Contract analysis

I. Purpose and Scope This memorandum identifies and analyzes the four third-party Free Ad-Supported Streaming Television ("FAST") channel operators to which StreamNow Holdings, Inc. ("StreamNow") sublicensed content bundles containing audiovisual works owned by Aurelius Global Media Group PLC ("Aurelius") and/or its wholly-owned subsidiary Aurelius Media Americas, Inc. ("AMA"). The purpose of this analysis is to asse

II. Background: StreamNow's Sublicensing Model An understanding of StreamNow's business model and sublicensing practices is essential context for evaluating the downstream FAST channel sublicensees identified in this memorandum. The following summary draws upon the more detailed analysis set forth in the StreamNow Platform & Business Model Memorandum (February 28, 2026) and the forensic findings of CipherTrace Analyt

III. Identification of FAST Channel Sublicensees CipherTrace's forensic analysis, combined with information obtained from publicly available corporate records and industry databases, has identified four third-party FAST channel operators that received sublicensed content bundles from StreamNow containing Aurelius titles. Each sublicensee is profiled below, including its corporate identity, the nature and scope of its

1. Corporate Profile • Full Legal Name: Brindoval Channel Networks, Inc. • Short Name: Brindoval • Entity Type: Corporation • Jurisdiction of Incorporation: State of Texas • Principal Place of Business / Headquarters: Dallas, Texas • Business Description: Brindoval Channel Networks, Inc. is an operator of multiple FAST channels distributed across U.S. domestic streaming platforms. Brindoval's channel portfolio focuse

2. Nature of Involvement Brindoval received sublicensed content bundles from StreamNow pursuant to a sublicensing agreement (the terms of which have not yet been obtained by Aurelius) and distributed Aurelius titles through its FAST channels to U.S.-based viewers. The content distributed by Brindoval included high-value Aurelius intellectual property, representing some of the most commercially significant titles in t

3. Potential Liability Exposure Brindoval's reproduction, distribution, and public performance of Aurelius works on its FAST channels constitutes direct copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501. Copyright infringement is a strict liability tort; Brindoval's lack of knowledge or intent regarding the unauthorized nature of StreamNow's sublicense is not a defense to a claim of direct infringement. See Feist

4. Jurisdictional Considerations Brindoval is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. As such, Brindoval is clearly subject to general personal jurisdiction in Texas. Brindoval may also be subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California if it can be demonstrated that Brindoval transacted business with StreamNow — which is headquartered in Los Angeles, Californ

1. Corporate Profile • Full Legal Name: BrightLoop Media, LLC • Short Name: BrightLoop • Entity Type: Limited Liability Company • Jurisdiction of Formation: State of Florida • Principal Place of Business / Headquarters: Miami, Florida • Business Description: BrightLoop Media, LLC is a FAST channel operator specializing in ad-supported entertainment content distribution. BrightLoop operates multiple channels that are

2. Nature of Involvement BrightLoop received sublicensed content bundles from StreamNow containing Aurelius titles pursuant to a sublicensing agreement (the terms of which have not yet been obtained by Aurelius) and distributed those titles through BrightLoop's FAST channels. CipherTrace's forensic analysis confirmed the presence of Aurelius content on BrightLoop's distribution channels, including episodes from the "

3. Potential Liability Exposure BrightLoop's liability exposure mirrors that of Brindoval in most material respects. BrightLoop's reproduction, distribution, and public performance of Aurelius works on its FAST channels constitutes direct copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501. As with Brindoval, copyright infringement is a strict liability offense, and BrightLoop's lack of knowledge or intent regardin

4. Jurisdictional Considerations BrightLoop is a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida. BrightLoop is subject to general personal jurisdiction in Florida. Joinder of BrightLoop in the contemplated C.D. Cal. action against StreamNow would require establishing specific personal jurisdiction over BrightLoop in the Central District of California. This would require a sho

1. Corporate Profile • Full Legal Name: Velvet Stream Partners, LP • Short Name: Velvet Stream • Entity Type: Limited Partnership • Jurisdiction of Formation: Province of Ontario, Canada • Principal Place of Business / Headquarters: Toronto, Ontario, Canada • Business Description: Velvet Stream Partners, LP is a Canadian FAST channel operator that distributes ad-supported content to Canadian and international audienc

2. Nature of Involvement Velvet Stream received sublicensed content bundles from StreamNow containing Aurelius titles and distributed those titles to Canadian consumers through its FAST channels. The inclusion of a Canadian operator among StreamNow's sublicensees extends the unauthorized distribution of Aurelius content beyond U.S. borders and into the Canadian market — a territory in which Aurelius maintains separat

3. Potential Liability Exposure The liability analysis for Velvet Stream is more complex than for the domestic sublicensees due to the cross-border nature of its activities. U.S. Copyright Infringement Claims. Velvet Stream is potentially liable for acts of infringement occurring in the United States — for example, if the sublicensing transaction with StreamNow involved reproduction or distribution acts that took pla

4. Jurisdictional Considerations Velvet Stream is an Ontario limited partnership and is not domiciled in the United States. Establishing personal jurisdiction over Velvet Stream in the Central District of California would require demonstrating that Velvet Stream purposefully directed its activities at California. Potential bases for jurisdiction include Velvet Stream's entry into a sublicensing agreement with StreamN

1. Corporate Profile • Full Legal Name: Pacific Lantern Digital Pty Ltd • Short Name: Pacific Lantern • Entity Type: Proprietary Limited Company • Jurisdiction of Incorporation: New South Wales, Australia • Principal Place of Business / Headquarters: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia • Business Description: Pacific Lantern Digital Pty Ltd is an Australian FAST channel and digital content distributor that serves Aust

2. Nature of Involvement Pacific Lantern received sublicensed content bundles from StreamNow containing Aurelius titles and distributed those titles to Australian consumers and potentially broader Asia-Pacific audiences through its FAST channels. As with Velvet Stream, the inclusion of an Australian operator among StreamNow's sublicensees extends the unauthorized exploitation of Aurelius content to an additional inte

3. Potential Liability Exposure U.S. Copyright Infringement Claims. The analysis of Pacific Lantern's potential liability under U.S. copyright law mirrors the analysis for Velvet Stream. Pacific Lantern is potentially liable for domestic predicate acts relating to the sublicensing transaction with StreamNow, but the extraterritorial limitations on U.S. copyright law complicate the pursuit of claims based on Pacific L

4. Jurisdictional Considerations Pacific Lantern is a New South Wales proprietary limited company and is not domiciled in the United States. Establishing personal jurisdiction over Pacific Lantern in the Central District of California would be challenging absent evidence of significant U.S. contacts. Pacific Lantern's primary operations are in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region, and its interaction with StreamNow

IV. Revenue Attribution to FAST Channel Sublicensees Quantifying the financial scope of the unauthorized sublicensing is essential both for damages purposes and for evaluating the strategic significance of pursuing claims against the individual sublicensees. The following summarizes the revenue attribution analysis as currently developed. A. StreamNow's Sublicensing Revenue CipherTrace's forensic analysis attributes

V. Legal Framework for Sublicensee Liability This section sets forth the legal framework applicable to the FAST channel sublicensees' liability for their unauthorized exploitation of Aurelius content. The analysis focuses on U.S. copyright law, which provides the primary basis for claims against all four sublicensees (though, as noted above, foreign copyright claims may be available against Velvet Stream and Pacific

VI. Strategic Considerations A. Demand vs. Litigation Approach for Each Sublicensee The appropriate approach to each sublicensee must be tailored to the specific circumstances of that entity, including its domicile, its jurisdictional contacts with the United States and California, the feasibility and cost of litigation, and the strategic objectives of the overall campaign. The following recommendations reflect those

1. Brindoval Channel Networks, Inc. (Dallas, TX) Recommendation: Include Brindoval in the takedown demand correspondence scheduled for March 14, 2026. The demand letter should require Brindoval to immediately cease all reproduction, distribution, and public performance of Aurelius content; remove all Aurelius content from its FAST channels and distribution infrastructure; and confirm compliance in writing within 10 b

2. BrightLoop Media, LLC (Miami, FL) Recommendation: Include BrightLoop in the takedown demand correspondence scheduled for March 14, 2026, with the same terms and compliance timeline as the Brindoval demand. Evaluate joinder of BrightLoop in the C.D. Cal. action based on further investigation into BrightLoop's jurisdictional contacts with California and BrightLoop's response to the takedown demand. If personal juris

3. Velvet Stream Partners, LP (Toronto, ON, Canada) Recommendation: Issue a takedown demand letter to Velvet Stream on March 14, 2026, demanding immediate cessation of all unauthorized exploitation of Aurelius content, removal of all Aurelius content from Velvet Stream's distribution infrastructure, and written confirmation of compliance within 10 business days. Do not initially name Velvet Stream as a defendant in t

4. Pacific Lantern Digital Pty Ltd (Sydney, NSW, Australia) Recommendation: Issue a takedown demand letter to Pacific Lantern on March 14, 2026, with the same terms and compliance timeline as the Velvet Stream demand. Do not initially name Pacific Lantern as a defendant in U.S. litigation. If Pacific Lantern fails to comply with the takedown demand and formal proceedings become necessary, coordinate with Bexley Marsh

VII. Information Gaps and Further Investigation Needed The analysis in this memorandum is based on information currently available to the litigation team. Several categories of information remain outstanding and will need to be obtained through further investigation, pre-litigation demands, or formal discovery in order to fully evaluate the scope of each sublicensee's involvement and to refine the damages analysis. T

1. Sublicensing Agreements. Copies of the sublicensing agreements between StreamNow and each of the four FAST channel operators have not yet been obtained. These agreements are essential for determining the specific rights granted to each operator, the geographic scope of the sublicenses, the financial terms (including fee structures, minimum guarantees, and revenue-sharing arrangements), and the representations, war

2. Title-by-Title Breakdown. While CipherTrace has confirmed the presence of Aurelius content generally on each sublicensee's distribution infrastructure, a title-by-title breakdown of the specific Aurelius works sublicensed to each operator has not yet been completed. This breakdown is necessary for calculating per-work statutory damages, for assessi