have more to come I’m sure.  Please take a look at all the documents and give me your thoughts on it.  This case also goes to show that just because the application was applied for on a certain date, doesn’t mean it will get that date for the actual registration.  If a plaintiff doesn’t get all the required items to the Copyright office, the date of registration can be pushed back.
DieTrollDie 🙂

About DieTrollDie

I'm one of the many 'John Does' (200,000+ & growing in the US) who Copyright Trolls have threatened with a civil law suit unless they are paid off. What is a Copyright Troll? Check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation link -
This entry was posted in Virgins 4 and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Single Pro Se Doe Makes K-Beech (Troll Jason Kotzker) Dismiss him WITH Prejudice, 1:11-cv-02371 (Virgins #4), Colorado

  1. Raul says:

    Great article but to be clear the two movies are the same with the same cast and only minor editing can differentiate the two DVDs accordingly to this Doe. I can absolutely verify that the same is true for K-Beech’s 2010 “Gang Bang Virgins” and Combat Zone’s 2006 “Grand Slam”. “Grand Slam Virgins” has been used as the basis to extort settlements from countless Does across the country and it’s copyright is nothing less than a fraud IMHO. Do I smell a class action?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Thank you Raul. I stand corrected. I will post up a Cast comparison soon. This just keeps getting worse and worse for K-Beech. I bet this is a standard business practice also. How many of his titles/movies are just like this? LOL!

      DTD 🙂

      • Raul says:

        The actress Joey Valentine who appears in “Gang Bang Virgins” I believe retired from the porn biz in 2009 which is 1 year before the production date of said work of art!? How is THAT possible?

      • Raul says:

        Every time I come across a title I run it through to see if those porno connoisseurs recognize it as an earlier title. So far no hits other than K-Beech but it is a good idea to keep on checking.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Thanks for the link – great idea as a standard course of action.

        I think I will be doing a post on the Virgins #4 and Gangbanged movies. Fraudulent copyright registrations leads to false statements (Title 18, section 1001) via filing the case and supporting documents (multiple charges) and then multiple instances of mail/wire fraud (Title 18, section 1341 & 1343) when the settlement demands are made claiming statutory damages/legal fees will be sought unless settlement demands are met.

        I would love to find a US Attorney that would be interested in this. Do you know of any way to identify all the Virgin #4 and Gangbanged cases via PACER or other sites? I think a good selling point to the US Attorney would have to be the scale of the violations, as well as the possible fines it can generate. I know the US Attorneys don’t take most cases unless a certain threshold is met.

        Number of cases = approx. number of false statements
        Number of Does = approx. number of mail/wire fraud instances

        I know you did some analysis on the Gangbanged movie. I would love to get your read on it.

        DTD 🙂

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Just posted an update – image of the cast listing for both movies. The same Seven performers.

      DTD 🙂

      • Raul says:

        To follow up on Joey Valentine who is supposed to appear in a 2010 production of “Gang Bang Virgins” (check out the dates in her bio)

      • Raul says:

        Nice update!The way I located the K-Beech cases was to run a search on and then looked up the cases on PACER. It looks like there only 7 active cases right now (some of these a winding down). They are Maryland (11-cv-00088), ED of Michigan (11-cv-15226), SD of Texas (11-cv-00046), ED of NY (11-cv-03995), WD of NC(11-cv-00357) and 2 in ED of NC (11-cv-00381 and 11-cv-00379).

        I came across this issue by chance. There were anonymous posts on SJD’s site alluding to the fact that K-Beech’s subject DVDs were in fact retitled Combat Zone DVDs. Next I Googled the issue and came upon where some posters complained about this issue. Then I ran a search at an adult DVD seller’s website which further confirmed the matter with the same cast, similar/identical screen shots and identical or very similar descriptions of the DVDs. Before accusing anyone of fraud on the Copyright Office and on the judicial system I purchased “Grand Slam” and “Gang Bang Virgins” which I compared and my findings were just like the Doe in this case; scenes had been rearranged but they were identical ( I did not compare time stamps so I cannot speak about minimal editing). Next I checked the copyright registrations and did not see any authorship by Combat Zone but rather that the newer DVDs had been authored by K-Beech and there was nothing about either work being derivative.I also checked out the bios of the actresses on the web and found that Joey Valentine had been retired from the porn industry 2 years prior to the production of “Gang Bang Virgins” which is curious to say the least.

      • DieTrollDie says:

        Thanks for the info. I have copies of the GB DVDs coming my way. It cost me less that $20 for both movies to include shipping. As most of the activity has passed, there is going to be plenty of official court document to use as evidence it a USA will take it.

        DTD 🙂

      • Raul says:

        BTW-K-Beech is trolling in Miami-Dade.

  2. Raul says:

    Sorry too many rum punches, I meant “Gang Bang Virgins” as the fraudulently copyrighted work.

  3. anonymous fighter says:

    I am with you all the way, I brought this up a while back about the recycling of porn. I, along with others have formerly been served from the court in the same bullshit case, with virgins 4 the movie in question in another state. I WANT my day in court, I want to call these assholes out and expose them. EVEN if they could prove I did down load it, it will cost them there ASS. Its been 9 months since they SAY I did this, you dont think I scanned and “cleaned” my hard drive. Show me your proof, idiots. I just want one HOTSHOT lawyer to start the class action or counter them so we both can take a vacation. Seeing that I didnt hit the powerball. I would love to get to court and call their expert witness from fucking Germany, lets see how much that will cost to get him here to testify. I am ready to fight, LETS GO.

  4. Raul says:

    Step one, purchase both DVD’s and ask the judge a review of te DVDs in chambers.

  5. Raul says:

    Good night!

  6. Joe says:

    Pure awesomeness! Mr. Cashman – file the class action!

  7. DieTrollDie says:

    Hey John. What do you think of this one? I’m sure you will say it doesn’t happen with professional firms like yours. Funny I seem to remember some of your early cases that had multiple different films bunch together; some didn’t even (or still do) have a Copyright Application.

    DTD 🙂

  8. PAJohnDoe says:

    Back in mid-March all of the K-Beech vs independent John Doe cases (including mine) were dismissed with prejudice. I wonder if this is why.

    A comment from Raul initially got me going on the copyright date angle. One judge in Eastern PA dismissed the case before him by ruling on the “registration method” of interpretation where the judge hearing the individual John Doe cases (including mine) sided with the “application method” interpretation.

    In my case, I didn’t get around to Raul’s second tactic of inspecting “Virgins #4” compared to “Virgins of the Screen #4” This latest suggestion of doing such a side-by-side examination in the Judge’s chambers did make me laugh for a while. Someone’s lawyer had better make a motion to do this…

    • Raul says:

      I remember those two discordant rulings and another rather mean spirited one that severed all Does except for the one that made the motion to sever! It is frustrating when a federal judicial district is not on the same page as it makes justice a crap shoot.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Combat Zone still distributes “Virgins of the Screen #4″. It is number 68 on the list.

    These two artists who file suit against citizens for their useful works appeared together in the family movie classic:

    The Blowjob Adventures of Dr. Fellatio # 9 DVD
    Elegant Angel
    “This is the only Dion Giarrusso , Patrick Collins video.”

    • Anonymous says:

      Should have said Dion Giarrusso and Patrick Collins “co-directed” the family classic.

      Combat Zone, and or their troll lawyers recently re-started troll lawsuits in Texas Southern District

      Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-158 Copyright Infringement–Texas Southern District Court Filed: 3/13/2012
      Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-192 Copyright Infringement – Texas Southern District Court Filed: 3/13/2012

      Combat Zone Corp. v. Does 1-63 Copyright Infringement – New York Southern District Court Filed: 12/29/2011

      Combat Zone, Inc. v. DOES 1-1037 Copyright Infringement – West Virginia Northern District Court
      Filed: 9/24/2010
      Combat Zone, Inc. v. DOES 1-245 Copyright Infringement – West Virginia Northern District Court
      Filed: 9/24/201

  10. Had Enough says:

    Lets see….count ’em up…..1. a moderate to massive fraud is being perpetrated on the Federal Courts with these blatently fraudulant copyright filings and the troll lawsuits; 2. These ‘collective’ Doe cases are filed with improper joinder and lack of jurisdiction, denying courts proper funding through legally required filing fees (also a blatent fraud IMHO).. 3. A MASSIVE extortion scheme is being run by these trolls throughout the country. WHAT THE HELL DOES IT TAKE TO GET A JUDGE TO PULL HIS/HER HEAD OUT OF THEIR JUDICIAL ASS AND PUT THESE TROLLS IN THEIR PLACE ONCE AND FOR ALL? Destroy the trolls financial life and put them in prison where they belong for their illegal activity. Lacking the guts/balls to actually get the job done as judges, what does it take to get a Federal prosecutor to take action!?!?! Why can’t any judge do just the bare minimum and stop these things at the initial improper filing or at the request for expedited discovery? This stuff would almost be considered comical, truly pathetic but comical, if it wasn’t so damaging to so many people. I’m afraid for the future of the country if this is what we get from lawyers and our judicial system.

    I’ve been watching/reading and educating myself as I’m involved with these, but despite some wins for our side, the feces-for-brains trolls have the easy court access and gutless/stupid judges that continue to believe their troll lies. Completely unbelievable.

    • Raul says:

      Patience my man, since I was rudely yanked into this universe, I have seen monumental strides being taken on the individual and judicial level to bury these fuckers. Soon enough copyright trolling will no longer be a prudent business model.

  11. Raul says:

    So not only do Trolls and their clients play loose and fast with the rigors of the copyright process but they are doing likewise with the concept of original content. I stumbled across this issue at which looks like it is run by a bunch of porn connoisseurs who knew that K-Beech’s “Virgins 4” and “Gang Bang Virgins” was old Combat Zone material. If you are being threatened by a troll I highly recommend you run a search of the allegedly infringed upon work of art at to see if it is in fact an original work as opposed to recycled porn.

  12. Adam says:

    I was a John Doe in K-Beech vs John Doe 1-85 in Eastern Virginia. On October 5 2011 the ruling judge severed all does. A few days ago I received a call from a KBeech ” litigator” who just wanted to kindly inform me I was being named a defendant. Is this for real? Do lawyers call and say hey just a heads up but we are going to sue you?? I have read a lot of good information here and I feel like counter suing these people might be a good plan, they are clearly making false accusations on false pretenses. Any ideas where I should go next?

    • DieTrollDie says:

      Yes, it is sad to say that the Trolls will do this to hopefully get another settlement in their pocket. So what case was this one and what was the movie? If it is Virgins #4 or Gang Bang Virgins, this “litigator” is a fool and deserves to be kicked in the junk. Get as much information on whom this guy is and get them to send you their “settlement” letter. Then file a complaint against the attorney – Please post his name and number he called from.

      DTD 🙂

  13. The experienced subpoena defense attorneys at Tamaroff & Tamaroff, P.A. are now handling Copyright Troll cases filed in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. Call us at (305) 403-2020 for a free consultation if you have been targeted in one of these cases.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s