ITEM
1. Business.
Background
Rightscorp,
Inc., a Nevada corporation, was incorporated in Nevada on April 9, 2010. Since the closing of the Reverse Acquisition on October
25, 2013 (discussed below), we have been the parent company of Rightscorp, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
On
October 25, 2013 (the “Merger Closing Date”), we entered into and closed an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger
Agreement”), with Rightscorp Merger Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of ours
(the “Subsidiary”) and Rightscorp, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Rightscorp Delaware”). Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, (i) the Subsidiary merged into Rightscorp Delaware, such that Rightscorp Delaware became a wholly-owned subsidiary
of our company, (ii) we issued (a) 45,347,102 shares (the “Acquisition Shares”), of our common stock to the shareholders
of Rightscorp Delaware, in exchange for all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of Rightscorp Delaware, (b) outstanding
warrants to purchase 1,831,969 shares of common stock of Rightscorp Delaware were converted into outstanding warrants to purchase
5,312,703 shares of our common stock, and (iii) outstanding convertible notes in the aggregate amount of $233,844 (including outstanding
principal and accrued interest thereon) of Rightscorp Delaware were amended to be convertible into shares of our common stock
at a conversion price of $0.1276.
Effective
on the Merger Closing Date, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Rightscorp Delaware became our wholly owned subsidiary. The acquisition
of Rightscorp Delaware is treated as a reverse acquisition (the “Reverse Acquisition”), and the business of Rightscorp
Delaware became our business.
Rightscorp
Delaware is a Delaware corporation formed on January 20, 2011.
We
are a technology company and have a patent-pending, proprietary method for collecting payments from illegal downloaders of copyrighted
content via notifications sent to their internet service providers (ISPs).
Our
principal office is located at 3100 Donald Douglas Loop North, Santa Monica, CA 90405. Our telephone number is (310) 751-7510.
Our website address is
www.rightscorp.com.
Overview
According
to Netnames, 22% of all internet traffic is used for peer-to-peer filesharing, the great majority of which infringes on copyrights,
while according to Sandivine, 27% of all US internet upload traffic is peer-to-peer filesharing, the majority of which infringes
on copyrights. We believe that this means that every creator of music, movies, TV shows, books and software is faced with the
reality that their work, their property and their content may end up being distributed on the internet against their wishes, to
their economic detriment and without receiving compensation. We protect copyright holders’ rights by seeking to assure they
get paid for their copyrighted IP. We offer and sell a service to copyright owners under which copyright owners retain us to identify
infringements and collect settlement payments from Internet users who have infringed on their copyrights. With Rightscorp, every
content creator has the opportunity to get compensated and enforce their rights.
Peer-to-peer
content piracy continues of thrive and expand even as content creators face such significant reductions in business and income.
The amount of internet traffic used by peer-to-peer filesharing grew 18% from 674 Petabytes a month to 802 Petabytes a month from
2010 to 2013 (Sources: Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2010-2015; Cisco VNI: Forecast and Methodology,
2013 - 2018). One petabyte (PB) equals 1 million gigabytes (GB), which is the equivalent of 1.6 million CDs. Eight hundred Petabytes
per month is the equivalent of 1.3 billion CDs per month. In 2013, Netnames found that the majority of peer-to-peer filesharing
infringes on copyright from 78.1% for music to 92.9% for television. According to Sandvine, 27% of all US internet upload traffic
is peer-to-peer filesharing. Cisco forecasts that file sharing will grow 42% to 999 Petabytes per month by 2018. Rightscorp is
tracking millions of US internet subscribers on the ISPs that do not forward Rightscorp notices. These millions of subscribers
are repeatedly illegally distributing Rightscorp’s clients’ copyrights to users around the globe even after their
ISPs have been sent millions of notices.
After
we have received an order from a client, our software monitors the global P2P file sharing networks to detect illegally distributed
digital media. The technology sends automated notices of the infringing activity to ISPs and the ISP forwards these notices, which
contain settlement offers, to their infringing customers. The notice to ISPs and settlement offers identify the date, time, title
of copyrighted intellectual property and other specific technology identifiers to confirm the infringement by the ISPs customer.
Infringers who accept our settlement offers then remit payment to us for the copyright infringement and we share the payments
with the copyright owners.
We
generate revenues by retaining a portion of the settlement payments we receive from copyright infringers. Our customers, the copyright
holders, benefit from our service as we share a portion of the settlement with them. This helps them recapture the revenues they
lost when their copyrighted material was illegally copied and distributed. Current customers include, but are not limited to,
BMG Rights Management, Round Hill Music, Shapiro/Bernstein and The Orchard. We have successfully obtained settlement payments
from more than 180,000 individual cases of copyright infringement. To date, we have closed infringements and received settlement
payments from subscribers on more than 233 ISPs including five of the top 10 US ISPs: Comcast, Charter, CenturyLink, Mediacom
and Suddenlink. We believe ISPs that participate with us and our clients by forwarding notices of infringement achieve compliance
with their obligations under Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or DMCA), as discussed below. Conversely, we believe that ISPs
that do not participate and do not have a policy for terminating repeat infringers fail to comply with the DMCA, which may result
in liability for them.
Dependence
on Major Customers
For
the year ended December 31, 2014, our contract with BMG Rights Management accounted for approximately 76% of our sales, and our
contract with Warner Bros. Entertainment accounted for 13% of our sales. For the year ended December 31, 2015, our contract with
BMG Rights Management accounted for approximately 58% of our sales, and our contract with Warner Bros. Entertainment accounted
for 14% of our sales. Our standard contracts with customers are for initial terms which vary in length, typically between
three months and one year, and renewals are at the discretion of the parties, or in some cases renew automatically in one month
increments, subject to the right of either party to terminate upon 30 days’ notice.
Legal
Framework
The
challenge for copyright owners is that the legal framework now in place requires the copyright owner to monitor and notice and
document each individual act of infringement against the copyright owner in order to protect its rights. We believe the content
business views this as an insurmountable and costly task. As described above, our Rightscorp software provides a solution by monitoring
the global P2P file sharing networks to detect illegally distributed digital media.
ISP
Safe Harbor
Courts
have found businesses that have been involved in contributing to copyright infringement liable for damages. In Fonovisa vs. Cherry
Auction, a swap meet run by Cherry Auction was held liable to Fonovisa (the copyright owner) for damages. As the Court observed,
“it would be difficult for the infringing activity to take place in the massive quantities alleged without the support services
provided by the swap meet, including the provision of space, utilities, parking, advertising, plumbing and customer service”.
Section
512(i) of the DMCA provides a conditional safe harbor protection from such third party liability. It states as follows:
|
●
|
(i)
Conditions for Eligibility
|
|
(1)
Accommodation of technology - The limitations on liability established by this section
shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider:
|
|
(A)
has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system
or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders
of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; and
|
|
|
|
(B)
accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
|
Thus,
under federal law, ISPs are only eligible for “Safe Harbor” protection from vicarious liability from their subscribers’
copyright infringements if they have “
reasonably implemented a policy that provides for the termination of subscribers
who are repeat infringers.
” Thus, we believe that ISPs have no liability for their role in copyright infringement on
P2P networks until the copyright owner sends them a notice of a repeat infringer. In accordance with the DMCA, we have developed
a technology and a process for identifying repeat infringers, documenting infringements and sending ISPs notice of repeat infringement
and monitoring the termination, or lack thereof, of repeat infringers. As there is no case law regarding this “Safe Harbor”
provision, ISPs’ interpretations of their responsibilities vary. We have utilized this Safe Harbor provision to obtain various
levels of cooperation from ISPs, which in many cases include the forwarding of our notices and the termination of repeat infringers
who do not accept our settlement offers. To qualify for the “Safe Harbor” protection, ISPs have an incentive to forward
our notices and terminate repeat infringers, and infringers in turn have an incentive to accept our settlement offers, so as to
avoid termination of services from the ISPs.
Digital
Copyrights & Piracy Background
In
1999, Shawn Fanning, an 18 year old college student, changed the music industry with his creation of a digital file sharing program
called Napster, a software program that allowed computer users to share and swap files, specifically music, through a centralized
file server. By the spring of 2000, Napster had several hundred thousand users and by February 2001 had grown to over 50 million
users.
In
September 2013, Netnames, a market research and consultancy firm, reported that P2P traffic that infringes on copyrights had become
24% of all internet traffic (not including traffic that infringes on pornographic copyrights). In other words, 24% of all Internet
traffic was at the time made up of illegal downloading and distribution of mainstream, high-quality movies, music, games, and
software. The report states that “worldwide, 432 million unique internet users explicitly sought infringing content during
January 2013. Despite some discrete instances of success in limiting infringement, the piracy universe not only persists in attracting
more users year on year but hungrily consumes increasing amounts of bandwidth.”
In
three key regions (North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific), the absolute amount of bandwidth consumed by the infringing use of
BitTorrent comprised 6,692 petabytes of data in 2013, an increase of 244.9% from 2011.
In
the same three regions, infringing use of BitTorrent in January 2013 accounted for:
178.7
million unique internet users, an increase of 23.6% from November 2011; and
7.4
billion page views, an increase of 30.6% from November 2011.
According
to the Global Internet Phenomena Report in Sandvine,
1H 2014,
P2P file sharing accounted for approximately 27%
of all North American upstream Internet traffic.
Enacted
in 1997, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (or DMCA) heightened the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet and
established the eligibility for Safe Harbor from liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by
their users.
To
combat online copyright infringement, the media industry and their partners have spent extraordinary amounts of money and resources
searching for a technology breakthrough to protect copyrighted works. These technologies have often referred to as Digital Rights
Management (or DRM). DRM technologies attempt to prevent digital music player technology from allowing reproduction. DRM suffers
from the inherent problem that if a reasonably technologically savvy person can listen to a music file, he can find a way to make
a copy that does not have the DRM technology. These efforts failed to stem the tide of illegal downloading, and the industry turned
to aggressive litigation tactics. Notwithstanding the continued efforts of the media industry, including the use of DRM technologies,
many popular TV and film properties are available in high quality online soon after release and in some cases prior to release.
Thus, we do not believe that DRM technologies will be able to prevent widespread unauthorized use of copyrighted content.
Beginning
in 2002, the Recording Industry Association of America (or RIAA), the trade group that represents the U.S. Music Industry, filed
the first lawsuits against individuals who were suspected of illegally downloading music. By October 2008, RIAA had filed 30,000
lawsuits against individual downloaders. As of February 2012, most of the 30,000 cases settled out of court for between $3,000
and $5,000, two cases have been tried. Jamie Thomas received a judgment for $1.5m for distributing 24 songs and Joel Tenenbaum
received a judgment for $675,000 for downloading and distributing 31 songs.
Even
with 30,000 lawsuits filed and millions of dollars collected, P2P traffic had still grown worldwide to represent more than 40%
of all consumer Internet traffic in 2008. Then in December 2008, the RIAA announced that it would stop suing individual infringers.
The
P2P Landscape
The
P2P landscape has several distinct areas: protocols, networks, access tools, software businesses, open source developers, indexing
and search sites and dark businesses.
The
most popular access tool is BitTorrent in the U.S. (uTorrent, Vuze, Frostwire).
We
believe the reason P2P is such a persistent and a prominent feature of the Internet is that it requires only a relatively small
number of individual, voluntary users anywhere in the world for its existence. It requires no financing or fixed infrastructure
to exist. The protocols are open specifications that any computer programmer can obtain and read to develop software for interacting
with the different P2P networks. There are free access tools available for all networks. The networks are simply a collection
of users who have downloaded and installed one of the many free access tools. There are operating companies like BitTorrent, Inc.
that market and sell the BitTorrent software.
A
user downloads BitTorrent software or any number of other free BitTorrent clients, installs it on his computer, and searches for
content on Google. The user simply types any artists’ name or the name of any movie or software followed by the word “torrent”
into Google. For instance after entering “Adele Torrent” into Google, millions of web pages offering her music for
free will be listed. The user selects the version they want from the web page link.
Once
a file has been requested and starts to download, the downloading computer also starts to upload pieces of the file to the network.
In the P2P world, essentially, everyone is an uploader. On BitTorrent, once the “downloader” has obtained enough of
the file, the computer becomes an uploader.
Then,
the BitTorrent website explains what happens next, including the encouragement to assist in distributing content:
“When
BitTorrent finishes downloading a file, the bar becomes solid green and the newly downloaded file becomes a new ’seed’
—a complete version of the file. It will continue to seed the file to other interested users until you tell it not to by
pausing it or removing the torrent from your queue. The more clients that seed the file, the easier it is for everyone to download
it. So, if you can, please continue to seed the file for others by keeping it in your queue for a while at least.”
Additionally,
BitTorrent Private host/tracker sites such as Demonoid operate like public ones except that they restrict access to registered
users and keep track of the amount of data each user uploads and downloads, in an attempt to reduce leeching.
BitTorrent
search engines allow the discovery of torrent files that are hosted and tracked on other sites; examples include Kick Ass Torrents,
Torrentz, The Pirate Bay, Eztorrent and isoHunt. These sites allow the user to ask for content meeting specific criteria (such
as containing a given word or phrase) and retrieve a list of links to torrent files matching those criteria.
In
2008, it was revealed that just one BitTorrent hosting/tracker site was making $4 million a year on advertising. The USC-Annenberg
Innovation Lab released a study in January 2012 that found many Internet ad networks profiting from piracy with Google #2 in the
list. We believe P2P continues for several reasons:
|
●
|
It
does not require any central organization that can be threatened or stopped;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
What
centralization does exist can be located in offshore domiciles that do not respect international intellectual property;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
In
the U.S., ISPs cannot monitor (and hence interrupt) specific portions of their customers’ traffic without a warrant;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
In
the U.S., ISPs have no liability for failing to suspend or terminate subscribers who are repeatedly distributing copyrighted
content unless the copyright owner has sent them notice of repeated infringement; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Until
we developed our software, there had been no scalable technology capable of identifying repeat infringers, recording infringements
and sending notices of repeated infringement.
|
While
this extraordinary proliferation of the use of the Internet has facilitated the ease of illegally sharing all digitized content,
the exchange of music files via P2P sharing sites vastly exceeds all other areas of the entertainment consumption on a per-unit
basis. Accordingly, we believe an expectation has been interwoven into the current generation of Internet users, which content
is and should be free.
Our
Service & How it Works
We
have developed a technology that we sell as a service to copyright owners to collect settlement payments from consumers who have
illegally downloaded copyrighted content. We are selling our services into the untapped market for monetizing billions of copyright
violations worldwide.
Our
technology system monitors the global P2P file sharing networks and sends via email to ISPs notifications of copyright infringement
by the ISPs’ customers with date, time, copyright title and other specific technology identifiers. Each notice also includes
a settlement offer. We pay the copyright owner a percentage of these settlements. By accepting our settlement offers, infringers
avoid potential legal action by the copyright holders. Our service provides ISPs a no-cost compliance tool for reducing repeat
infringement on their network.
Under
our business model, the copyright owner signs a simple agreement authorizing us to monitor the P2P networks and collect settlement
payments on its behalf. With respect to music, every mp3 file that is downloaded has at least two copyrights, a sound recording
copyright and a publishing copyright. The publishing copyright is the right to use the song and is separate from the sound recording
copyright which includes the right to place the song in a movie, re-record the song, or print the lyrics and melody on sheet music.
Under U.S. copyright law, each copyright owner has the exclusive right to copy and distribute their respective copyrights. If
someone uses “file sharing” software to “share” a specific song, they are violating the copyright owner’s
exclusive right of copying and distribution, and they have incurred a potential civil liability.
Our
technology monitors the Internet all of the time looking for infringements. When it detects an infringement, we receive the following
data:
|
●
|
Date
and Time of infringement;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Filename;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
ISP
Name;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
IP
Address; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Additional
information related to our trade secrets.
|
We
send this data to the ISP in an automated computer format. The ISP is expected to send our communication to their subscriber.
This notice is sent to the customer by its ISP, so it is clearly not “spam”.
We
have written, designed and we own the technology for:
|
●
|
listening
to the P2P networks and finding infringements;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
sending
the DMCA notices; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
receiving
payments.
|
The
user who receives the notice reads that they could be liable for $150,000 in damages, but if they click on the link supplied,
they can enter a credit card and they can will settle the matter between them and the copyright owner for $20 per infringement.
Repeat infringers are put on a list sent weekly to ISPs demanding that their service be terminated pursuant to 17 USC 512 (i).
Once the user makes the settlement payment, they are removed from the list. If subscribers have had their service terminated,
and have since settled their open infringement cases with us, their ISP is notified immediately so service can be restored.
Once
we receive the settlement amount, we split the payment half/half with the copyright owner, less certain costs. Most infringers
receive and settle multiple infringement notices.
Our
current technology can send tens of millions of notices per month. We can quickly scale this system to send hundreds of millions
notices per month.
We
provide a free compliance solution to ISPs to reduce their third-party liability for repeat copyright infringements occurring
on their network. Every U.S. ISP has a Rightscorp web page “dashboard” that they can log into and in real-time see
each subscriber account that is infringing copyright by copyright. The dashboard also displays the history of the repeat infringers
on their network and gives them immediate feedback on those that have settled their cases with the copyright holder.
We
provide a free solution to every copyright holder. Every copyright holder who has retained us has a Rightscorp web page “dashboard”
that they can log into and in real-time see each ISP subscriber account that is infringing copyright by copyright. The dashboard
also displays the history of the repeat infringers on each ISPs network and gives them immediate feedback on infringers who have
settled their cases with the copyright holder and those that continue to infringe after their ISP having received notice.
Similar
to an anti-virus software company, where new a virus appears and an anti-virus software has to investigate the new virus and update
their software to address the new virus, we must update our software when new P2P technologies appear. For example, when we launched
in 2011, Limewire, also known as Gnutella, was the dominant P2P platform for music piracy. In less than twelve months the dominant
platform for music piracy shifted to BitTorrent. As a result, to maintain the efficacy of our software, we were required to write
new software. We will seek to stay abreast of similar future changes. We cannot be certain of the cost and time that will be required
to adapt to new peer-to-peer technologies.
Product
Roadmap
Our
“next generation” technology is called Scalable Copyright. Its implementation will require the agreement of the ISPs.
We have had discussions with multiple ISPs about implementing Scalable Copyright, and intend to intensify those efforts. In the
Scalable Copyright system, subscribers receive each notice directly in their browser. Single notices can be read and bypassed
similar to the way a software license agreement works. Once the internet account receives a certain number of notices over a certain
time period, the screen cannot be bypassed until the settlement payment is received. ISPs have the technology to display our notices
in subscribers’ browsers in this manner. We provide the data at no charge to the ISPs. With Scalable Copyright, ISPs will
be able to greatly reduce their third-party liability and the music and home video industries will be able to return to growth
along with the internet advertising and broadband subscriber industries.
Sales
and Marketing
Our
sales process involves seeking to acquire more rights to monitor and collect settlements for infringements on specific copyrights.
As we acquire more rights and incorporate them into our system, our revenues increase. For example, there are 26 million songs
and other copyrighted works on Apple iTunes, all of which are rights that can potentially generate revenue for our company. We
are approaching copyright holders in the music publishing, recorded music, motion picture, television, eBook publishing, video
game, software and mobile application industries. We have the greatest penetration within the music publishing space where we
are in significant discussions with the majority of major copyright holders.
We
are penetrating the music, motion picture, and software industry through our extensive personal contacts, referral partners and
industry conferences. Christopher Sabec, our CEO, has been a successful entertainment executive and artist manager. In the music
space, we attend conferences such as MIDEM, Musexpo, and the National Music Publishing Association’s Annual Meeting where
we have an opportunity to meet with industry decision makers. For 2014 and 2015, we identified the top 100 key decision makers
and gatekeepers in the music publishing, recorded music, motion picture, eBook publishing industries. We reach out to these decision
makers directly or through referral partners who make introductions. In some cases these referral partners may receive some compensation.
We
believe our value proposition is unique and attractive — rather than asking copyright holders to pay us, we pay copyright
holders. The decision-maker is faced with a large amount of conflicting information surrounding the topic of peer-to-peer piracy.
Our sales cycle is about communicating the following information to the decision-makers within a rights holding organization:
|
●
|
U.S.
ISPs have a safe harbor that is conditional on terminating repeat copyright infringers.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Rightscorp
has the technology to identify these repeat infringers.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
ISPs
either need to work with copyright holders to reduce repeat infringers identified by Rightscorp or face significant liability.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Without
real sanctions, subscribers will largely ignore notices and continue to violate copyright law.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Graduated-response
style interdiction is too costly to scale to any significant portion of total infringements and yields little or no results.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Due
to the structure of the Internet, copyright cannot be enforced without participation of the ISPs.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
ISPs
have no incentive to participate in any meaningful way without copyright holders sending them notices.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
The
cost to send a meaningful amount of notices is prohibitive without our system.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Rightscorp,
Inc. pays copyright holders while educating infringers that peer-to-peer file-sharing of their products is a violation of
U.S. Federal law.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Our
system provides due process through warnings with escalating sanctions that can resolve large numbers of copyright violations.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Peer-to-peer
networks do not require search engines. A small percentage of requests for content originate from Google or Bing searches.
We believe that attempts to get search engines to block links and sites will have no effect on piracy.
|
Growth
Strategy
We
have several “touch points” in our revenue model where we seek to increase revenues.
1.
|
By
adding more copyrights we seek to detect infringements of, which increases the number of notices we send;
|
|
|
2.
|
By
increasing the number of ISPs who acknowledge our notices;
|
|
|
3.
|
By
increasing the number of notices that each ISP confirms and forwards;
|
|
|
4.
|
By
compelling the ISP to improve “throughput” processes. This may involve ISPs calling subscribers. Our goal is to
get ISPs to deploy “re-direct” screens similar to the screen a hotel guest sees when he first uses the Internet
in a hotel room. A repeat infringer would be redirected to the Rightscorp payment page and would be unable to browse the Internet
until they have settled;
|
5.
|
By
increasing response rates (the number of subscribers who have received notices and agree to settle). We may seek to do this
through public relations, through examples in the press of infringers who were sued by copyright owners, by improving the
educational and motivational aspects of the notice, web site and payment process and by having ISPs terminate repeat infringers
until they settle;
|
|
|
6.
|
By
sending non-compliant ISPs weekly termination demands to terminate service to non-responding repeat infringers pursuant to
17 USC 512 (i); and
|
|
|
7.
|
By
giving copyright holders who wish to litigate the highest quality litigation support data that includes the history of the
subscriber’s ISP being sent notices while they continue to violate copyright law.
|
|
|
8.
|
By protecting our Client’s
copyrights outside the USA from P2P infringement. We expect to initiate coverage
in Germany by Q2
2016.
|
We
believe that if we are successful in our combined use of these strategies our revenues and margins could potentially increase
exponentially.
Intellectual
Property
We
have 1 patent granted in Australia and 30 patent applications pending worldwide for our proprietary system of detecting and seeking
settlement payments for repeat copyright infringers. The patent applications were filed between May 9, 2011 and January 12, 2016
and each patent application’s respective status before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) is detailed below.
The pending patent applications include 24 patent applications in countries such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Israel,
Japan, Hong Kong and the European Union, as well 6 US patent applications. The 6 US patent applications include patent applications
13/437,756, 13/485,178, 14/945,551, and 14/993,902, which contain the methods for identifying repeat infringers that we believe
will create a significant barrier to entry for anyone attempting to market a scalable copyright monetization system in the peer-to-peer
(P2P) space. In addition, the 6 U.S. patent applications also include U.S. Patent application 13/103,795 which includes methods
for using peer-to-peer infringement data to sell legitimate products to infringers. Comcast announced they may do this in August
2013. The Australian patent, which is based on the Australian counterpart to US patent application 13/437,756, also contains a
method for identifying repeat infringers that we believe will create a significant barrier to entry for anyone attempting to market
a scalable copyright monetization system in the Australian P2P space. It expires on April 2, 2032.
Country
|
|
Status
|
|
Application
Number
|
|
Filing
Date
|
|
Title
|
|
Action
Status
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US
|
|
Pending
|
|
13/103,795
|
|
May
9, 2011
|
|
System
and Method for Determining Copyright Infringement and Collecting Royalties Therefor
|
|
This
application currently stands rejected by the USPTO. The rejection is a Final Rejection*. Applicants have appealed the USPTO’s
Final Rejection* to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Applicant currently awaits a decision from the PTAB as to whether
the USPTO’s rejection will be affirmed or overturned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US
|
|
Published
|
|
13/437,756
|
|
April
2, 2012
|
|
System
to Identify Multiple Copyright Infringements
|
|
This
application currently awaits examination by the USPTO. Applicant has submitted a request for continued examination (RCE) after
a Final Rejection*. The RCE secures an opportunity for the Applicant to submit additional arguments to overcome the USPTO’s
Final Rejection* of the patent application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US
|
|
Published
|
|
13/485,178
|
|
May
31, 2012
|
|
System
to Identify Multiple Copyright Infringements and Collecting Royalties
|
|
This
application currently awaits examination by the USPTO. Applicant has submitted a request for continued examination (RCE) after
a Final Rejection*. The RCE secures an opportunity for the Applicant to submit additional arguments to overcome the USPTO’s
Final Rejection* of the patent application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WO
|
|
Published
|
|
PCT/US2012/031894
|
|
April
2, 2012
|
|
System
to Identify Multiple Copyright Infringements
|
|
This
international patent application was filed to secure the right to file a patent application in a subset of foreign countries
designated by the international patent application. Based on this international application, entered the national stage in
the European Union (EP2695099), China (CN103688265), Canada (CA2834853), and Australia (AU2012236069- Granted Patent).
|
WO
|
|
Published
|
|
PCT/US2012/040234
|
|
May
31, 2012
|
|
System
to Identify Multiple Copyright Infringements and Collecting Royalties
|
|
This
international patent application was filed to secure the right to file a patent application in a subset of foreign countries
designated by the international patent application. Based on this international application, entered the national stage in
Japan (JP2014523559 & JP2014238849), the European Union (EP2715595 & EP2715595), China (CN103875002), Canada (CA2837604),
and Australia (AU2012262173).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US
|
|
Published
|
|
13/594,596
|
|
August
24, 2012
|
|
System
to Identify Multiple Copyright Infringements
|
|
This
application currently stands rejected by the USPTO. The rejection is a Non-Final Rejection**.
Applicant is in the process of preparing a response to the Non-Final Rejection** in an
attempt to overcome the patent USPTO’s rejections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WO
|
|
Published
|
|
PCT/US2012/052325
|
|
August
24, 2012
|
|
System
to Identify Multiple Copyright Infringements
|
|
This
international patent application was filed to secure the right to file a patent application in a subset of foreign countries
designated by the international patent application. Based on this international application, entered the national stage in
Japan (JP2014529805), the European Union (EP2748718), China (CN104040531), Canada (CA2846241), and Australia (AU2012298708).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US
|
|
Published
|
|
14/945,551
|
|
November
19, 2015
|
|
System
to Identify a Computer on a Network
|
|
Previously
filed provisional application 62/082,789 was converted to a nonprovisional application and filed to secure an effective filing
date of November 21, 2014 for the subject matter disclosed by the patent application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US
|
|
Pending
|
|
14/993,902
|
|
January
12, 2016
|
|
System
and Method to Verify Predetermined Actions by a Computer on a Network
|
|
Previously
filed provisional application 62/102,354 was converted to a nonprovisional application and filed to secure an effective filing
date of January 12, 2015 for the subject matter disclosed by the patent application.
|
*Final
Rejection – a USPTO office action made by the examiner where the applicant is entitled to file an appeal to the PTAB or
make a request for continued examination with, or without, amendment so long as a new issue is raised for consideration by the
examiner
**Non-Final
Rejection – a USPTO Office action made by the examiner where the applicant is entitled to reply and request reconsideration,
with or without making an amendment
We
have registered trademarks for Rightscorp (U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 4681891 and 4681885) and plan to register a trademark
for Scalable Copyright.
Our
software is copyrighted and contains trade secrets.
Of
the patent applications listed in the table above, the US versions of the applications filed on April 2, 2012 and May 31, 2012
are of greater importance to us than the others. We believe that the patent applications were rejected by the USPTO on invalid
grounds and that the appeals currently being prepared will ultimately succeed. However, we cannot assure you that we will in fact
be proven correct in our belief. If these two applications are not successfully appealed, our business could be materially and
adversely affected, as more fully described under the risk factor appearing under the heading “
Our ability to protect
our intellectual property and proprietary technology through patents and other means is uncertain and may be inadequate, which
would have a material and adverse effect on us
” above.
Competition
We
potentially compete with companies in the copyright monetization space.
The
copyright monetization space is comprised of companies focused on new digital technologies, as well as existing established copyright
monetization companies and societies. Examples of other pure-play digital copyright monetization companies are Soundexchange and
TuneSat.
TuneSat
monitors hundreds of TV channels and millions of websites around the world, helping copyright holders collect millions of dollars
that would otherwise have been lost. They are not focused on the peer-to-peer space.
Soundexchange
helps artists and copyright holders get compensated when their work is broadcast by non-interactive digital radio. Soundexchange
has collected in excess of $1.5 billion annually.
Companies
in the multi-billion dollar legacy copyright monetization space include ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and the Harry Fox Agency.
There
are several companies in the anti-piracy space. Most of these companies specialize in litigation support. It would be a conflict
of interest for them to be in the litigation support and settlement business. MarkMonitor (formerly DtecNet) currently provide
the data to the RIAA that the RIAA uses for monitoring P2P activity on a fee for service business model. Irdeto also provides
litigation support on a fee for service business model.
We
believe other competitors use more aggressive litigation that drives settlement through threats of costly lawsuits, which we believe
is not a scalable model. One competitor is located in Los Angeles, CA. We are the only company that we are aware of that uses
proprietary technology to detect repeat infringers and therefore we believe that we are the only company to have legal leverage
with ISPs, compelling the ISP to deliver settlement notices by leveraging the DMCA. We do not send notices related to pornographic
content.
We
are seeking to build and maintain our competitive advantage in four ways:
|
●
|
First,
we build and maintain competitive advantage by being first to market in the U.S. and by aggressively closing contracts to
represent copyrighted intellectual property;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Second,
we will maintain our advantage by building on our relationships with the ISPs. We will attend and speak at strategic trade
shows to develop greater awareness of the ISPs’ liability and our no-cost solution to help them mitigate that liability.
We will educate industry analysts who follow the ISPs that are public companies as to the significant liability that ISPs
have;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Third,
we have filed 29 full and provisional patents; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Fourth,
by developing a reputation of being a quality solution provider with copyright holders, developers of copyrighted intellectual
property and ISPs we will develop and maintain a leadership position as a leading service provider.
|
Additionally,
we send correspondence to the ISPs from time to time and as necessary to advise them that certain infringements have not ceased
and that they should adopt, reasonably implement, and inform their subscribers and account holders of a policy that provides for
the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of their system or networks who are repeat infringers.
In addition, we advise these ISP’s of certain liabilities that they may incur should they not change their practices.
Certain
other companies that may potentially compete with us, such as MarkMonitor and Irdeto (which provide certain “brand protection”
and similar services) have greater financial resources and longer operating histories than us. It is possible that they may develop
and offer services more directly competitive to ours, by developing and offering new methods of copyright monetization or anti-piracy
technology that could take market share from us.
We
have not had any discussions regarding streaming service affecting our business. Data traffic used for filesharing in North America
grew from 674 PB a month in 2010 to 801 PB a month 2013 and is forecast to grow between now and 2018 as shown in the table below.
Global
Consumer File-Sharing Traffic, 2010-2018
Consumer
File Sharing, 2013-2018
|
|
2013
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
2015
|
|
|
2016
|
|
|
2017
|
|
|
2018
|
|
|
CAGR
2013-2018
|
|
By Network (PB per Month)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
|
6,044
|
|
|
|
6,492
|
|
|
|
6,729
|
|
|
|
6,783
|
|
|
|
6,744
|
|
|
|
6,652
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Mobile
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
112
|
|
|
|
131
|
|
|
|
26
|
%
|
By Subsegment (PB per Month)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P2P file transfer
|
|
|
5,081
|
|
|
|
5,254
|
|
|
|
5,205
|
|
|
|
4,946
|
|
|
|
4,559
|
|
|
|
4,088
|
|
|
|
-4
|
%
|
Other file transfer
|
|
|
1,004
|
|
|
|
1,294
|
|
|
|
1,598
|
|
|
|
1,929
|
|
|
|
2,297
|
|
|
|
2,696
|
|
|
|
22
|
%
|
By Geography (PB per Month)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asia Pacific
|
|
|
2,560
|
|
|
|
2,794
|
|
|
|
2,935
|
|
|
|
3,009
|
|
|
|
3,041
|
|
|
|
3,020
|
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
North America
|
|
|
802
|
|
|
|
878
|
|
|
|
951
|
|
|
|
1,018
|
|
|
|
1,073
|
|
|
|
1,124
|
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
Western Europe
|
|
|
1,184
|
|
|
|
1,181
|
|
|
|
1,145
|
|
|
|
1,130
|
|
|
|
1,115
|
|
|
|
1,086
|
|
|
|
-2
|
%
|
Central and Eastern Europe
|
|
|
872
|
|
|
|
951
|
|
|
|
992
|
|
|
|
956
|
|
|
|
923
|
|
|
|
891
|
|
|
|
0
|
%
|
Latin America
|
|
|
567
|
|
|
|
634
|
|
|
|
673
|
|
|
|
672
|
|
|
|
649
|
|
|
|
608
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
Middle East and Africa
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
110
|
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
90
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
|
-12
|
|
Total (PB per Month)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consumer file sharing
|
|
|
6,085
|
|
|
|
6,548
|
|
|
|
6,803
|
|
|
|
6,875
|
|
|
|
6,856
|
|
|
|
6,784
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Source:
Cisco VNI, 2014
Employees
As
of March 30, 2016, we had 13 employees, 11 of whom are full time.
ITEM
1A. Risk Factors.
Investing
in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Potential investors should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties
described below together with all other information contained in this report before making investment decisions with respect to
our common stock.
Risks
Related to our Company and our Business
We
have a limited operating history and are subject to the risks encountered by early-stage companies.
Rightscorp
Delaware was formed on January 20, 2011. Because we have a limited operating history, our operating prospects should be considered
in light of the risks and uncertainties frequently encountered by early-stage companies in rapidly evolving markets. These risks
include:
|
●
|
risks
that we may not have sufficient capital to achieve our growth strategy;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
risks
that we may not develop our product and service offerings in a manner that enables us to be profitable and meet our customers’
requirements;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
risks
that our growth strategy may not be successful; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
risks
that fluctuations in our operating results will be significant relative to our revenues.
|
These
risks are described in more detail below. Our future growth will depend substantially on our ability to address these and the
other risks described in this section. If we do not successfully address these risks, our business would be significantly harmed.
Our
independent registered public accounting firm has expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern,
which may hinder our ability to obtain future financing
We have a history
of losses and may continue to incur operating and net losses for the foreseeable future. For the year ended December 31, 2015,
we incurred a net loss of $3,434,567 and used cash in operating activities of $2,495,900, and at December 31, 2015, we had a stockholders’
deficiency of $2,182,530. These factors raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. As a result,
our independent registered public accounting firm included an explanatory paragraph in its report on our financial statements
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 with respect to this uncertainty. This going concern opinion could materially limit
our ability to raise additional funds through the issuance of new debt or equity securities or otherwise, and future reports on
our financial statements may also include an explanatory paragraph with respect to our ability to continue as a going concern.
In
order to continue as a going concern, develop a reliable source of revenues, and achieve a profitable level of operations the
Company will need, among other things, additional capital resources. Management’s plans to continue as a going concern include
raising additional capital through borrowings and the sale of common stock. No assurance can be given that any future financing
will be available or, if available, that it will be on terms that are satisfactory to the Company. Even if the Company is able
to obtain additional financing, it may contain undue restrictions on our operations, in the case of debt financing, or cause substantial
dilution for our stock holders, in case or equity financing.
We
may need significant additional capital, which we may be unable to obtain.
We
may need to obtain additional financing over time to fund operations. Our management cannot predict the extent to which we will
require additional financing, and can provide no assurance that additional financing will be available on favorable terms or at
all. The rights of the holders of any debt or equity that may be issued in the future could be senior to the rights of common
shareholders, and any future issuance of equity could result in the dilution of our common shareholders’ proportionate equity
interests in our company. Failure to obtain financing or an inability to obtain financing on unattractive terms could have a material
adverse effect on our business, prospects, results of operation and financial condition.
Our
resources may not be sufficient to manage our potential growth; failure to properly manage our potential growth would be detrimental
to our business.
We
may fail to adequately manage our potential future growth. Any growth in our operations will place a significant strain on our
administrative, financial and operational resources, and increase demands on our management and on our operational and administrative
systems, controls and other resources. We cannot assure you that our existing personnel, systems, procedures or controls will
be adequate to support our operations in the future or that we will be able to successfully implement appropriate measures consistent
with our growth strategy. As part of this growth, we may have to implement new operational and financial systems, procedures and
controls to expand, train and manage our employee base, and maintain close coordination among our technical, accounting, finance,
marketing and sales staff. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so, or that if we are able to do so, we will be able
to effectively integrate them into our existing staff and systems. To the extent we acquire businesses, we will also need to integrate
and assimilate new operations, technologies and personnel. If we are unable to manage growth effectively, such as if our sales
and marketing efforts exceed our capacity to install, maintain and service our products or if new employees are unable to achieve
performance levels, our business, operating results and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.
We
will need to increase the size of our organization, and we may be unable to manage rapid growth effectively.
Our
failure to manage growth effectively could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial
condition. We anticipate that a period of significant expansion will be required to address possible acquisitions of business,
products, or rights, and potential internal growth to handle licensing and research activities. This expansion will place a significant
strain on management, operational and financial resources. To manage the expected growth of our operations and personnel, we must
both improve our existing operational and financial systems, procedures and controls and implement new systems, procedures and
controls. We must also expand our finance, administrative, and operations staff. Our current personnel, systems, procedures and
controls may not adequately support future operations. Management may be unable to hire, train, retain, motivate and manage necessary
personnel or to identify, manage and exploit existing and potential strategic relationships and market opportunities.
We
are dependent on the continued services and performance of our senior management, the loss of any of whom could adversely affect
our business, operating results and financial condition.
Our
future performance depends on the continued services and continuing contributions of our senior management to execute our business
plan, and to identify and pursue new opportunities and product innovations. The loss of services of senior management, particularly
Christopher Sabec and Robert Steele, Rightscorp Delaware’s founders, could significantly delay or prevent the achievement
of our strategic objectives. The loss of the services of senior management for any reason could adversely affect our business,
prospects, financial condition and results of operations.
Our
ability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology through patents and other means is uncertain and may be
inadequate, which would have a material and adverse effect on us.
Our
success depends significantly on our ability to protect our proprietary rights to the technologies used in our products. In particular,
we have thirty-two patent applications pending worldwide for our system of identifying and collecting settlement payments for
repeat copyright infringements. Even if our pending patents are granted, we cannot assure you that we will be able to control
all of the rights for all of our intellectual property. We rely on patent protection, as well as a combination of copyright, trade
secret and trademark laws and nondisclosure, confidentiality and other contractual restrictions to protect our proprietary technology,
including our licensed technology. However, these legal means afford only limited protection and may not adequately protect our
rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. For example, our pending United States and foreign patent applications
may not issue as patents in a form that will be advantageous to us or may issue and be subsequently successfully challenged by
others and invalidated. Both the patent application process and the process of managing patent disputes can be time-consuming
and expensive. Competitors may be able to design around our patents or develop products which provide outcomes which are comparable
or even superior to ours. Steps that we have taken to protect our intellectual property and proprietary technology, including
entering into confidentiality agreements and intellectual property assignment agreements with some of our officers, employees,
consultants and advisors, may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets or other proprietary information in the
event of unauthorized use or disclosure or other breaches of the agreements. Furthermore, the laws of foreign countries may not
protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as do the laws of the United States.
In
the event a competitor infringes upon our licensed or pending patent or other intellectual property rights, enforcing those rights
may be costly, uncertain, difficult and time consuming. Even if successful, litigation to enforce our intellectual property rights
or to defend our patents against challenge could be expensive and time consuming and could divert our management’s attention.
We may not have sufficient resources to enforce our intellectual property rights or to defend our patents rights against a challenge.
The failure to obtain patents and/or protect our intellectual property rights could have a material and adverse effect on our
business, results of operations and financial condition.
Our
patent applications and licenses may be subject to challenge on validity grounds, and our patent applications may be rejected.
We
rely on our patent applications, licenses and other intellectual property rights to give us a competitive advantage. Whether a
patent application should be granted, and if granted whether it would be valid, is a complex matter of science and law, and therefore
we cannot be certain that, if challenged, our patents (should any be granted), patent applications and/or other intellectual property
rights would be upheld. If one or more of these intellectual property rights are invalidated, rejected or found unenforceable,
that could reduce or eliminate any competitive advantage we might otherwise have had.
We
may become subject to claims of infringement or misappropriation of the intellectual property rights of others, which could prohibit
us from developing our products, require us to obtain licenses from third parties or to develop non-infringing alternatives and
subject us to substantial monetary damages.
Third
parties could, in the future, assert infringement or misappropriation claims against us with respect to products we develop. Whether
a product infringes a patent or misappropriates other intellectual property involves complex legal and factual issues, the determination
of which is often uncertain. Therefore, we cannot be certain that we have not infringed the intellectual property rights of others.
Our potential competitors may assert that some aspect of our product infringes their patents. Because patent applications may
take years to issue, there also may be applications now pending of which we are unaware that may later result in issued patents
upon which our products could infringe. There also may be existing patents or pending patent applications of which we are unaware
upon which our products may inadvertently infringe.
Any
infringement or misappropriation claim could cause us to incur significant costs, place significant strain on our financial resources,
divert management’s attention from our business and harm our reputation. If the relevant patents in such claim were upheld
as valid and enforceable and we were found to infringe them, we could be prohibited from selling any product that is found to
infringe unless we could obtain licenses to use the technology covered by the patent or are able to design around the patent.
We may be unable to obtain such a license on terms acceptable to us, if at all, and we may not be able to redesign our products
to avoid infringement. A court could also order us to pay compensatory damages for such infringement, plus prejudgment interest
and could, in addition, treble the compensatory damages and award attorney fees. These damages could be substantial and could
harm our reputation, business, financial condition and operating results. A court also could enter orders that temporarily, preliminarily
or permanently enjoin us and our customers from making, using, or selling products, and could enter an order mandating that we
undertake certain remedial activities. Depending on the nature of the relief ordered by the court, we could become liable for
additional damages to third parties.
The
prosecution and enforcement of patents licensed to us by third parties are not within our control. Without these technologies,
our product may not be successful and our business would be harmed if the patents were infringed or misappropriated without action
by such third parties.
We
have obtained licenses from third parties for patents and patent application rights related to the products we are developing,
allowing us to use intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to these third parties. We do not control the maintenance,
prosecution, enforcement or strategy for many of these patents or patent application rights and as such are dependent in part
on the owners of the intellectual property rights to maintain their viability. Without access to these technologies or suitable
design-around or alternative technology options, our ability to conduct our business could be impaired significantly.
We
may not be successful in the implementation of our business strategy or our business strategy may not be successful, either of
which will impede our development and growth.
Our
business strategy involves having copyright owners agree to use our service. Our ability to implement this business strategy is
dependent on our ability to:
|
●
|
predict
copyright owner’s concerns;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
identify
and engage copyright owners;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
convince
ISPs to accept our notices;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
establish
brand recognition and customer loyalty; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
manage
growth in administrative overhead costs during the initiation of our business efforts.
|
We
do not know whether we will be able to continue successfully implementing our business strategy or whether our business strategy
will ultimately be successful. In assessing our ability to meet these challenges, a potential investor should take into account
our limited operating history and brand recognition, our management’s relative inexperience, the competitive conditions
existing in our industry and general economic conditions. Our growth is largely dependent on our ability to successfully implement
our business strategy. Our revenues may be adversely affected if we fail to implement our business strategy or if we divert resources
to a business that ultimately proves unsuccessful.
We
have limited existing brand identity and customer loyalty; if we fail to market our brand to promote our service offerings, our
business could suffer.
Because
of our limited operating history, we currently do not have strong brand identity or brand loyalty. We believe that establishing
and maintaining brand identity and brand loyalty is critical to attracting customers to our program. In order to attract copyright
holders to our program, we may be forced to spend substantial funds to create and maintain brand recognition among consumers.
We believe that the cost of our sales campaigns could increase substantially in the future. If our branding efforts are not successful,
our ability to earn revenues and sustain our operations will be harmed.
Promotion
and enhancement of our services will depend on our success in consistently providing high-quality services to our customers. Since
we rely on technology partners to provide portions of the service to our customers, if our suppliers do not send accurate and
timely data, or if our customers do not perceive the products we offer as superior, the value of the our brand could be harmed.
Any brand impairment or dilution could decrease the attractiveness of our services to one or more of these groups, which could
harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Our
service offerings may not be accepted.
As
is typically the case involving service offerings, anticipation of demand and market acceptance are subject to a high level of
uncertainty. The success of our service offerings primarily depends on the interest of copyright holders in joining our service.
In general, achieving market acceptance for our services will require substantial marketing efforts and the expenditure of significant
funds, the availability of which we cannot be assured, to create awareness and demand among customers. We have limited financial,
personnel and other resources to undertake extensive marketing activities. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that any of our services
will be accepted or with respect to our ability to generate the revenues necessary to remain in business.
A
competitor with a stronger or more suitable financial position may enter our marketplace.
To
our knowledge, there is currently no other company offering a copyright settlement service for P2P infringers. The success of
our service offerings primarily depends on the interest of copyright holders in joining our service, as opposed to a similar service
offered by a competitor. If a direct competitor arrives in our market, achieving market acceptance for our services may require
additional marketing efforts and the expenditure of significant funds, the availability of which we cannot be assured, to create
awareness and demand among customers. We have limited financial, personnel and other resources to undertake additional marketing
activities. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that we will be able to win business from a stronger competitor.
A
significant portion of our revenue is dependent upon a small number of customers and the loss of any one of these customers would
negatively impact our revenues and our results of operations.
We
derived approximately 77% of our revenues from a contract with one customer during the year ended December 31, 2014. For the year
ended December 31, 2014, we derived approximately 90% of our revenues from contracts with two customers. We derived approximately
58% of our revenues from a contract with one customer during the year ended December 31, 2015. For the year ended December 31,
2015, we derived approximately 72% of our revenues from contracts with two customers. Our standard contract, which is entitled
a Representation Agreement, with customers are for initial terms which vary in length, typically between three months and one
year, and renewals are at the discretion of the parties, or in some cases renew automatically in one month increments, subject
to the right of either party to terminate upon 30 days’ notice. If any of our major customers were to terminate their business
relationships with us, our operating results would be materially harmed.
Our
exposure to outside influences beyond our control, including new legislation or court rulings could adversely affect our enforcement
activities and results of operations.
Our
enforcement activities are subject to numerous risks from outside influences, including the following:
|
●
|
Legal
precedents could change which could either make enforcement of our client’s copyright rights more difficult, or which
could make out-of-court settlements less attractive to either our clients or potential infringers.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
New
legislation, regulations or rules related to copyright enforcement could significantly increase our operating costs or decrease
our ability to effectively negotiate settlements.
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
Changes
in consumer privacy laws could make internet service providers more reluctant to identify their end users or may otherwise
make identification of individual infringers more difficult.
|
The
occurrence of any one of the foregoing could significantly damage our business and results of operations.
Software
defects or errors in our products could harm our reputation, result in significant costs to us and impair our ability to sell
our products, which would harm our operating results.
Our
products may contain undetected defects or errors when first introduced or as new versions are released, which could materially
and adversely affect our reputation, result in significant costs to us and impair our ability to sell our products in the future.
The costs incurred in correcting any defects or errors may be substantial and could adversely affect our operating results.
Enforcement
actions against individuals may result in negative publicity which could deter customers from doing business with us.
In
the past, online trademark infringement cases have garnered significant press coverage. Coverage which is sympathetic to the infringing
parties or which otherwise portrays our Company in a negative light, whether or not warranted, may harm our reputation or cause
our clients to have concerns about being associated with us. Such negative publicity could decrease the demand for our products
and services and adversely affect our business and operating results.
Litigation
may harm our business.
Substantial,
complex or extended litigation could cause us to incur significant costs and distract our management. For example, lawsuits by
employees, stockholders, collaborators, distributors, customers, competitors or others could be very costly and substantially
disrupt our business. Disputes from time to time with such companies, organizations or individuals are not uncommon, and we cannot
assure you that we will always be able to resolve such disputes or on terms favorable to us. Unexpected results could cause us
to have financial exposure in these matters in excess of recorded reserves and insurance coverage, requiring us to provide additional
reserves to address these liabilities, therefore impacting profits.
If
we experience a significant disruption in our information technology systems or if we fail to implement new systems and software
successfully, our business could be adversely affected.
We
depend on information systems throughout our company to control our manufacturing processes, process orders, manage inventory,
process and bill shipments and collect cash from our customers, respond to customer inquiries, contribute to our overall internal
control processes, maintain records of our property, plant and equipment, and record and pay amounts due vendors and other creditors.
If we were to experience a prolonged disruption in our information systems that involve interactions with customers and suppliers,
it could result in the loss of sales and customers and/or increased costs, which could adversely affect our overall business operation.
Risks
Related to the Securities Markets and Ownership of our Equity Securities
Our
common stock is thinly traded, so you may be unable to sell at or near ask prices or at all if you need to sell your shares to
raise money or otherwise desire to liquidate your shares.
Our
common stock has historically been sporadically traded on the OTC QB, meaning that the number of persons interested in purchasing
our shares at or near ask prices at any given time may be relatively small or non-existent. This situation is attributable to
a number of factors, including the fact that we are a small company which is relatively unknown to stock analysts, stock brokers,
institutional investors and others in the investment community that generate or influence sales volume, and that even if we came
to the attention of such persons, they tend to be risk-averse and would be reluctant to follow an unproven company such as ours
or purchase or recommend the purchase of our shares until such time as we became more seasoned and viable. As a consequence, there
may be periods of several days or more when trading activity in our shares is minimal or non-existent, as compared to a seasoned
issuer which has a large and steady volume of trading activity that will generally support continuous sales without an adverse
effect on share price. We cannot give you any assurance that a broader or more active public trading market for our common shares
will develop or be sustained, or that current trading levels will be sustained.
The
market price for the common stock is particularly volatile given our status as a relatively unknown company with a small and thinly
traded public float, limited operating history and lack of revenue, which could lead to wide fluctuations in our share price.
The price at which you purchase our shares may not be indicative of the price that will prevail in the trading market. You may
be unable to sell your common shares at or above your purchase price, which may result in substantial losses to you.
The
market for our shares of common stock is characterized by significant price volatility when compared to seasoned issuers, and
we expect that our share price will continue to be more volatile than a seasoned issuer for the indefinite future. The volatility
in our share price is attributable to a number of factors. First, as noted above, our shares are sporadically traded. As a consequence
of this lack of liquidity, the trading of relatively small quantities of shares may disproportionately influence the price of
those shares in either direction. The price for our shares could, for example, decline precipitously in the event that a large
number of our shares are sold on the market without commensurate demand, as compared to a seasoned issuer which could better absorb
those sales without adverse impact on its share price. Secondly, we are a speculative investment due to, among other matters,
our limited operating history and lack of significant revenue or profit to date, and the uncertainty of future market acceptance
for our potential products. As a consequence of this enhanced risk, more risk-averse investors may, under the fear of losing all
or most of their investment in the event of negative news or lack of progress, be more inclined to sell their shares on the market
more quickly and at greater discounts than would be the case with the securities of a seasoned issuer. The following factors may
add to the volatility in the price of our shares: actual or anticipated variations in our quarterly or annual operating results;
acceptance of our inventory of games; government regulations, announcements of significant acquisitions, strategic partnerships
or joint ventures; our capital commitments and additions or departures of our key personnel. Many of these factors are beyond
our control and may decrease the market price of our shares regardless of our operating performance. We cannot make any predictions
or projections as to what the prevailing market price for our shares will be at any time, including as to whether our shares will
sustain their current market prices, or as to what effect the sale of shares or the availability of shares for sale at any time
will have on the prevailing market price.
Shareholders
should be aware that, according to SEC Release No. 34-29093, the market for penny stocks has suffered in recent years from patterns
of fraud and abuse. Such patterns include (1) control of the market for the security by one or a few broker-dealers that are often
related to the promoter or issuer; (2) manipulation of prices through prearranged matching of purchases and sales and false and
misleading press releases; (3) boiler room practices involving high-pressure sales tactics and unrealistic price projections by
inexperienced sales persons; (4) excessive and undisclosed bid-ask differential and markups by selling broker-dealers; and (5)
the wholesale dumping of the same securities by promoters and broker-dealers after prices have been manipulated to a desired level,
along with the resulting inevitable collapse of those prices and with consequent investor losses. Our management is aware of the
abuses that have occurred historically in the penny stock market. Although we do not expect to be in a position to dictate the
behavior of the market or of broker-dealers who participate in the market, management will strive within the confines of practical
limitations to prevent the described patterns from being established with respect to our securities. The occurrence of these patterns
or practices could increase the volatility of our share price.
The
market price of our common stock may be volatile and adversely affected by several factors.
The
market price of our common stock could fluctuate significantly in response to various factors and events, including, but not limited
to:
|
●
|
our
ability to integrate operations, technology, products and services;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
our
ability to execute our business plan;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
operating
results below expectations;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
our
issuance of additional securities, including debt or equity or a combination thereof;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
announcements
of technological innovations or new products by us or our competitors;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
loss
of any strategic relationship;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
industry
developments, including, without limitation, changes in healthcare policies or practices;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
economic
and other external factors;
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
period-to-period
fluctuations in our financial results; and
|
|
|
|
|
●
|
whether
an active trading market in our common stock develops and is maintained.
|
In
addition, the securities markets have from time to time experienced significant price and volume fluctuations that are unrelated
to the operating performance of particular companies. These market fluctuations may also materially and adversely affect the market
price of our common stock.
Our
officers and directors beneficially own approximately 23% of our outstanding shares of common stock
.
Our
officers and directors beneficially own approximately 23% of our outstanding shares of common stock as of March 30, 2016. These
individuals will have the ability to substantially influence all matters submitted to our shareholders for approval and to control
our management and affairs, including extraordinary transactions such as mergers and other changes of corporate control, including
going private transactions.
Because
we became public by means of a reverse acquisition, we may not be able to attract the attention of brokerage firms.
Because
we became public through a “reverse acquisition”, securities analysts of brokerage firms may not provide coverage
of us since there is little incentive to brokerage firms to recommend the purchase of our common stock.
A
large number of shares are issuable upon exercise of outstanding warrants. The exercise of these securities could result in the
substantial dilution of your investment in terms of your percentage ownership in our company. The sale of a large amount of common
shares received upon exercise of these warrants on the public market, or the perception that such sales could occur, could substantially
depress the prevailing market prices for our shares.
As
of March 30, 2016, there were outstanding presently exercisable warrants entitling the holders to purchase 45,310,140 shares of
common stock at a weighted average exercise price of $0.09 per share. The exercise or conversion price for all of the aforesaid
securities may be less than your cost to acquire our shares. In the event of the exercise or conversion of these securities, you
could suffer substantial dilution of your investment in terms of your percentage ownership in our company. In addition, the holders
of the warrants may sell shares in tandem with their exercise of those warrants to finance that exercise, which could further
depress the market price of the common stock.
Our
issuance of additional shares of common stock, or options or warrants to purchase those shares, would dilute your proportionate
ownership and voting rights.
We
are entitled under our articles of incorporation to issue up to 250,000,000 shares of common stock. We have issued and outstanding,
as of March 30, 2016, 117,215,314 shares of common stock. In addition, we are entitled under our articles of incorporation to
issue up to 10,000,000 shares of “blank check” preferred stock, none of which is presently issued or outstanding.
Our board may generally issue shares of common stock, preferred stock or options or warrants to purchase those shares, without
further approval by our shareholders based upon such factors as our board of directors may deem relevant at that time. It is likely
that we will be required to issue a large amount of additional securities to raise capital to further our development. It is also
likely that we will issue a large amount of additional securities to directors, officers, employees and consultants as compensatory
grants in connection with their services, both in the form of stand-alone grants or under our stock plans. We cannot give you
any assurance that we will not issue additional shares of common stock, or options or warrants to purchase those shares, under
circumstances we may deem appropriate at the time.
The
elimination of monetary liability against our directors, officers and employees under our Articles of Incorporation and the existence
of indemnification rights to our directors, officers and employees may result in substantial expenditures by our company and may
discourage lawsuits against our directors, officers and employees.
Our
Articles of Incorporation contains provisions that eliminate the liability of our directors for monetary damages to our company
and shareholders. Our bylaws also require us to indemnify our officers and directors. We may also have contractual indemnification
obligations under our agreements with our directors, officers and employees. The foregoing indemnification obligations could result
in our company incurring substantial expenditures to cover the cost of settlement or damage awards against directors, officers
and employees that we may be unable to recoup. These provisions and resultant costs may also discourage our company from bringing
a lawsuit against directors, officers and employees for breaches of their fiduciary duties, and may similarly discourage the filing
of derivative litigation by our shareholders against our directors, officers and employees even though such actions, if successful,
might otherwise benefit our company and shareholders.
Anti-takeover
provisions may impede the acquisition of our company.
Certain
provisions of the Nevada Revised Statutes have anti-takeover effects and may inhibit a non-negotiated merger or other business
combination. These provisions are intended to encourage any person interested in acquiring us to negotiate with, and to obtain
the approval of, our board of directors in connection with such a transaction. However, certain of these provisions may discourage
a future acquisition of us, including an acquisition in which the shareholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares.
As a result, shareholders who might desire to participate in such a transaction may not have the opportunity to do so.
If
we fail to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 our business could be harmed and our stock price could decline.
Rules
adopted by the SEC pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 require an annual assessment of our internal control
over financial reporting. Accordingly, we are subject to the rules requiring an annual assessment of our internal controls. The
standards that must be met for management to assess the internal control over financial reporting as effective are complex, and
require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation to meet the detailed standards. In addition, in the event
we are no longer a smaller reporting company, the independent registered public accounting firm auditing our financial statements
would be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting. Such attestation requirement
by our independent registered public accounting firm would not be applicable to us until the report for the year ended December
31, 2016 at the earliest, if at all. If we are unable to conclude that we have effective internal control over financial reporting
or if our independent registered public accounting firm is required to, but is unable to provide us with a report as to the effectiveness
of our internal controls over financial reporting, investors could lose confidence in the reliability of our financial statements,
which could result in a decrease in the value of our securities.
We
may become involved in securities class action litigation that could divert management’s attention and harm our business.
The
stock market in general, and the shares of early stage companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations.
These fluctuations have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of the companies involved. If these
fluctuations occur in the future, the market price of our shares could fall regardless of our operating performance. In the past,
following periods of volatility in the market price of a particular company’s securities, securities class action litigation
has often been brought against that company. If the market price or volume of our shares suffers extreme fluctuations, then we
may become involved in this type of litigation, which would be expensive and divert management’s attention and resources
from managing our business.
As
a public company, we may also from time to time make forward-looking statements about future operating results and provide some
financial guidance to the public markets. Our management has limited experience as a management team in a public company and as
a result projections may not be made timely or set at expected performance levels and could materially affect the price of our
shares. Any failure to meet published forward-looking statements that adversely affect the stock price could result in losses
to investors, stockholder lawsuits or other litigation, sanctions or restrictions issued by the SEC.
Our
common stock is currently deemed a “penny stock,” which makes it more difficult for our investors to sell their shares.
The
SEC has adopted Rule 15g-9 which establishes the definition of a “penny stock,” for the purposes relevant to us, as
any equity security that has a market price of less than $5.00 per share, subject to certain exceptions. For any transaction involving
a penny stock, unless exempt, the rules require that a broker or dealer approve a person’s account for transactions in penny
stocks, and the broker or dealer receive from the investor a written agreement to the transaction, setting forth the identity
and quantity of the penny stock to be purchased.
In
order to approve a person’s account for transactions in penny stocks, the broker or dealer must obtain financial information
and investment experience objectives of the person, and make a reasonable determination that the transactions in penny stocks
are suitable for that person and the person has sufficient knowledge and experience in financial matters to be capable of evaluating
the risks of transactions in penny stocks.
The
broker or dealer must also deliver, prior to any transaction in a penny stock, a disclosure schedule prescribed by the SEC relating
to the penny stock market, which, in highlight form sets forth the basis on which the broker or dealer made the suitability determination,
and that the broker or dealer received a signed, written agreement from the investor prior to the transaction.
Generally,
brokers may be less willing to execute transactions in securities subject to the “penny stock” rules. This may make
it more difficult for investors to dispose of our common stock if and when such shares are eligible for sale and may cause a decline
in the market value of its stock.
Disclosure
also has to be made about the risks of investing in penny stocks in both public offerings and in secondary trading and about the
commissions payable to both the broker-dealer and the registered representative, current quotations for the securities and the
rights and remedies available to an investor in cases of fraud in penny stock transactions. Finally, monthly statements have to
be sent disclosing recent price information for the penny stock held in the account and information on the limited market in penny
stock.
As
an issuer of “penny stock,” the protection provided by the federal securities laws relating to forward-looking statements
does not apply to us
.
Although
federal securities laws provide a safe harbor for forward-looking statements made by a public company that files reports under
the federal securities laws, this safe harbor is not available to issuers of penny stocks. As a result, we will not have the benefit
of this safe harbor protection in the event of any legal action based upon a claim that the material provided by us contained
a material misstatement of fact or was misleading in any material respect because of our failure to include any statements necessary
to make the statements not misleading. Such an action could hurt our financial condition.
Securities
analysts may elect not to report on our common stock or may issue negative reports that adversely affect the stock price.
At
this time, no securities analysts provide research coverage of our common stock, and securities analysts may not elect not to
provide such coverage in the future. It may remain difficult for our company, with its small market capitalization, to attract
independent financial analysts that will cover our common stock. If securities analysts do not cover our common stock, the lack
of research coverage may adversely affect the stock’s actual and potential market price. The trading market for our common
stock may be affected in part by the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about our business. If one
or more analysts elect to cover our company and then downgrade the stock, the stock price would likely decline rapidly. If one
or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company, we could lose visibility in the market, which, in turn, could cause our
stock price to decline. This could have a negative effect on the market price of our common stock.
We
have not paid cash dividends in the past and do not expect to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any return on investment
may be limited to the value of our common stock.
We
have never paid cash dividends on our capital stock and do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our capital stock in the foreseeable
future. The payment of dividends on our capital stock will depend on our earnings, financial condition and other business and
economic factors affecting us at such time as the board of directors may consider relevant. If we do not pay dividends, our common
stock may be less valuable because a return on your investment will only occur if the common stock price appreciates.