1017-00003 · Aurelius Global Media Group · Factual Investigation

fast-channel-sublicensee-memo.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

19 / 37 ← → ✕

MEMORANDUM

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. It is prepared in anticipation of litigation and is not to be disclosed to any person or entity outside the litigation team without the express written authorization of the undersigned.

To: Marcus Delgado, Partner; Wendy Schultz, Senior Associate

From: Omar Siddiqui, Associate

Date: March 1, 2026

Re: Identification and Analysis of Third-Party FAST Channel Sublicensees — StreamNow Holdings, Inc. Sublicensing of Aurelius Content

Matter No.: 1017-00003

Client: Aurelius Global Media Group PLC

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 assess each sublicensee's corporate profile, the nature and scope of its involvement in the unauthorized distribution of Aurelius content, its potential liability exposure under applicable copyright law, relevant jurisdictional considerations, and strategic recommendations for including each entity in demand correspondence and/or litigation.

The sublicensing at issue occurred without any authorization from Aurelius, whether express, implied, or otherwise. The sublicensing was carried out as part of StreamNow's broader unauthorized exploitation of 217 Aurelius-owned titles, consisting of 142 feature films and 75 television series comprising a total of 1,038 episodes. This unauthorized exploitation occurred during the infringement period of approximately April 1, 2024, through January 31, 2026 — a span of approximately 22 months. During this period, StreamNow made Aurelius content available both directly to its own subscribers and, critically for purposes of this memorandum, to downstream FAST channel operators through sublicensing arrangements that StreamNow had no authority to enter into.

StreamNow purported to derive its rights to distribute and sublicense the Aurelius content from a Content Distribution Agreement with Meridian Digital Distributors, LLC ("MDD"), which was allegedly executed on or about March 15, 2024. As established in separate memoranda prepared by this office, MDD was never authorized by Aurelius — by contract, agency agreement, or otherwise — to license, distribute, sublicense, or otherwise exploit any Aurelius content. MDD's sole member and manager, Franklin Ogilvie, is a former mid-level licensing manager at AMA whose employment with AMA terminated on June 30, 2021, following an internal investigation conducted by AMA's compliance department. Mr. Ogilvie held no authority, either during or after his employment, to bind Aurelius or AMA to any licensing arrangement, and the MDD entity itself was not formed until approximately nine months after Mr. Ogilvie's departure from AMA. The MDD–StreamNow Content Distribution Agreement is therefore void and conveys no rights whatsoever in the Aurelius catalog.

This memorandum should be read in conjunction with three related memoranda prepared by the litigation team: the CipherTrace Forensic Analysis Summary (dated March 5, 2026), the StreamNow Platform & Business Model Memorandum (dated February 28, 2026), and the MDD–StreamNow Agreement Analysis Memorandum (dated March 2, 2026). Together, these memoranda form the analytical foundation for the demand and litigation strategy to be finalized at the team meeting currently scheduled for March 10, 2026.

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 Analytics, LLC.

A. StreamNow's Role as a "Super-Aggregator"

StreamNow operates as a "super-aggregator" streaming platform, meaning that it bundles content acquired from multiple sources — including studios, independent distributors, and content libraries — into both subscription-based and ad-supported tiers for distribution to end-user consumers. StreamNow's platform is currently available in 14 countries across North America, Latin America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. StreamNow generates revenue through three principal channels: (1) subscription fees paid by direct-to-consumer subscribers; (2) advertising revenue generated through its ad-supported streaming tier; and (3) sublicensing fees received from third-party FAST channel operators to whom StreamNow provides curated content bundles.

B. The FAST Channel Sublicensing Arrangement

In addition to its direct-to-consumer streaming operations, StreamNow sublicenses curated content bundles to third-party FAST channel operators. Under these arrangements, StreamNow assembles bundles of content — drawn from various titles in its catalog — and makes those bundles available to FAST channel operators under sublicensing agreements. The FAST channel operators, in turn, incorporate the bundled content into their own free ad-supported streaming channels and distribute those channels to end users, typically through connected television ("CTV") platforms, smart TV applications, and other digital distribution endpoints. The FAST channel operators generate their own revenue, principally through advertising sold against the content streams, while also paying sublicensing fees to StreamNow for access to the content bundles.

This sublicensing model is significant for several reasons. First, it extends the unauthorized distribution of Aurelius content beyond StreamNow's own platform and into additional distribution channels and geographic territories that Aurelius never authorized. Second, it generates an independent revenue stream for StreamNow — the sublicensing fees — that is directly attributable to the exploitation of Aurelius content and constitutes recoverable infringer's profits. Third, the FAST channel operators themselves are direct infringers who independently reproduce, distribute, and publicly perform Aurelius works without authorization, creating additional bases for liability and additional avenues for damages recovery.

C. Forensic Confirmation of Sublicensing Activity

CipherTrace Analytics, LLC ("CipherTrace"), the forensic analytics firm retained by Aurelius in this matter (engagement lead: Dr. Nathan Frey), conducted a comprehensive forensic analysis of StreamNow's content distribution activities. Through this analysis, CipherTrace identified and confirmed that StreamNow received an aggregate of $6.5 million in sublicensing fees from the four FAST channel operators identified in this memorandum for bundles containing Aurelius titles during the 22-month infringement period (April 1, 2024, through January 31, 2026). CipherTrace's methodology included analysis of content fingerprinting data, digital distribution metadata, and financial transaction records obtained through voluntary production and publicly available information. The details of CipherTrace's methodology and findings are set forth in the CipherTrace Forensic Analysis Summary (March 5, 2026).

D. StreamNow's Editorial Control Over Sublicensed Bundles

Importantly, StreamNow exercised substantial editorial control over the selection, curation, pricing, and geographic availability of the content bundles it sublicensed to the FAST channel operators. StreamNow was not acting as a passive conduit or mere intermediary; rather, it actively selected which titles to include in each bundle, determined the licensing terms and pricing for each sublicensing arrangement, and specified the geographic territories in which the sublicensed content could be distributed. This level of editorial control further supports the conclusion — detailed in the StreamNow Platform & Business Model Memorandum — that StreamNow does not qualify for safe harbor protection under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), 17 U.S.C. § 512, because StreamNow's activities go far beyond those of a passive service provider and constitute direct, volitional acts of content selection and distribution.

E. Sandra Yee's November 3, 2025 Email

On November 3, 2025, Sandra Yee, StreamNow's Vice President of Content Acquisition, sent an email to Raj Anantharam, Aurelius's Senior Vice President of Content Licensing & Distribution, in which Ms. Yee confirmed that StreamNow obtained the Aurelius content through MDD. However, Ms. Yee made no mention whatsoever of the downstream sublicensing of Aurelius content to FAST channel operators in that communication. This omission is noteworthy: it suggests either that StreamNow was deliberately concealing the full scope of its exploitation of Aurelius content, or that Ms. Yee was not fully informed about the extent of StreamNow's downstream distribution activities at the time of the communication. In either case, the email underscores that StreamNow never sought or obtained Aurelius's consent for any sublicensing of Aurelius content to third parties.

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 involvement, its potential liability exposure, and applicable jurisdictional considerations.

A. Brindoval Channel Networks, Inc.

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 focuses on genre-specific programming verticals, including action/adventure, drama, and family entertainment channels. Brindoval distributes its channels through range connected television platforms and smart TV applications available to U.S. consumers.

• Estimated Scale: Brindoval is characterized as a mid-tier FAST operator with a presence on multiple U.S.-based CTV platforms. While Brindoval is not among the largest FAST channel operators in the domestic market, it maintains a meaningful distribution footprint and generates revenue primarily through advertising sold against its channel content.

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 the Aurelius catalog.

Specifically, CipherTrace's forensic analysis confirmed the presence of Aurelius content fingerprints on Brindoval's distribution infrastructure. Key Aurelius franchises identified on Brindoval's channels include titles from the "Meridian" franchise — a six-film franchise with a combined global theatrical box office of $1.43 billion — and selected titles from the "Thornfield" period drama catalog, which consists of 12 titles and has been recognized with 7 BAFTA awards. The unauthorized distribution of these high-profile titles on Brindoval's FAST channels is particularly damaging to Aurelius's licensing program, as it undermines the exclusivity and market positioning that Aurelius has carefully maintained for these properties through authorized licensing arrangements with major distribution partners.

Brindoval's distribution of Aurelius content was ongoing throughout the infringement period, and there is no indication that Brindoval independently verified the chain of rights from StreamNow back to the copyright owner prior to commencing distribution.

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 Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., 881 F.3d 293, 308 (4th Cir. 2018).

Brindoval may argue reliance on StreamNow's representations of valid licensing authority as a defense or in mitigation. However, such reliance does not constitute a defense to direct infringement liability itself. At most, Brindoval could invoke the "innocent infringer" provision under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), which permits a court to reduce statutory damages to not less than $200 per work infringed if the infringer proves that it "was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright." The availability of this mitigation depends on whether Brindoval can demonstrate that it reasonably relied on StreamNow's representations and conducted adequate due diligence on the chain of title — a showing that is substantially undermined by the fact that Brindoval apparently failed to verify StreamNow's authority directly with the copyright owner.

For the 189 Aurelius titles that were timely registered with the U.S. Copyright Office (i.e., registration effective prior to or within three months of first publication), statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) and an award of attorneys' fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 remain available against Brindoval. Statutory damages range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed, or up to $150,000 per work in cases of willful infringement. For the 28 Aurelius titles that were registered after the commencement of infringement and outside the three-month grace period (the "late-registered titles"), only actual damages and infringer's profits are recoverable under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Even with respect to the late-registered titles, Aurelius may seek to recover the portion of Brindoval's advertising revenue and other profits attributable to its exploitation of those works.

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, California — in connection with the sublicensing arrangement, and/or that Brindoval directed infringing content to California-based consumers through its FAST channels. Under the Supreme Court's framework in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), and the Ninth Circuit's application in AMA Multimedia LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020), the relevant inquiry is whether Brindoval purposefully directed its activities at the forum state and the claim arises out of or relates to those activities.

If personal jurisdiction can be established in the Central District of California, Brindoval could potentially be joined as a co-defendant in the primary action contemplated against StreamNow in that district. Joinder would be appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) if the claims against Brindoval arise out of the same transaction or occurrence (the sublicensing of Aurelius content) and involve common questions of law or fact. Alternatively, if joinder in the C.D. Cal. action proves infeasible, Aurelius could pursue a separate action against Brindoval in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) or another district in which jurisdiction is proper.

B. BrightLoop Media, LLC

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 available to U.S. audiences and, based on available information, select Latin American audiences as well. BrightLoop's focus on entertainment content and its dual U.S./Latin American distribution footprint make it a notable participant in the growing FAST channel ecosystem.

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 "Iron Compass" series. "Iron Compass" is a four-season, 48-episode television series that ranks as Aurelius's highest-rated original series, averaging 9.2 million UK viewers per episode during its original broadcast run. The series is a cornerstone of the Aurelius catalog and a key driver of licensing revenue across multiple territories.

BrightLoop's channels are accessible to viewers in the United States, and available information suggests they may also be accessible in additional territories, particularly in Latin America. If BrightLoop distributed Aurelius content to viewers outside the United States, this would compound the geographic scope of infringement and potentially implicate the copyright laws of additional jurisdictions. The full extent of BrightLoop's geographic distribution of Aurelius content remains subject to further investigation.

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 regarding the unauthorized nature of StreamNow's sublicense does not constitute a defense to direct infringement. BrightLoop may, like Brindoval, attempt to invoke the innocent infringer defense under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), but the same limitations apply — particularly the unavailability of this defense for the 189 timely-registered works bearing valid copyright notice under 17 U.S.C. § 402(d), and the sublicensee's failure to independently verify the chain of rights.

In addition to statutory damages (available for timely-registered works) and actual damages (available for all works), revenue generated by BrightLoop from its exploitation of Aurelius content may be recoverable as infringer's profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Under the statutory framework, Aurelius bears the initial burden of presenting proof only of the infringer's gross revenue attributable to the infringement; the burden then shifts to the infringer to prove its deductible expenses and elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(b); Ridgeline Industries USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 879 F.3d 948, 956 (9th Cir. 2018). The quantum of BrightLoop's advertising revenue and other profits attributable to Aurelius content is not yet known but will be a subject of discovery or pre-litigation accounting demands.

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 showing that BrightLoop purposefully directed activities at California — for example, by entering into the sublicensing agreement with StreamNow at StreamNow's Los Angeles headquarters, or by directing infringing streams to California consumers. The strength of this jurisdictional showing depends on facts not yet fully developed, including the location where the sublicensing agreement was negotiated and executed, the extent of BrightLoop's contacts with California, and whether BrightLoop's FAST channels were specifically targeted at California audiences.

If personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California cannot be established, Aurelius may consider filing a separate action against BrightLoop in the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division), where jurisdiction over BrightLoop would be uncontested. This alternative, while adding complexity to the overall litigation strategy, would ensure that claims against BrightLoop are not forfeited due to jurisdictional limitations.

C. Velvet Stream Partners, LP

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 audiences. Velvet Stream operates in the Canadian digital streaming market and serves viewers primarily within Canada, though its distribution may extend to other territories as well.

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 separate, carefully negotiated licensing arrangements with authorized distributors.

The unauthorized availability of Aurelius content on Velvet Stream's Canadian FAST channels has the potential to undermine Aurelius's existing Canadian licensing relationships and to diminish the value of the Canadian distribution rights that Aurelius has granted to its authorized partners. CipherTrace's analysis confirmed the presence of Aurelius content fingerprints on Velvet Stream's distribution infrastructure, though the specific titles distributed by Velvet Stream have not yet been identified at a granular level.

The involvement of Velvet Stream implicates both U.S. copyright law (insofar as the sublicensing transaction originated in the United States through StreamNow's Los Angeles operations) and potentially Canadian copyright law (insofar as the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of Aurelius works occurred within Canada).

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 place on U.S. soil, such as the transmission of content files from StreamNow's U.S.-based servers to Velvet Stream. Additionally, if Velvet Stream directed infringing content to U.S.-based consumers (a question that requires further investigation), it could face direct infringement liability in the United States.

However, the analysis is complicated by the fact that Velvet Stream's primary distribution targets Canadian consumers, and the extraterritorial application of U.S. copyright law is limited. The Supreme Court has long held that U.S. copyright law does not have extraterritorial reach. See Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Commc'ns Co., 24 F.3d 1088, 1098 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Nevertheless, under the "predicate acts" theory recognized by several circuits, U.S. copyright claims may be sustained where a domestic act of infringement (here, StreamNow's sublicensing from its Los Angeles headquarters) enabled or was a predicate for the foreign infringement. See Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Publ'g, Ltd., 843 F.2d 67, 73 (2d Cir. 1988); Los Angeles News Serv. v. Calderon Health IT Television Int'l, Ltd., 149 F.3d 987, 990–92 (9th Cir. 1998). If the predicate acts theory is available, it could support claims against Velvet Stream relating to the domestic reproduction and distribution acts that occurred when StreamNow transmitted Aurelius content from its U.S. servers to Velvet Stream.

Canadian Copyright Claims. Velvet Stream's unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and communication to the public of Aurelius works in Canada may give rise to claims under the Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42. Such claims would need to be pursued in Canadian courts and are outside the scope of the current U.S. engagement. However, if Canadian proceedings are warranted, coordination with Bexley Marsh Solicitors LLP, Aurelius's UK counsel at 14 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4ED, or Canadian local counsel to be engaged through that firm, would be appropriate.

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 StreamNow, a California-based entity, and any direction of infringing streams toward California consumers. However, absent evidence that Velvet Stream maintained a sustained course of business activity in California or directed its distribution channels at California audiences specifically, the jurisdictional showing may be insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Additionally, service of process on Velvet Stream as a foreign entity raises Hague Convention considerations. Canada is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, and service on a Canadian entity in a U.S. action must comply with the Convention's requirements, which can add both time and cost to the litigation process. See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988).

In light of these jurisdictional and practical considerations, the strategic recommendation for Velvet Stream is to pursue a takedown demand approach initially rather than joining Velvet Stream as a defendant in the U.S. litigation, unless further investigation reveals sufficient jurisdictional contacts to support personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California. This recommendation is discussed further in Section VI below.

D. Pacific Lantern Digital Pty Ltd

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 Australian and broader Asia-Pacific audiences. Pacific Lantern operates in the growing Australian digital streaming market and distributes ad-supported content through its own branded FAST channels and through partnerships with CTV platforms in the Asia-Pacific region.

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 international territory — one in which Aurelius maintains significant commercial interests and established licensing relationships.

CipherTrace's forensic analysis confirmed the presence of Aurelius content fingerprints distributed through Pacific Lantern's channels, though the specific titles and the volume of distribution attributable to Aurelius content have not yet been fully quantified. The unauthorized availability of Aurelius content on Pacific Lantern's Australian and Asia-Pacific channels has the potential to cause substantial harm to Aurelius's licensing program in those territories, undermining both existing and prospective licensing arrangements.

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 Lantern's distribution activities in Australia and the Asia-Pacific. The predicate acts theory, if applicable, could support claims relating to the reproduction and distribution acts that occurred domestically when StreamNow transmitted Aurelius content from its U.S. servers to Pacific Lantern. However, the strength of this theory as applied to Pacific Lantern — a foreign entity whose primary distribution activities occur entirely outside the United States — is uncertain and would require careful briefing.

Australian Copyright Claims. Pacific Lantern's unauthorized reproduction, communication to the public, and distribution of Aurelius works in Australia may give rise to claims under the Australian Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Australia provides robust copyright protections, and Aurelius, as a UK entity, benefits from the protections afforded to works of nationals of Berne Convention countries under Australian law. Australian copyright claims would need to be pursued in Australian courts. Aurelius's UK counsel, Bexley Marsh Solicitors LLP (14 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4ED), is well-positioned to coordinate with Australian local counsel if the pursuit of Australian proceedings is warranted. Pacific Lantern may be liable as a direct infringer under Australian law for the unauthorized reproduction, communication to the public, and distribution of Aurelius works in Australia, and remedies under the Australian Copyright Act include injunctive relief, damages or an account of profits, and additional damages for flagrant infringement.

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 — while it involved a U.S.-based counterparty — may not be sufficient to establish the purposeful direction of activities at California required for specific personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.

Service of process on Pacific Lantern would require compliance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. Australia is a signatory to the Hague Convention, and service through the appropriate Australian Central Authority would be necessary. This process can take several months and entails additional costs.

As with Velvet Stream, the strategic recommendation for Pacific Lantern is to pursue a demand and takedown approach initially, rather than joining Pacific Lantern as a defendant in the U.S. litigation. If Pacific Lantern fails to comply with the takedown demand and Aurelius determines that formal proceedings are warranted, the most efficient course would be to pursue Australian copyright claims through Australian local counsel, in coordination with Bexley Marsh Solicitors LLP.

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 $6.5 million in sublicensing fees received by StreamNow from the four FAST channel operators for content bundles containing Aurelius titles during the 22-month infringement period (April 1, 2024, through January 31, 2026). This figure represents the aggregate amount paid by all four sublicensees to StreamNow for access to content bundles that included Aurelius titles, and it does not include any revenue generated independently by the sublicensees themselves from the downstream exploitation of the content (e.g., advertising revenue earned by the FAST channel operators).

B. Context Within StreamNow's Total Attributable Revenue

The $6.5 million in sublicensing fees is one of three principal revenue streams that comprise StreamNow's total attributable revenue from the exploitation of Aurelius content. As detailed in the StreamNow Platform & Business Model Memorandum and the CipherTrace Forensic Analysis Summary, StreamNow's total attributable revenue during the infringement period is estimated at $38.6 million, broken down as follows:

The sublicensing fees thus represent approximately 16.8% of StreamNow's total attributable revenue from Aurelius content.

C. Allocation Among Sublicensees

The individual allocation of the $6.5 million in sublicensing fees among the four FAST channel operators has not yet been precisely determined. CipherTrace's analysis identified the aggregate figure but was unable to disaggregate payments on a per-sublicensee basis from the data currently available. Further discovery or accounting demands directed to StreamNow will be necessary to establish the specific sublicensing fees paid by each operator. This information will be important for any claim seeking disgorgement of StreamNow's profits attributable to sublicensing and for any direct claims against the individual sublicensees.

D. Downstream Revenue Generated by Sublicensees

In addition to the sublicensing fees received by StreamNow (which are recoverable as StreamNow's infringer's profits), the FAST channel operators themselves generated advertising revenue and other income from their exploitation of Aurelius content on their own channels. This downstream revenue represents an additional category of infringer's profits that may be recoverable under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) if claims are pursued directly against the sublicensees. The quantum of such downstream revenue is not yet known and will be a critical area of inquiry in any discovery or accounting demands directed to the sublicensees.

E. Relationship to Preliminary Damages Estimate

Hargrove Economic Consulting Group, LLC (engagement lead: Dr. Elena Vasquez), the damages expert retained by Aurelius, has developed a preliminary net recoverable damages estimate of $41.3 million in connection with this matter. However, this preliminary estimate focuses on claims against StreamNow and does not yet model separate damages claims against the individual FAST channel sublicensees. Once further information regarding sublicensee revenues is obtained — whether through discovery, accounting demands, or voluntary production — Hargrove will be asked to refine the damages model to incorporate potential recovery from the sublicensees and to ensure that any double-counting of revenue streams is avoided.

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 Lantern under Canadian and Australian law, respectively).

A. Direct Infringement (Strict Liability)

Each FAST channel operator that reproduced, distributed, or publicly performed Aurelius works without authorization is strictly liable for direct copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, regardless of the operator's knowledge or intent regarding the unauthorized nature of the sublicense from StreamNow. Copyright infringement does not require a showing of intent or negligence; it requires only that the defendant engaged in one or more of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 U.S.C. § 106 without the authorization of the copyright owner. See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991) ("To establish infringement, two elements must be proven: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.").

Lack of awareness that the sublicense from StreamNow was unauthorized is not a defense to direct infringement liability. A sublicensee cannot shield itself from liability by claiming that it believed the upstream licensor had proper authority; if the upstream licensor lacked authority, the sublicense is void and the sublicensee's exploitation of the content is unauthorized. See Nimmer on Copyright § 12.04[A][3] (noting that a sublicensee's good faith reliance on a void license does not create a defense to infringement).

The sublicensees' direct infringement is independent of StreamNow's infringement. Even if StreamNow were to settle or be dismissed from the litigation, the sublicensees would remain independently liable for their own acts of reproduction, distribution, and public performance of Aurelius works.

B. Innocent Infringer Doctrine

While knowledge and intent are not required to establish liability for direct copyright infringement, they are relevant to the determination of remedies. Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), if an infringer sustains the burden of proving that it "was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright," the court has discretion to reduce the statutory damages award to not less than $200 per work infringed (as compared to the standard minimum of $750 per work and the maximum of $30,000 per work, or $150,000 per work for willful infringement).

However, this innocent infringer defense is significantly limited in this case for several reasons:

First, for the 189 Aurelius titles that were timely registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, the statutory framework effectively forecloses the innocent infringer defense if valid copyright notice appeared on the published copies or phonorecords of the work. Under 17 U.S.C. § 402(d), if a notice of copyright "in the form and position specified by this section" appears on the published copies to which a defendant had access, the defendant "will not be given any weight" to a claim of innocent infringement "in mitigation of actual or statutory damages." In practical terms, the presence of copyright notice on the Aurelius works — which can be verified through examination of the content files — eliminates the innocent infringer defense for those works.

Second, the sublicensees had an independent obligation to verify the chain of rights from StreamNow back to the copyright owner before exploiting the licensed content. Industry practice in the streaming and FAST channel sectors requires licensees and sublicensees to conduct due diligence on chain of title, including requesting and reviewing copies of upstream license agreements, verifying the identity and authority of the licensor, and confirming that the scope of rights granted is sufficient for the intended exploitation. Failure to conduct such due diligence undermines any claim of reasonable reliance and supports a finding that the sublicensee had "reason to believe" that its acts constituted infringement within the meaning of § 504(c)(2).

Third, even if the innocent infringer defense were available for certain titles, it would affect only the floor for statutory damages (reducing the minimum to $200 per work) and would not eliminate liability or preclude the award of actual damages and infringer's profits under § 504(b). Moreover, the defense would have no bearing on Aurelius's entitlement to injunctive relief under 17 U.S.C. § 502.

C. Contributory and Vicarious Liability Considerations

While the primary theory of liability against the FAST channel sublicensees is direct infringement, secondary liability theories — specifically contributory infringement and vicarious liability — may also apply in certain circumstances.

Contributory Infringement. If any sublicensee further sublicensed Aurelius content or distributed it to downstream platforms or operators, the sublicensee may be liable for contributory infringement based on its material contribution to the downstream infringement. Contributory infringement requires a showing that the defendant, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another." Gershwin Publ'g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971). Whether any of the four identified sublicensees further sublicensed Aurelius content to additional downstream operators is not yet known and is an area for further investigation.

Vicarious Liability. Vicarious liability for copyright infringement attaches where the defendant has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and has a direct financial interest in such activity. Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304, 307 (2d Cir. 1963). If any sublicensee maintained operational control over downstream distributors and profited from the downstream distribution of Aurelius content, vicarious liability could apply. Again, this theory depends on facts not yet in the record.

At this stage, the direct infringement theory provides the strongest and most straightforward basis for claims against the sublicensees. Contributory and vicarious liability theories should be preserved as potential additional claims pending further investigation into downstream distribution.

D. Indemnification as Between StreamNow and Sublicensees

The sublicensing agreements between StreamNow and the FAST channel operators almost certainly contain representations, warranties, and indemnification provisions. Under standard industry practice, a content sublicensor such as StreamNow would represent and warrant to its sublicensees that it holds the necessary rights to license and distribute the content, that the content does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party, and that the sublicensor will indemnify and hold harmless the sublicensee against any third-party claims arising from a breach of these representations and warranties.

If the sublicensees face liability to Aurelius for copyright infringement, they will almost certainly seek indemnification from StreamNow under the terms of their sublicensing agreements. This dynamic has important strategic implications for the overall litigation and settlement posture:

First, the existence of downstream indemnification obligations increases StreamNow's overall financial exposure, because StreamNow faces not only the primary claims from Aurelius but also potential indemnification obligations to each of its sublicensees. This multiplied exposure increases StreamNow's incentive to settle with Aurelius before the sublicensees assert their own indemnification claims.

Second, the sublicensees' anticipated indemnification claims against StreamNow create a dynamic in which multiple parties are seeking recovery from StreamNow, potentially accelerating the depletion of StreamNow's financial resources and increasing the urgency of resolution.

Third, the prospect of facing indemnification claims from sublicensees may also provide StreamNow with a perverse incentive to minimize the sublicensees' liability — for example, by encouraging the sublicensees to resist Aurelius's takedown demands or to contest Aurelius's claims — in order to avoid triggering indemnification obligations. This is an important consideration for the timing and coordination of Aurelius's demand correspondence, as discussed in Section VI below.

Until copies of the sublicensing agreements are obtained, the precise terms of the indemnification provisions remain unknown. Securing copies of these agreements — whether through discovery, subpoena, or demand to StreamNow — is a priority for the next phase of the investigation.

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 considerations.

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 business days. If Brindoval fails to comply with the takedown demand within the specified period, consider naming Brindoval as a co-defendant in the C.D. Cal. action, provided that personal jurisdiction can be established. If jurisdiction in the Central District of California is not feasible, pursue a separate action in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division).

Rationale: Brindoval is a U.S. entity — a Texas corporation — and is likely subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California given its contractual relationship with StreamNow, which is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. Including Brindoval in the litigation would put additional pressure on StreamNow and create meaningful leverage in settlement negotiations by demonstrating Aurelius's willingness to pursue claims against the full chain of infringers. Brindoval's status as a domestic entity also simplifies service of process and enforcement of any judgment obtained.

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 jurisdiction in the Central District of California is insufficient, consider filing a separate action against BrightLoop in the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division).

Rationale: BrightLoop is a U.S. entity — a Florida LLC — and is subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. The jurisdictional analysis for the Central District of California requires further investigation into BrightLoop's California contacts, including the location where the sublicensing agreement with StreamNow was negotiated and executed, BrightLoop's business relationships with California-based entities, and the extent to which BrightLoop directed its FAST channels at California consumers. If personal jurisdiction in California proves insufficient, a separate Florida action remains a viable alternative that would not entail the complexity of foreign litigation.

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 the U.S. litigation absent a clear jurisdictional basis. If Velvet Stream fails to comply with the takedown demand and formal proceedings become necessary, coordinate with Bexley Marsh Solicitors LLP, or Canadian local counsel to be engaged through that firm, for potential Canadian copyright proceedings under the Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42.

Rationale: Velvet Stream is a foreign entity — an Ontario limited partnership — with limited expected U.S. contacts. Establishing personal jurisdiction over Velvet Stream in the Central District of California would be difficult absent evidence of significant, purposefully directed California contacts. Hague Convention service requirements add complexity and cost to any U.S. litigation involving Velvet Stream. The most efficient initial approach is to issue a strongly worded takedown demand letter, which will put Velvet Stream on notice of Aurelius's claims and may achieve voluntary compliance without the need for formal proceedings. If compliance is not achieved, the matter can be escalated through foreign proceedings in a jurisdiction where Velvet Stream is subject to personal jurisdiction.

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 Solicitors LLP for referral to Australian local counsel regarding potential claims under the Australian Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

Rationale: The same considerations applicable to Velvet Stream apply to Pacific Lantern. Pacific Lantern is a foreign entity — a New South Wales proprietary limited company — with limited expected U.S. contacts. Establishing personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California would be challenging, and Hague Convention service requirements (Australia is a signatory) add cost and delay. The demand/takedown approach is the most efficient initial course. If escalation is necessary, Australian copyright proceedings would be the appropriate avenue, coordinated through Bexley Marsh Solicitors LLP and Australian local counsel.

B. Settlement Leverage

The identification of four downstream FAST channel sublicensees creates significant settlement leverage for Aurelius in its negotiations with StreamNow. This leverage operates on multiple levels.

First, the existence of four downstream sublicensees amplifies the urgency of Aurelius's demands, as continued infringement is not limited to StreamNow's own platform but is being multiplied across multiple platforms, distribution channels, and geographic territories, including Canada and Australia. This multiplication of infringement increases the total harm to Aurelius and underscores the need for immediate and comprehensive cessation of all unauthorized exploitation.

Second, StreamNow faces potential indemnification claims from the sublicensees if those entities are held liable to Aurelius for copyright infringement. As discussed in Section V.D above, the sublicensing agreements between StreamNow and the FAST operators almost certainly contain indemnification provisions under which StreamNow warranted its authority to sublicense the content. The prospect of defending against both Aurelius's claims and the sublicensees' indemnification claims significantly increases StreamNow's financial exposure and creates a strong incentive for StreamNow to resolve the matter with Aurelius before the sublicensees assert their own claims.

Third, successful takedowns at the sublicensee level would effectively eliminate StreamNow's sublicensing revenue stream (the $6.5 million attributable to Aurelius content) and signal to the broader market that the Aurelius content distributed by StreamNow was unauthorized. This market awareness could damage StreamNow's reputation and credibility with other content licensors and distribution partners, creating non-monetary pressure that further incentivizes settlement.

Fourth, if the sublicensees comply with Aurelius's takedown demands promptly and cease distributing Aurelius content, this supports the argument that StreamNow's own failure to cease constitutes willful infringement. A finding of willful infringement would expose StreamNow to enhanced statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), a substantial increase from the standard maximum of $30,000 per work. The contrast between compliant sublicensees and a non-compliant StreamNow would be compelling evidence of willfulness in any subsequent litigation.

C. Coordination of Demand Timing

The timing of the demand correspondence is a critical strategic consideration. Takedown demand letters to all four FAST channel sublicensees should be sent simultaneously with the formal cease-and-desist and pre-suit demand letter to StreamNow, all dated March 14, 2026.

Simultaneous service is important for several reasons. First, it prevents StreamNow from preemptively contacting the sublicensees to manage messaging, coordinate a defense, or encourage resistance to Aurelius's demands. If StreamNow were to learn of Aurelius's intent to contact the sublicensees before the demand letters are issued, StreamNow could attempt to coach the sublicensees on how to respond, assert that the sublicensees should not comply with takedown demands, or accelerate the destruction or concealment of relevant records. Simultaneous service forecloses this opportunity.

Second, simultaneous service maximizes the psychological and commercial impact of the demand campaign. When all parties in the distribution chain receive demands at the same time, the combined effect is greater than if the demands were issued sequentially, as each recipient is immediately aware that the copyright owner is pursuing comprehensive enforcement across the entire chain.

Each takedown demand letter should include the following elements: (a) identification of Aurelius as the copyright owner of the affected works; (b) a summary of the unauthorized chain of distribution (MDD to StreamNow to the sublicensee); (c) a demand for immediate cessation of all reproduction, distribution, and public performance of Aurelius content; (d) a demand for removal of all Aurelius content from the sublicensee's distribution infrastructure within 10 business days; (e) a demand for written confirmation of compliance within 10 business days; (f) a demand for preservation of all records relating to the StreamNow sublicense and any Aurelius content, including but not limited to copies of the sublicensing agreement, financial records, audience metrics, and internal communications; and (g) a notice that failure to comply will result in Aurelius pursuing all available legal remedies, including claims for statutory damages, actual damages, infringer's profits, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

D. Impact on Damages Calculation

The pursuit of claims against the sublicensees raises important questions regarding the calculation and allocation of damages, which must be carefully managed to avoid double-counting.

If claims are pursued against the sublicensees in addition to StreamNow, Aurelius must ensure that infringer's profits recovered from StreamNow (which include the $6.5 million in sublicensing fees received by StreamNow from the FAST operators) are not also recovered separately from the sublicensees with respect to the same revenue stream. The $6.5 million in sublicensing fees represents revenue that flowed from the sublicensees to StreamNow; recovering this amount from StreamNow as StreamNow's infringer's profits and simultaneously recovering the same $6.5 million from the sublicensees as the sublicensees' costs of content acquisition would result in an impermissible double recovery. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) (providing for recovery of "any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages"); Ridgeline Industries USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 879 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2018).

However, the sublicensees' own independently generated revenue — that is, the advertising revenue, sponsorship income, and other revenue earned by the FAST channel operators from their exploitation of Aurelius content on their channels — is not the same revenue stream as the sublicensing fees paid to StreamNow. This independently generated revenue represents a distinct category of infringer's profits that may be recoverable from the sublicensees without creating a double-counting problem. The key principle is that each infringer's profits are recoverable to the extent they represent distinct revenue that is not already captured in the recovery from another infringer in the chain.

This analysis should be refined by Hargrove Economic Consulting Group, LLC once further information regarding sublicensee revenues is obtained through discovery or accounting demands. In the interim, Aurelius's damages theory should be structured to preserve all claims against all parties while building in appropriate safeguards against double-counting.

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. The principal information gaps are as follows:

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, warranties, and indemnification provisions that will govern the relationship among the parties in the event of a copyright infringement claim. The sublicensing agreements will be demanded in the formal demand letter to StreamNow (March 14, 2026) and may also be obtained through discovery if litigation proceeds.

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

MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. It is prepared in anticipation of litigation and is not to be disclosed to any person or entity outside the litigation team without the express written authorization of the undersigned.
To: Marcus Delgado, Partner; Wendy Schultz, Senior Associate
From: Omar Siddiqui, Associate
Date: March 1, 2026
Re: Identification and Analysis of Third-Party FAST Channel Sublicensees — StreamNow Holdings, Inc. Sublicensing of Aurelius Content
Matter No.: 1017-00003
Client: Aurelius Global Media Group PLC
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 assess each sublicensee's corporate profile, the nature and scope of its involvement in the unauthorized distribution of Aurelius content, its potential liability exposure under applicable copyright law, relevant jurisdictional considerations, and strategic recommendations for including each entity in demand correspondence and/or litigation.
The sublicensing at issue occurred without any authorization from Aurelius, whether express, implied, or otherwise. The sublicensing was carried out as part of StreamNow's broader unauthorized exploitation of 217 Aurelius-owned titles, consisting of 142 feature films and 75 television series comprising a total of 1,038 episodes. This unauthorized exploitation occurred during the infringement period of approximately April 1, 2024, through January 31, 2026 — a span of approximately 22 months. During this period, StreamNow made Aurelius content available both directly to its own subscribers and, critically for purposes of this memorandum, to downstream FAST channel operators through sublicensing arrangements that StreamNow had no authority to enter into.
StreamNow purported to derive its rights to distribute and sublicense the Aurelius content from a Content Distribution Agreement with Meridian Digital Distributors, LLC ("MDD"), which was allegedly executed on or about March 15, 2024. As established in separate memoranda prepared by this office, MDD was never authorized by Aurelius — by contract, agency agreement, or otherwise — to license, distribute, sublicense, or otherwise exploit any Aurelius content. MDD's sole member and manager, Franklin Ogilvie, is a former mid-level licensing manager at AMA whose employment with AMA terminated on June 30, 2021, following an internal investigation conducted by AMA's compliance department. Mr. Ogilvie held no authority, either during or after his employment, to bind Aurelius or AMA to any licensing arrangement, and the MDD entity itself was not formed until approximately nine months after Mr. Ogilvie's departure from AMA. The MDD–StreamNow Content Distribution Agreement is therefore void and conveys no rights whatsoever in the Aurelius catalog.
This memorandum should be read in conjunction with three related memoranda prepared by the litigation team: the CipherTrace Forensic Analysis Summary (dated March 5, 2026), the StreamNow Platform & Business Model Memorandum (dated February 28, 2026), and the MDD–StreamNow Agreement Analysis Memorandum (dated March 2, 2026). Together, these memoranda form the analytical foundation for the demand and litigation strategy to be finalized at the team meeting currently scheduled for March 10, 2026.
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 Analytics, LLC.
A. StreamNow's Role as a "Super-Aggregator"
StreamNow operates as a "super-aggregator" streaming platform, meaning that it bundles content acquired from multiple sources — including studios, independent distributors, and content libraries — into both subscription-based and ad-supported tiers for distribution to end-user consumers. StreamNow's platform is currently available in 14 countries across North America, Latin America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. StreamNow generates revenue through three principal channels: (1) subscription fees paid by direct-to-consumer subscribers; (2) advertising revenue generated through its ad-supported streaming tier; and (3) sublicensing fees received from third-party FAST channel operators to whom StreamNow provides curated content bundles.
B. The FAST Channel Sublicensing Arrangement
In addition to its direct-to-consumer streaming operations, StreamNow sublicenses curated content bundles to third-party FAST channel operators. Under these arrangements, StreamNow assembles bundles of content — drawn from various titles in its catalog — and makes those bundles available to FAST channel operators under sublicensing agreements. The FAST channel operators, in turn, incorporate the bundled content into their own free ad-supported streaming channels and distribute those channels to end users, typically through connected television ("CTV") platforms, smart TV applications, and other digital distribution endpoints. The FAST channel operators generate their own revenue, principally through advertising sold against the content streams, while also paying sublicensing fees to StreamNow for access to the content bundles.
This sublicensing model is significant for several reasons. First, it extends the unauthorized distribution of Aurelius content beyond StreamNow's own platform and into additional distribution channels and geographic territories that Aurelius never authorized. Second, it generates an independent revenue stream for StreamNow — the sublicensing fees — that is directly attributable to the exploitation of Aurelius content and constitutes recoverable infringer's profits. Third, the FAST channel operators themselves are direct infringers who independently reproduce, distribute, and publicly perform Aurelius works without authorization, creating additional bases for liability and additional avenues for damages recovery.
C. Forensic Confirmation of Sublicensing Activity
CipherTrace Analytics, LLC ("CipherTrace"), the forensic analytics firm retained by Aurelius in this matter (engagement lead: Dr. Nathan Frey), conducted a comprehensive forensic analysis of StreamNow's content distribution activities. Through this analysis, CipherTrace identified and confirmed that StreamNow received an aggregate of $6.5 million in sublicensing fees from the four FAST channel operators identified in this memorandum for bundles containing Aurelius titles during the 22-month infringement period (April 1, 2024, through January 31, 2026). CipherTrace's methodology included analysis of content fingerprinting data, digital distribution metadata, and financial transaction records obtained through voluntary production and publicly available information. The details of CipherTrace's methodology and findings are set forth in the CipherTrace Forensic Analysis Summary (March 5, 2026).
D. StreamNow's Editorial Control Over Sublicensed Bundles
Importantly, StreamNow exercised substantial editorial control over the selection, curation, pricing, and geographic availability of the content bundles it sublicensed to the FAST channel operators. StreamNow was not acting as a passive conduit or mere intermediary; rather, it actively selected which titles to include in each bundle, determined the licensing terms and pricing for each sublicensing arrangement, and specified the geographic territories in which the sublicensed content could be distributed. This level of editorial control further supports the conclusion — detailed in the StreamNow Platform & Business Model Memorandum — that StreamNow does not qualify for safe harbor protection under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), 17 U.S.C. § 512, because StreamNow's activities go far beyond those of a passive service provider and constitute direct, volitional acts of content selection and distribution.
E. Sandra Yee's November 3, 2025 Email
On November 3, 2025, Sandra Yee, StreamNow's Vice President of Content Acquisition, sent an email to Raj Anantharam, Aurelius's Senior Vice President of Content Licensing & Distribution, in which Ms. Yee confirmed that StreamNow obtained the Aurelius content through MDD. However, Ms. Yee made no mention whatsoever of the downstream sublicensing of Aurelius content to FAST channel operators in that communication. This omission is noteworthy: it suggests either that StreamNow was deliberately concealing the full scope of its exploitation of Aurelius content, or that Ms. Yee was not fully informed about the extent of StreamNow's downstream distribution activities at the time of the communication. In either case, the email underscores that StreamNow never sought or obtained Aurelius's consent for any sublicensing of Aurelius content to third parties.
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 involvement, its potential liability exposure, and applicable jurisdictional considerations.
A. Brindoval Channel Networks, Inc.
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 focuses on genre-specific programming verticals, including action/adventure, drama, and family entertainment channels. Brindoval distributes its channels through range connected television platforms and smart TV applications available to U.S. consumers.
•  Estimated Scale: Brindoval is characterized as a mid-tier FAST operator with a presence on multiple U.S.-based CTV platforms. While Brindoval is not among the largest FAST channel operators in the domestic market, it maintains a meaningful distribution footprint and generates revenue primarily through advertising sold against its channel content.
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 the Aurelius catalog.
Specifically, CipherTrace's forensic analysis confirmed the presence of Aurelius content fingerprints on Brindoval's distribution infrastructure. Key Aurelius franchises identified on Brindoval's channels include titles from the "Meridian" franchise — a six-film franchise with a combined global theatrical box office of $1.43 billion — and selected titles from the "Thornfield" period drama catalog, which consists of 12 titles and has been recognized with 7 BAFTA awards. The unauthorized distribution of these high-profile titles on Brindoval's FAST channels is particularly damaging to Aurelius's licensing program, as it undermines the exclusivity and market positioning that Aurelius has carefully maintained for these properties through authorized licensing arrangements with major distribution partners.
Brindoval's distribution of Aurelius content was ongoing throughout the infringement period, and there is no indication that Brindoval independently verified the chain of rights from StreamNow back to the copyright owner prior to commencing distribution.
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 Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., 881 F.3d 293, 308 (4th Cir. 2018).
Brindoval may argue reliance on StreamNow's representations of valid licensing authority as a defense or in mitigation. However, such reliance does not constitute a defense to direct infringement liability itself. At most, Brindoval could invoke the "innocent infringer" provision under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), which permits a court to reduce statutory damages to not less than $200 per work infringed if the infringer proves that it "was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright." The availability of this mitigation depends on whether Brindoval can demonstrate that it reasonably relied on StreamNow's representations and conducted adequate due diligence on the chain of title — a showing that is substantially undermined by the fact that Brindoval apparently failed to verify StreamNow's authority directly with the copyright owner.
For the 189 Aurelius titles that were timely registered with the U.S. Copyright Office (i.e., registration effective prior to or within three months of first publication), statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) and an award of attorneys' fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 remain available against Brindoval. Statutory damages range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed, or up to $150,000 per work in cases of willful infringement. For the 28 Aurelius titles that were registered after the commencement of infringement and outside the three-month grace period (the "late-registered titles"), only actual damages and infringer's profits are recoverable under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Even with respect to the late-registered titles, Aurelius may seek to recover the portion of Brindoval's advertising revenue and other profits attributable to its exploitation of those works.
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, California — in connection with the sublicensing arrangement, and/or that Brindoval directed infringing content to California-based consumers through its FAST channels. Under the Supreme Court's framework in Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014), and the Ninth Circuit's application in AMA Multimedia LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020), the relevant inquiry is whether Brindoval purposefully directed its activities at the forum state and the claim arises out of or relates to those activities.
If personal jurisdiction can be established in the Central District of California, Brindoval could potentially be joined as a co-defendant in the primary action contemplated against StreamNow in that district. Joinder would be appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) if the claims against Brindoval arise out of the same transaction or occurrence (the sublicensing of Aurelius content) and involve common questions of law or fact. Alternatively, if joinder in the C.D. Cal. action proves infeasible, Aurelius could pursue a separate action against Brindoval in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) or another district in which jurisdiction is proper.
B. BrightLoop Media, LLC
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 available to U.S. audiences and, based on available information, select Latin American audiences as well. BrightLoop's focus on entertainment content and its dual U.S./Latin American distribution footprint make it a notable participant in the growing FAST channel ecosystem.
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 "Iron Compass" series. "Iron Compass" is a four-season, 48-episode television series that ranks as Aurelius's highest-rated original series, averaging 9.2 million UK viewers per episode during its original broadcast run. The series is a cornerstone of the Aurelius catalog and a key driver of licensing revenue across multiple territories.
BrightLoop's channels are accessible to viewers in the United States, and available information suggests they may also be accessible in additional territories, particularly in Latin America. If BrightLoop distributed Aurelius content to viewers outside the United States, this would compound the geographic scope of infringement and potentially implicate the copyright laws of additional jurisdictions. The full extent of BrightLoop's geographic distribution of Aurelius content remains subject to further investigation.
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 regarding the unauthorized nature of StreamNow's sublicense does not constitute a defense to direct infringement. BrightLoop may, like Brindoval, attempt to invoke the innocent infringer defense under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), but the same limitations apply — particularly the unavailability of this defense for the 189 timely-registered works bearing valid copyright notice under 17 U.S.C. § 402(d), and the sublicensee's failure to independently verify the chain of rights.
In addition to statutory damages (available for timely-registered works) and actual damages (available for all works), revenue generated by BrightLoop from its exploitation of Aurelius content may be recoverable as infringer's profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Under the statutory framework, Aurelius bears the initial burden of presenting proof only of the infringer's gross revenue attributable to the infringement; the burden then shifts to the infringer to prove its deductible expenses and elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(b); Ridgeline Industries USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 879 F.3d 948, 956 (9th Cir. 2018). The quantum of BrightLoop's advertising revenue and other profits attributable to Aurelius content is not yet known but will be a subject of discovery or pre-litigation accounting demands.
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 showing that BrightLoop purposefully directed activities at California — for example, by entering into the sublicensing agreement with StreamNow at StreamNow's Los Angeles headquarters, or by directing infringing streams to California consumers. The strength of this jurisdictional showing depends on facts not yet fully developed, including the location where the sublicensing agreement was negotiated and executed, the extent of BrightLoop's contacts with California, and whether BrightLoop's FAST channels were specifically targeted at California audiences.
If personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California cannot be established, Aurelius may consider filing a separate action against BrightLoop in the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division), where jurisdiction over BrightLoop would be uncontested. This alternative, while adding complexity to the overall litigation strategy, would ensure that claims against BrightLoop are not forfeited due to jurisdictional limitations.
C. Velvet Stream Partners, LP
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 audiences. Velvet Stream operates in the Canadian digital streaming market and serves viewers primarily within Canada, though its distribution may extend to other territories as well.
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 separate, carefully negotiated licensing arrangements with authorized distributors.
The unauthorized availability of Aurelius content on Velvet Stream's Canadian FAST channels has the potential to undermine Aurelius's existing Canadian licensing relationships and to diminish the value of the Canadian distribution rights that Aurelius has granted to its authorized partners. CipherTrace's analysis confirmed the presence of Aurelius content fingerprints on Velvet Stream's distribution infrastructure, though the specific titles distributed by Velvet Stream have not yet been identified at a granular level.
The involvement of Velvet Stream implicates both U.S. copyright law (insofar as the sublicensing transaction originated in the United States through StreamNow's Los Angeles operations) and potentially Canadian copyright law (insofar as the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of Aurelius works occurred within Canada).
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 place on U.S. soil, such as the transmission of content files from StreamNow's U.S.-based servers to Velvet Stream. Additionally, if Velvet Stream directed infringing content to U.S.-based consumers (a question that requires further investigation), it could face direct infringement liability in the United States.
However, the analysis is complicated by the fact that Velvet Stream's primary distribution targets Canadian consumers, and the extraterritorial application of U.S. copyright law is limited. The Supreme Court has long held that U.S. copyright law does not have extraterritorial reach. See Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Commc'ns Co., 24 F.3d 1088, 1098 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Nevertheless, under the "predicate acts" theory recognized by several circuits, U.S. copyright claims may be sustained where a domestic act of infringement (here, StreamNow's sublicensing from its Los Angeles headquarters) enabled or was a predicate for the foreign infringement. See Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Publ'g, Ltd., 843 F.2d 67, 73 (2d Cir. 1988); Los Angeles News Serv. v. Calderon Health IT Television Int'l, Ltd., 149 F.3d 987, 990–92 (9th Cir. 1998). If the predicate acts theory is available, it could support claims against Velvet Stream relating to the domestic reproduction and distribution acts that occurred when StreamNow transmitted Aurelius content from its U.S. servers to Velvet Stream.
Canadian Copyright Claims. Velvet Stream's unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and communication to the public of Aurelius works in Canada may give rise to claims under the Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42. Such claims would need to be pursued in Canadian courts and are outside the scope of the current U.S. engagement. However, if Canadian proceedings are warranted, coordination with Bexley Marsh Solicitors LLP, Aurelius's UK counsel at 14 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4ED, or Canadian local counsel to be engaged through that firm, would be appropriate.
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 StreamNow, a California-based entity, and any direction of infringing streams toward California consumers. However, absent evidence that Velvet Stream maintained a sustained course of business activity in California or directed its distribution channels at California audiences specifically, the jurisdictional showing may be insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
Additionally, service of process on Velvet Stream as a foreign entity raises Hague Convention considerations. Canada is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, and service on a Canadian entity in a U.S. action must comply with the Convention's requirements, which can add both time and cost to the litigation process. See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988).
In light of these jurisdictional and practical considerations, the strategic recommendation for Velvet Stream is to pursue a takedown demand approach initially rather than joining Velvet Stream as a defendant in the U.S. litigation, unless further investigation reveals sufficient jurisdictional contacts to support personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California. This recommendation is discussed further in Section VI below.
D. Pacific Lantern Digital Pty Ltd
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 Australian and broader Asia-Pacific audiences. Pacific Lantern operates in the growing Australian digital streaming market and distributes ad-supported content through its own branded FAST channels and through partnerships with CTV platforms in the Asia-Pacific region.
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 international territory — one in which Aurelius maintains significant commercial interests and established licensing relationships.
CipherTrace's forensic analysis confirmed the presence of Aurelius content fingerprints distributed through Pacific Lantern's channels, though the specific titles and the volume of distribution attributable to Aurelius content have not yet been fully quantified. The unauthorized availability of Aurelius content on Pacific Lantern's Australian and Asia-Pacific channels has the potential to cause substantial harm to Aurelius's licensing program in those territories, undermining both existing and prospective licensing arrangements.
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 Lantern's distribution activities in Australia and the Asia-Pacific. The predicate acts theory, if applicable, could support claims relating to the reproduction and distribution acts that occurred domestically when StreamNow transmitted Aurelius content from its U.S. servers to Pacific Lantern. However, the strength of this theory as applied to Pacific Lantern — a foreign entity whose primary distribution activities occur entirely outside the United States — is uncertain and would require careful briefing.
Australian Copyright Claims. Pacific Lantern's unauthorized reproduction, communication to the public, and distribution of Aurelius works in Australia may give rise to claims under the Australian Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Australia provides robust copyright protections, and Aurelius, as a UK entity, benefits from the protections afforded to works of nationals of Berne Convention countries under Australian law. Australian copyright claims would need to be pursued in Australian courts. Aurelius's UK counsel, Bexley Marsh Solicitors LLP (14 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4ED), is well-positioned to coordinate with Australian local counsel if the pursuit of Australian proceedings is warranted. Pacific Lantern may be liable as a direct infringer under Australian law for the unauthorized reproduction, communication to the public, and distribution of Aurelius works in Australia, and remedies under the Australian Copyright Act include injunctive relief, damages or an account of profits, and additional damages for flagrant infringement.
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 — while it involved a U.S.-based counterparty — may not be sufficient to establish the purposeful direction of activities at California required for specific personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause.
Service of process on Pacific Lantern would require compliance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. Australia is a signatory to the Hague Convention, and service through the appropriate Australian Central Authority would be necessary. This process can take several months and entails additional costs.
As with Velvet Stream, the strategic recommendation for Pacific Lantern is to pursue a demand and takedown approach initially, rather than joining Pacific Lantern as a defendant in the U.S. litigation. If Pacific Lantern fails to comply with the takedown demand and Aurelius determines that formal proceedings are warranted, the most efficient course would be to pursue Australian copyright claims through Australian local counsel, in coordination with Bexley Marsh Solicitors LLP.
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 $6.5 million in sublicensing fees received by StreamNow from the four FAST channel operators for content bundles containing Aurelius titles during the 22-month infringement period (April 1, 2024, through January 31, 2026). This figure represents the aggregate amount paid by all four sublicensees to StreamNow for access to content bundles that included Aurelius titles, and it does not include any revenue generated independently by the sublicensees themselves from the downstream exploitation of the content (e.g., advertising revenue earned by the FAST channel operators).
B. Context Within StreamNow's Total Attributable Revenue
The $6.5 million in sublicensing fees is one of three principal revenue streams that comprise StreamNow's total attributable revenue from the exploitation of Aurelius content. As detailed in the StreamNow Platform & Business Model Memorandum and the CipherTrace Forensic Analysis Summary, StreamNow's total attributable revenue during the infringement period is estimated at $38.6 million, broken down as follows:
The sublicensing fees thus represent approximately 16.8% of StreamNow's total attributable revenue from Aurelius content.
C. Allocation Among Sublicensees
The individual allocation of the $6.5 million in sublicensing fees among the four FAST channel operators has not yet been precisely determined. CipherTrace's analysis identified the aggregate figure but was unable to disaggregate payments on a per-sublicensee basis from the data currently available. Further discovery or accounting demands directed to StreamNow will be necessary to establish the specific sublicensing fees paid by each operator. This information will be important for any claim seeking disgorgement of StreamNow's profits attributable to sublicensing and for any direct claims against the individual sublicensees.
D. Downstream Revenue Generated by Sublicensees
In addition to the sublicensing fees received by StreamNow (which are recoverable as StreamNow's infringer's profits), the FAST channel operators themselves generated advertising revenue and other income from their exploitation of Aurelius content on their own channels. This downstream revenue represents an additional category of infringer's profits that may be recoverable under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) if claims are pursued directly against the sublicensees. The quantum of such downstream revenue is not yet known and will be a critical area of inquiry in any discovery or accounting demands directed to the sublicensees.
E. Relationship to Preliminary Damages Estimate
Hargrove Economic Consulting Group, LLC (engagement lead: Dr. Elena Vasquez), the damages expert retained by Aurelius, has developed a preliminary net recoverable damages estimate of $41.3 million in connection with this matter. However, this preliminary estimate focuses on claims against StreamNow and does not yet model separate damages claims against the individual FAST channel sublicensees. Once further information regarding sublicensee revenues is obtained — whether through discovery, accounting demands, or voluntary production — Hargrove will be asked to refine the damages model to incorporate potential recovery from the sublicensees and to ensure that any double-counting of revenue streams is avoided.
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 Lantern under Canadian and Australian law, respectively).
A. Direct Infringement (Strict Liability)
Each FAST channel operator that reproduced, distributed, or publicly performed Aurelius works without authorization is strictly liable for direct copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, regardless of the operator's knowledge or intent regarding the unauthorized nature of the sublicense from StreamNow. Copyright infringement does not require a showing of intent or negligence; it requires only that the defendant engaged in one or more of the exclusive rights enumerated in 17 U.S.C. § 106 without the authorization of the copyright owner. See Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991) ("To establish infringement, two elements must be proven: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.").
Lack of awareness that the sublicense from StreamNow was unauthorized is not a defense to direct infringement liability. A sublicensee cannot shield itself from liability by claiming that it believed the upstream licensor had proper authority; if the upstream licensor lacked authority, the sublicense is void and the sublicensee's exploitation of the content is unauthorized. See Nimmer on Copyright § 12.04[A][3] (noting that a sublicensee's good faith reliance on a void license does not create a defense to infringement).
The sublicensees' direct infringement is independent of StreamNow's infringement. Even if StreamNow were to settle or be dismissed from the litigation, the sublicensees would remain independently liable for their own acts of reproduction, distribution, and public performance of Aurelius works.
B. Innocent Infringer Doctrine
While knowledge and intent are not required to establish liability for direct copyright infringement, they are relevant to the determination of remedies. Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), if an infringer sustains the burden of proving that it "was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright," the court has discretion to reduce the statutory damages award to not less than $200 per work infringed (as compared to the standard minimum of $750 per work and the maximum of $30,000 per work, or $150,000 per work for willful infringement).
However, this innocent infringer defense is significantly limited in this case for several reasons:
First, for the 189 Aurelius titles that were timely registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, the statutory framework effectively forecloses the innocent infringer defense if valid copyright notice appeared on the published copies or phonorecords of the work. Under 17 U.S.C. § 402(d), if a notice of copyright "in the form and position specified by this section" appears on the published copies to which a defendant had access, the defendant "will not be given any weight" to a claim of innocent infringement "in mitigation of actual or statutory damages." In practical terms, the presence of copyright notice on the Aurelius works — which can be verified through examination of the content files — eliminates the innocent infringer defense for those works.
Second, the sublicensees had an independent obligation to verify the chain of rights from StreamNow back to the copyright owner before exploiting the licensed content. Industry practice in the streaming and FAST channel sectors requires licensees and sublicensees to conduct due diligence on chain of title, including requesting and reviewing copies of upstream license agreements, verifying the identity and authority of the licensor, and confirming that the scope of rights granted is sufficient for the intended exploitation. Failure to conduct such due diligence undermines any claim of reasonable reliance and supports a finding that the sublicensee had "reason to believe" that its acts constituted infringement within the meaning of § 504(c)(2).
Third, even if the innocent infringer defense were available for certain titles, it would affect only the floor for statutory damages (reducing the minimum to $200 per work) and would not eliminate liability or preclude the award of actual damages and infringer's profits under § 504(b). Moreover, the defense would have no bearing on Aurelius's entitlement to injunctive relief under 17 U.S.C. § 502.
C. Contributory and Vicarious Liability Considerations
While the primary theory of liability against the FAST channel sublicensees is direct infringement, secondary liability theories — specifically contributory infringement and vicarious liability — may also apply in certain circumstances.
Contributory Infringement. If any sublicensee further sublicensed Aurelius content or distributed it to downstream platforms or operators, the sublicensee may be liable for contributory infringement based on its material contribution to the downstream infringement. Contributory infringement requires a showing that the defendant, "with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another." Gershwin Publ'g Corp. v. Columbia Artists Mgmt., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971). Whether any of the four identified sublicensees further sublicensed Aurelius content to additional downstream operators is not yet known and is an area for further investigation.
Vicarious Liability. Vicarious liability for copyright infringement attaches where the defendant has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and has a direct financial interest in such activity. Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H.L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304, 307 (2d Cir. 1963). If any sublicensee maintained operational control over downstream distributors and profited from the downstream distribution of Aurelius content, vicarious liability could apply. Again, this theory depends on facts not yet in the record.
At this stage, the direct infringement theory provides the strongest and most straightforward basis for claims against the sublicensees. Contributory and vicarious liability theories should be preserved as potential additional claims pending further investigation into downstream distribution.
D. Indemnification as Between StreamNow and Sublicensees
The sublicensing agreements between StreamNow and the FAST channel operators almost certainly contain representations, warranties, and indemnification provisions. Under standard industry practice, a content sublicensor such as StreamNow would represent and warrant to its sublicensees that it holds the necessary rights to license and distribute the content, that the content does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party, and that the sublicensor will indemnify and hold harmless the sublicensee against any third-party claims arising from a breach of these representations and warranties.
If the sublicensees face liability to Aurelius for copyright infringement, they will almost certainly seek indemnification from StreamNow under the terms of their sublicensing agreements. This dynamic has important strategic implications for the overall litigation and settlement posture:
First, the existence of downstream indemnification obligations increases StreamNow's overall financial exposure, because StreamNow faces not only the primary claims from Aurelius but also potential indemnification obligations to each of its sublicensees. This multiplied exposure increases StreamNow's incentive to settle with Aurelius before the sublicensees assert their own indemnification claims.
Second, the sublicensees' anticipated indemnification claims against StreamNow create a dynamic in which multiple parties are seeking recovery from StreamNow, potentially accelerating the depletion of StreamNow's financial resources and increasing the urgency of resolution.
Third, the prospect of facing indemnification claims from sublicensees may also provide StreamNow with a perverse incentive to minimize the sublicensees' liability — for example, by encouraging the sublicensees to resist Aurelius's takedown demands or to contest Aurelius's claims — in order to avoid triggering indemnification obligations. This is an important consideration for the timing and coordination of Aurelius's demand correspondence, as discussed in Section VI below.
Until copies of the sublicensing agreements are obtained, the precise terms of the indemnification provisions remain unknown. Securing copies of these agreements — whether through discovery, subpoena, or demand to StreamNow — is a priority for the next phase of the investigation.
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 considerations.
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 business days. If Brindoval fails to comply with the takedown demand within the specified period, consider naming Brindoval as a co-defendant in the C.D. Cal. action, provided that personal jurisdiction can be established. If jurisdiction in the Central District of California is not feasible, pursue a separate action in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division).
Rationale: Brindoval is a U.S. entity — a Texas corporation — and is likely subject to personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California given its contractual relationship with StreamNow, which is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. Including Brindoval in the litigation would put additional pressure on StreamNow and create meaningful leverage in settlement negotiations by demonstrating Aurelius's willingness to pursue claims against the full chain of infringers. Brindoval's status as a domestic entity also simplifies service of process and enforcement of any judgment obtained.
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 jurisdiction in the Central District of California is insufficient, consider filing a separate action against BrightLoop in the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division).
Rationale: BrightLoop is a U.S. entity — a Florida LLC — and is subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. The jurisdictional analysis for the Central District of California requires further investigation into BrightLoop's California contacts, including the location where the sublicensing agreement with StreamNow was negotiated and executed, BrightLoop's business relationships with California-based entities, and the extent to which BrightLoop directed its FAST channels at California consumers. If personal jurisdiction in California proves insufficient, a separate Florida action remains a viable alternative that would not entail the complexity of foreign litigation.
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 the U.S. litigation absent a clear jurisdictional basis. If Velvet Stream fails to comply with the takedown demand and formal proceedings become necessary, coordinate with Bexley Marsh Solicitors LLP, or Canadian local counsel to be engaged through that firm, for potential Canadian copyright proceedings under the Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42.
Rationale: Velvet Stream is a foreign entity — an Ontario limited partnership — with limited expected U.S. contacts. Establishing personal jurisdiction over Velvet Stream in the Central District of California would be difficult absent evidence of significant, purposefully directed California contacts. Hague Convention service requirements add complexity and cost to any U.S. litigation involving Velvet Stream. The most efficient initial approach is to issue a strongly worded takedown demand letter, which will put Velvet Stream on notice of Aurelius's claims and may achieve voluntary compliance without the need for formal proceedings. If compliance is not achieved, the matter can be escalated through foreign proceedings in a jurisdiction where Velvet Stream is subject to personal jurisdiction.
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 Solicitors LLP for referral to Australian local counsel regarding potential claims under the Australian Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
Rationale: The same considerations applicable to Velvet Stream apply to Pacific Lantern. Pacific Lantern is a foreign entity — a New South Wales proprietary limited company — with limited expected U.S. contacts. Establishing personal jurisdiction in the Central District of California would be challenging, and Hague Convention service requirements (Australia is a signatory) add cost and delay. The demand/takedown approach is the most efficient initial course. If escalation is necessary, Australian copyright proceedings would be the appropriate avenue, coordinated through Bexley Marsh Solicitors LLP and Australian local counsel.
B. Settlement Leverage
The identification of four downstream FAST channel sublicensees creates significant settlement leverage for Aurelius in its negotiations with StreamNow. This leverage operates on multiple levels.
First, the existence of four downstream sublicensees amplifies the urgency of Aurelius's demands, as continued infringement is not limited to StreamNow's own platform but is being multiplied across multiple platforms, distribution channels, and geographic territories, including Canada and Australia. This multiplication of infringement increases the total harm to Aurelius and underscores the need for immediate and comprehensive cessation of all unauthorized exploitation.
Second, StreamNow faces potential indemnification claims from the sublicensees if those entities are held liable to Aurelius for copyright infringement. As discussed in Section V.D above, the sublicensing agreements between StreamNow and the FAST operators almost certainly contain indemnification provisions under which StreamNow warranted its authority to sublicense the content. The prospect of defending against both Aurelius's claims and the sublicensees' indemnification claims significantly increases StreamNow's financial exposure and creates a strong incentive for StreamNow to resolve the matter with Aurelius before the sublicensees assert their own claims.
Third, successful takedowns at the sublicensee level would effectively eliminate StreamNow's sublicensing revenue stream (the $6.5 million attributable to Aurelius content) and signal to the broader market that the Aurelius content distributed by StreamNow was unauthorized. This market awareness could damage StreamNow's reputation and credibility with other content licensors and distribution partners, creating non-monetary pressure that further incentivizes settlement.
Fourth, if the sublicensees comply with Aurelius's takedown demands promptly and cease distributing Aurelius content, this supports the argument that StreamNow's own failure to cease constitutes willful infringement. A finding of willful infringement would expose StreamNow to enhanced statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), a substantial increase from the standard maximum of $30,000 per work. The contrast between compliant sublicensees and a non-compliant StreamNow would be compelling evidence of willfulness in any subsequent litigation.
C. Coordination of Demand Timing
The timing of the demand correspondence is a critical strategic consideration. Takedown demand letters to all four FAST channel sublicensees should be sent simultaneously with the formal cease-and-desist and pre-suit demand letter to StreamNow, all dated March 14, 2026.
Simultaneous service is important for several reasons. First, it prevents StreamNow from preemptively contacting the sublicensees to manage messaging, coordinate a defense, or encourage resistance to Aurelius's demands. If StreamNow were to learn of Aurelius's intent to contact the sublicensees before the demand letters are issued, StreamNow could attempt to coach the sublicensees on how to respond, assert that the sublicensees should not comply with takedown demands, or accelerate the destruction or concealment of relevant records. Simultaneous service forecloses this opportunity.
Second, simultaneous service maximizes the psychological and commercial impact of the demand campaign. When all parties in the distribution chain receive demands at the same time, the combined effect is greater than if the demands were issued sequentially, as each recipient is immediately aware that the copyright owner is pursuing comprehensive enforcement across the entire chain.
Each takedown demand letter should include the following elements: (a) identification of Aurelius as the copyright owner of the affected works; (b) a summary of the unauthorized chain of distribution (MDD to StreamNow to the sublicensee); (c) a demand for immediate cessation of all reproduction, distribution, and public performance of Aurelius content; (d) a demand for removal of all Aurelius content from the sublicensee's distribution infrastructure within 10 business days; (e) a demand for written confirmation of compliance within 10 business days; (f) a demand for preservation of all records relating to the StreamNow sublicense and any Aurelius content, including but not limited to copies of the sublicensing agreement, financial records, audience metrics, and internal communications; and (g) a notice that failure to comply will result in Aurelius pursuing all available legal remedies, including claims for statutory damages, actual damages, infringer's profits, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.
D. Impact on Damages Calculation
The pursuit of claims against the sublicensees raises important questions regarding the calculation and allocation of damages, which must be carefully managed to avoid double-counting.
If claims are pursued against the sublicensees in addition to StreamNow, Aurelius must ensure that infringer's profits recovered from StreamNow (which include the $6.5 million in sublicensing fees received by StreamNow from the FAST operators) are not also recovered separately from the sublicensees with respect to the same revenue stream. The $6.5 million in sublicensing fees represents revenue that flowed from the sublicensees to StreamNow; recovering this amount from StreamNow as StreamNow's infringer's profits and simultaneously recovering the same $6.5 million from the sublicensees as the sublicensees' costs of content acquisition would result in an impermissible double recovery. See 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) (providing for recovery of "any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages"); Ridgeline Industries USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 879 F.3d 948, 958 (9th Cir. 2018).
However, the sublicensees' own independently generated revenue — that is, the advertising revenue, sponsorship income, and other revenue earned by the FAST channel operators from their exploitation of Aurelius content on their channels — is not the same revenue stream as the sublicensing fees paid to StreamNow. This independently generated revenue represents a distinct category of infringer's profits that may be recoverable from the sublicensees without creating a double-counting problem. The key principle is that each infringer's profits are recoverable to the extent they represent distinct revenue that is not already captured in the recovery from another infringer in the chain.
This analysis should be refined by Hargrove Economic Consulting Group, LLC once further information regarding sublicensee revenues is obtained through discovery or accounting demands. In the interim, Aurelius's damages theory should be structured to preserve all claims against all parties while building in appropriate safeguards against double-counting.
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. The principal information gaps are as follows:
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, warranties, and indemnification provisions that will govern the relationship among the parties in the event of a copyright infringement claim. The sublicensing agreements will be demanded in the formal demand letter to StreamNow (March 14, 2026) and may also be obtained through discovery if litigation proceeds.
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

MEMORANDUM

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts