PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
MEMORANDUM
TO: Fiona Hartwell, General Counsel, Aurelius Global Media Group PLC
FROM: Wendy Schultz, Senior Associate, intellectual Property, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
CC: Marcus Delgado, Partner; Catherine Bloom, Partner; Omar Siddiqui, Associate
DATE: March 6, 2026
RE: Damages Analysis — Aurelius Global Media Group PLC v. StreamNow Holdings, Inc. et al.
MATTER NO.: 1017-00003
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to synthesize our preliminary damages analysis in support of the anticipated pre-suit demand and litigation strategy against StreamNow Holdings, Inc. ("StreamNow"), Meridian Digital Distributors, LLC ("MDD"), and Franklin Ogilvie (collectively, "Defendants"). As set forth more fully below, our analysis demonstrates that Aurelius Global Media Group PLC ("Aurelius" or the "Company") has substantial and well-supported damages claims arising from the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and public performance of 217 copyrighted audiovisual works across StreamNow's streaming platform and downstream sublicensed distribution channels over an approximately 22-month period.
Two principal damages frameworks are available to Aurelius under the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. First, Aurelius may recover its actual damages suffered as a result of the infringement plus any profits of the infringer attributable to the infringement that are not taken into account in computing actual damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Second, Aurelius may elect, in the alternative, to recover statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), which provides for awards ranging from $750 to $150,000 per work infringed, depending on the willfulness of the infringement. These two remedies are alternatives—Aurelius must elect one or the other at or before the time of final judgment—but both must be fully analyzed in order to make a sound strategic election.
Based on the preliminary damages model prepared by Dr. Elena Vasquez of Hargrove Economic Consulting Group, LLC ("Hargrove"), the actual damages plus infringer's profits theory yields a preliminary net recoverable damages figure of approximately $41.3 million, after appropriate apportionment to avoid double-counting of overlapping damages and profits, and after preliminary adjustments for anticipated deductible expenses. This figure is derived from a combination of Aurelius's lost licensing revenue (estimated at $14.2 million, representing the fair market value of a hypothetical arm's-length license for the 217 titles over the infringement period) and StreamNow's attributable gross profits of approximately $38.6 million across three revenue streams: subscription revenue, advertising revenue from StreamNow's AVOD tier, and sublicensing fees received from four downstream FAST channel operators.
The statutory damages alternative, by contrast, yields a theoretical maximum of $32,550,000 if all 217 works were eligible, calculated as 217 works multiplied by the maximum per-work award of $150,000 for willful infringement under § 504(c)(2). However, because only 189 of the 217 titles at issue were timely registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 412, the practical maximum for statutory damages is $28,350,000 (189 works × $150,000). The remaining 28 late-registered works are not eligible for statutory damages and would need to be compensated, if at all under a statutory damages election, through actual damages and profits alone.
Accordingly, we recommend that Aurelius pursue actual damages plus infringer's profits as the primary damages theory, as it yields an estimated recovery approximately $12.95 million higher than the statutory damages alternative and applies uniformly to all 217 works without limitation. Statutory damages should be maintained as a fallback theory, to be elected at or before final judgment if circumstances warrant.
Additionally, Aurelius is eligible to seek recovery of reasonable attorneys' fees and full costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505 with respect to the 189 timely-registered works out of the 217 total titles at issue. Pre-suit phase legal fees and expert costs are currently estimated at approximately $783,500, a figure that will increase substantially if the matter proceeds through litigation and trial.
This memorandum should be read in conjunction with the following related work product:
• CipherTrace Forensic Analysis Summary (March 5, 2026), prepared by Dr. Nathan Frey, Director, Digital Media Forensics, CipherTrace Analytics, LLC;
• Copyright Registration Summary Report, prepared by Lexington IP Services, Inc. (search completed January 22, 2026); and
• Pre-Suit Assessment Memorandum (March 7, 2026), prepared by Calderwood & Harkness LLP.
We note that the damages analysis presented herein is preliminary and based on currently available information. It will be subject to refinement as additional data becomes available through formal discovery, particularly with respect to StreamNow's financial records, internal viewership analytics, and agreements with MDD and the downstream sublicensees.
II. Scope and Methodology
A. Scope of Analysis
This damages analysis covers all 217 audiovisual works at issue in this matter. The portfolio consists of 142 feature-length motion pictures and 75 television series comprising a total of 1,038 individual episodes. These works span a wide range of genres, production vintages, and commercial profiles, and include several of Aurelius's most commercially significant properties. The full title list is set forth in Exhibit A to the Copyright Registration Summary Report prepared by Lexington IP Services.
The infringement period examined in this analysis runs for approximately 22 months, from April 1, 2024 through January 31, 2026. The commencement date of April 1, 2024 is based on CipherTrace Analytics' forensic analysis, which identified the earliest date on which Aurelius content was made available on StreamNow's platform. The end date of January 31, 2026 is the most recent date for which CipherTrace has completed its viewership and revenue attribution analysis. We note that the infringement may be ongoing, and to the extent Aurelius content remains available on StreamNow's platform or any downstream sublicensee platform after January 31, 2026, additional damages continue to accrue. The takedown demand letters scheduled for dispatch on March 14, 2026 are intended to halt the ongoing infringement and establish a clear record of StreamNow's post-notice conduct.
The defendants against whom damages are analyzed in this memorandum are:
1. StreamNow Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Secretary of State File No. 7291843), headquartered at 3400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, California 90010. StreamNow is the operator of the "StreamNow" digital streaming platform, which offers both subscription-based (SVOD) and advertising-supported (AVOD) tiers to consumers in 14 countries. StreamNow is privately held, with Pinnacle Ventures Fund III, LP holding approximately 62% of the company's fully diluted equity.
2. Meridian Digital Distributors, LLC ("MDD"), a California limited liability company (California Secretary of State File No. 202115729430). MDD purported to act as a content aggregator and sublicensor, and represented to StreamNow that it held the rights to sublicense the Aurelius titles at issue. MDD was incorporated in late 2021 and has no meaningful track record as a legitimate content distributor outside of the transactions at issue.
3. Franklin Ogilvie, an individual residing in Los Angeles County, California. Ogilvie is the sole member and manager of MDD. Ogilvie was formerly employed by Aurelius Media Americas, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Aurelius Global Media Group PLC, from approximately 2017 through June 30, 2021, when he separated from the company following an internal investigation into unauthorized access to Aurelius's content management systems and related digital infrastructure.
The revenue streams analyzed in this memorandum encompass the full range of monetization channels through which StreamNow generated revenue from the exploitation of Aurelius's copyrighted works:
• Subscription revenue derived from StreamNow's SVOD tiers, where subscribers pay monthly or annual fees for access to StreamNow's content library, including the Aurelius titles;
• Advertising revenue derived from StreamNow's AVOD tier, where content is made available to viewers at reduced or no subscription cost in exchange for exposure to advertisements, with revenue generated through ad impression sales and programmatic advertising;
• Sublicensing fees received by StreamNow from four third-party FAST (Free Ad-Supported Television) channel operators to whom StreamNow sublicensed bundles of content that included Aurelius titles: Brindoval Channel Networks, Inc. (Dallas, Texas); BrightLoop Media, LLC (Miami, Florida); Velvet Stream Partners, LP (Toronto, Ontario, Canada); and Pacific Lantern Digital Pty Ltd (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia).
B. Expert Engagement
Calderwood & Harkness has engaged the following expert consultants to support the damages analysis:
Hargrove Economic Consulting Group, LLC ("Hargrove") has been retained as the primary damages expert. Hargrove is located at 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, California 90071. The engagement is governed by an engagement letter dated February 20, 2026, executed by Dr. Elena Vasquez on behalf of Hargrove and by Marcus Delgado on behalf of Calderwood & Harkness. Dr. Vasquez, who holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Southern California, is a Principal at Hargrove and serves as the engagement lead. Dr. Vasquez has extensive experience in the valuation of intellectual property, damages analysis in copyright and trademark litigation, and economic analysis for the entertainment and media industries. Her curriculum vitae is on file and will be disclosed in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) at the appropriate time. The estimated fee for Hargrove's preliminary damages model is $95,000, with the understanding that the fee will increase if a full expert report and testimony are required in connection with litigation.
Hargrove's preliminary damages model, which forms the quantitative foundation for this memorandum, is expressly designated as preliminary work product subject to refinement as discovery proceeds. In particular, the model will be updated to incorporate StreamNow's actual financial records, which are not currently available to Aurelius and will need to be obtained through formal discovery.
CipherTrace Analytics, LLC ("CipherTrace") has been retained to provide technical and forensic analysis supporting the damages case. CipherTrace is located at 2700 Sand Hill Road, Suite 130, Menlo Park, California 94025. The engagement lead is Dr. Nathan Frey, Director, Digital Media Forensics. CipherTrace has performed content fingerprinting to confirm the presence of all 217 Aurelius titles on StreamNow's platform, metadata extraction to analyze the provenance and distribution chain of the content files, viewership and traffic analysis to attribute StreamNow's revenue streams to Aurelius content, and revenue attribution modeling to quantify the economic contribution of Aurelius content to StreamNow's overall financial performance. The estimated fee for CipherTrace's engagement is $175,000. CipherTrace's forensic analysis is summarized in a separate report dated March 5, 2026.
Lexington IP Services, Inc. ("Lexington") has been retained to provide comprehensive copyright registration research and verification. Lexington is located at 1625 I Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006. The engagement is led by Marissa Chung, Director of Copyright Research. Lexington completed its search on January 22, 2026 and has provided a detailed Copyright Registration Summary Report identifying the registration status, registration number, registration date, publication date, and registration timeliness for each of the 217 audiovisual works at issue. The estimated fee for Lexington's engagement is $28,500.
C. Data Sources
The damages analysis set forth in this memorandum draws upon the following principal data sources:
CipherTrace Forensic Analysis. CipherTrace's technical analysis provides the empirical foundation for revenue attribution. CipherTrace employed industry-standard content fingerprinting technology to confirm the presence and identity of each of the 217 Aurelius titles on StreamNow's platform. CipherTrace extracted and analyzed metadata from the content files to trace the distribution chain and confirm that the files were delivered to StreamNow through MDD. CipherTrace also obtained and analyzed viewership and traffic data, including stream counts, viewer minutes, unique viewer counts, and geographic distribution, for each Aurelius title on StreamNow's platform over the 22-month infringement period. This data was then used to develop the revenue attribution methodology described in Section IV.C below.
Aurelius's Existing Arm's-Length Licensing Agreements. Aurelius maintains an active content licensing program through which it licenses its audiovisual library to authorized streaming platforms, broadcast networks, and other distributors worldwide. Aurelius has provided Calderwood & Harkness and Hargrove with copies of its existing licensing agreements with authorized platforms, which serve as the primary benchmark for the comparable license valuation methodology used to estimate Aurelius's lost licensing revenue. These agreements include transactions of varying size, scope, territory, and term, and provide a robust dataset for the establishment of fair market value.
StreamNow Financial Data. StreamNow is a privately held company and does not publicly report its financial results. However, based on publicly available information, industry analyst reports, venture capital disclosure filings, and CipherTrace's technical analysis, Hargrove has estimated StreamNow's FY2025 revenue at approximately $312 million. StreamNow's majority owner, Pinnacle Ventures Fund III, LP, holds approximately 62% of StreamNow's fully diluted equity. These estimates will be refined when StreamNow's actual financial records become available through discovery.
Aurelius Internal Content Valuation Data. Aurelius has provided internal content valuation data for the titles at issue, including historical licensing revenue, production costs, box office performance, and audience metrics. Key franchises within the 217-title portfolio include:
• The "Meridian" franchise (6 feature films with a combined global theatrical box office of $1.43 billion, plus associated ancillary revenue from home entertainment, merchandise, and prior licensing arrangements);
• The "Iron Compass" series (4 seasons, 48 episodes, averaging 9.2 million UK viewers per episode, with significant international distribution and critical acclaim); and
• The "Thornfield" period drama catalog (12 titles, recipient of 7 BAFTA awards, with a dedicated and loyal global audience, particularly in the UK, Australia, and Canada).
These high-value properties form the commercial core of the infringing catalog and significantly enhance both the comparable license valuation and the revenue attribution analysis.
Aurelius's total content library exceeds 4,200 titles across multiple genres and formats. The 217 titles at issue in this matter represent a carefully curated selection of high-value properties that commanded premium licensing fees in Aurelius's authorized transactions.
III. Copyright Registration Status and Its Impact on Available Remedies
A. Overview of Registration Categories
The availability of certain remedies under the Copyright Act is contingent upon the timing of the copyright owner's registration of each work with the United States Copyright Office. Under 17 U.S.C. § 412, a copyright owner may not recover statutory damages or attorneys' fees for infringement of a work unless one of two conditions is satisfied: (a) the work was registered with the Copyright Office before the infringement commenced, or (b) the work was registered within three months after the first publication of the work. If neither condition is met, the copyright owner's remedies are limited to actual damages and infringer's profits under § 504(b) and injunctive relief under § 502.
This distinction is of considerable practical significance in this matter, because the 217 titles at issue fall into two categories with respect to registration timeliness.
B. Timely-Registered Works (189 of 217 Titles)
Of the 217 audiovisual works at issue, 189 titles have valid, timely U.S. copyright registrations. These registrations were either filed within three months of the first publication of the respective work or were filed before the commencement of the infringement on approximately April 1, 2024. The registration status of each of these 189 titles has been independently verified by Lexington IP Services through its comprehensive copyright registration search, completed on January 22, 2026. The detailed results of that search, including registration numbers, registration dates, and publication dates for each title, are set forth in the Copyright Registration Summary Report.
As timely-registered works, these 189 titles are eligible for the full range of remedies available under the Copyright Act:
(i) Actual damages suffered by Aurelius and any profits of the infringer attributable to the infringement, under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b);
(ii) Statutory damages in lieu of actual damages and profits, under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c), in an amount not less than $750 and not more than $30,000 per work (or up to $150,000 per work if the infringement is found to be willful); and
(iii) Reasonable attorneys' fees and full costs, under 17 U.S.C. § 505.
The timely registration of these 189 works substantially strengthens Aurelius's litigation posture by preserving access to the enhanced damages provisions and fee-shifting mechanism that serve as powerful tools for both recovery and settlement leverage.
C. Late-Registered Works (28 of 217 Titles)
The remaining 28 titles have U.S. copyright registrations that post-date the commencement of the infringement. These 28 titles were registered with the Copyright Office at various dates between May 2024 and October 2025—that is, after the infringement commenced on approximately April 1, 2024, and more than three months after the first publication of the respective works. As a result, these 28 titles do not satisfy either prong of the § 412 timeliness requirement.
Consequently, these 28 titles are eligible for recovery of actual damages and infringer's profits under § 504(b) only. They are not eligible for statutory damages under § 504(c), nor are they eligible for the recovery of attorneys' fees under § 505. This limitation does not, however, diminish the validity or enforceability of the underlying copyrights in these works—Aurelius retains the full right to seek injunctive relief, actual damages, and disgorgement of infringer's profits with respect to all 28 late-registered titles.
The 28 late-registered titles include a mix of older catalog titles for which U.S. registration was not previously prioritized and several more recently produced works for which registration processing was delayed. We recommend that Aurelius take immediate steps to ensure that all titles in its library are timely registered going forward, to avoid similar limitations in future enforcement actions.
D. Implications for Damages Strategy
The registration timing distinction has several important strategic implications for the damages analysis:
First, the actual damages plus infringer's profits theory under § 504(b) applies without limitation to all 217 works, regardless of registration timing. There is no registration timeliness requirement for recovery of actual damages and infringer's profits. Accordingly, this theory provides a uniform basis for recovering the full measure of Aurelius's damages across the entire portfolio.
Second, the statutory damages theory under § 504(c) is capped at 189 works for purposes of the maximum per-work award. Aurelius could theoretically elect a hybrid approach—statutory damages for the 189 timely-registered works and actual damages for the remaining 28—but this would introduce unnecessary complexity and is unlikely to yield a higher total recovery than a unified actual damages plus profits approach for all 217 works.
Third, attorneys' fees under § 505 are recoverable only with respect to the 189 timely-registered works. While this does not eliminate fee recovery, it does mean that any fee award would need to be apportioned between the timely-registered and late-registered works if the court determines that such apportionment is appropriate.
Based on these considerations, our recommendation is to pursue actual damages plus infringer's profits under § 504(b) for all 217 works as a unified theory. This approach maximizes recovery, avoids the complexity of a hybrid election, and is not constrained by the registration timing limitations that would reduce the effectiveness of a statutory damages election.
IV. Actual Damages Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b)
A. Legal Framework
Section 504(b) of the Copyright Act provides that the copyright owner is entitled to recover two distinct categories of monetary relief: (1) the actual damages suffered by the copyright owner as a result of the infringement, and (2) any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. The statute provides:
"The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work."
17 U.S.C. § 504(b).
Several important principles emerge from this statutory framework. First, the burden-shifting mechanism strongly favors the copyright owner. Aurelius need only present proof of the infringer's gross revenue attributable to the infringement. The burden then shifts to StreamNow to prove any deductible expenses (such as operating costs, marketing expenditures, or overhead) and any elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted works (such as StreamNow's proprietary technology, brand recognition, user interface, or other non-infringing content). If StreamNow fails to carry this burden, the full gross revenue figure stands as the measure of infringer's profits. See Hamil Am., Inc. v. GFI, 193 F.3d 92, 107 (2d Cir. 1999); Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505, 514 (9th Cir. 1985).
Second, the statute expressly contemplates the combination of actual damages and infringer's profits, but requires that there be no double-counting: the copyright owner may not recover the same dollar twice. This anti-overlap principle is central to the apportionment analysis set forth in Section IV.D below.
Third, the actual damages component may take several forms, including lost licensing revenue (the fair market value of a hypothetical license), lost sales, diminished value of the copyrighted works, or other demonstrable economic harm. In this case, the most readily quantifiable measure of actual damages is the lost licensing revenue that Aurelius would have earned had StreamNow obtained a legitimate license for the 217 titles.
B. Component 1: Aurelius's Lost Licensing Revenue (Actual Damages)
1. Methodology. Hargrove's damages model estimates Aurelius's actual damages using the comparable license approach, which is well-established and widely accepted by courts in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere. See Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 164–66 (2d Cir. 2001); On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., the Second Circuit recognized that "a reasonable license fee may be a component of actual damages." The Ninth Circuit has similarly endorsed the use of hypothetical license fees as a measure of actual damages in copyright cases. See Polar Bear Prods., Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700, 708–09 (9th Cir. 2004).
Under this approach, Hargrove estimates the fair market value of a hypothetical arm's-length license that Aurelius would have charged StreamNow for the right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly perform the 217 titles across StreamNow's platform and sublicensed distribution channels for the 22-month infringement period in the relevant geographic territories. The relevant territories comprise the United States, Canada, Australia, and 11 additional countries in which StreamNow operates or to which it sublicensed content containing Aurelius titles.
The hypothetical license is benchmarked against Aurelius's existing licensing agreements with authorized streaming platforms for catalogs of similar size, composition, geographic scope, and term. Aurelius maintains an active licensing program and has entered into multiple arm's-length agreements with major authorized platforms, providing a robust set of comparables from which to derive the fair market value of the rights at issue.
2. Valuation. Based on Hargrove's analysis of the comparable agreements and the specific characteristics of the 217-title portfolio, the fair market value of a hypothetical arm's-length license for the full portfolio over the 22-month infringement period in the relevant territories is estimated at $14.2 million.
This valuation takes into account the following factors:
• Catalog composition. The 217-title portfolio includes 142 feature films and 75 television series (1,038 episodes), spanning a range of genres and production vintages. The portfolio includes several of Aurelius's most commercially valuable properties, including the "Meridian" franchise (6 films, $1.43 billion combined global box office), the "Iron Compass" series (4 seasons, 48 episodes, averaging 9.2 million UK viewers per episode), and the "Thornfield" period drama catalog (12 titles, 7 BAFTA awards). The inclusion of these premium franchises significantly enhances the portfolio's licensing value relative to a generic catalog of comparable size.
• Geographic scope. The license encompasses 14 countries, including major English-language markets (United States, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom) and additional international territories. The multi-territory scope increases the licensing value relative to a single-territory deal.
• Term. The 22-month infringement period falls within the range of typical mid-term licensing agreements in the industry (which typically run from 12 to 36 months). Hargrove has prorated annualized license values to reflect the specific 22-month duration.
• Exclusivity. Aurelius's comparable licensing agreements include both exclusive and non-exclusive arrangements. Hargrove has applied a blended rate reflecting the non-exclusive nature of the StreamNow exploitation (i.e., StreamNow did not have exclusive rights to the content, and the content was simultaneously available through authorized channels).
• Platform size and subscriber base. StreamNow's subscriber base and market position, while not at the scale of the largest global streaming platforms, is substantial enough to warrant premium licensing terms. StreamNow's estimated FY2025 revenue of $312 million places it in the upper mid-tier of streaming platforms.
The comparable license data was provided by Aurelius's Senior Vice President of Content Licensing & Distribution, Raj Anantharam, who has overseen Aurelius's global licensing operations for the past seven years. Mr. Anantharam has supplied Hargrove with detailed data from existing authorized platform agreements, including deal terms, pricing structures, revenue guarantees, and performance metrics. This data has been treated as highly confidential and is subject to protective measures.
3. Strengths and Limitations
The comparable license approach has several notable strengths. It is a well-established and judicially recognized methodology in the Ninth Circuit and other federal circuits. It reflects the actual market value of the rights at issue, as demonstrated by real-world arm's-length transactions between willing licensors and willing licensees. And it is directly tied to Aurelius's demonstrable licensing program, making it difficult for StreamNow to argue that the estimated license fee is speculative or inflated.
There are, however, certain limitations that StreamNow may seek to exploit. First, the comparable agreements may not perfectly match StreamNow's specific platform model, which operates as a "super-aggregator" that acquires content from numerous sources and sublicenses it to downstream FAST channel operators. Aurelius's comparable agreements may involve direct-to-consumer platforms that do not engage in sublicensing, potentially affecting the comparability analysis. Second, StreamNow may argue that prevailing market conditions during the infringement period differed from those at the time the comparable agreements were executed, particularly in light of evolving market dynamics in the streaming industry. Third, StreamNow may argue that Aurelius would not have licensed to StreamNow at all, given the unauthorized nature of StreamNow's acquisition of the content through MDD. However, this argument does not negate the reasonable royalty floor; courts have consistently held that the hypothetical license framework measures what the copyright owner would have earned in a legitimate transaction, regardless of whether such a transaction would actually have occurred. See On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d at 166.
C. Component 2: StreamNow's Infringer's Profits
1. Methodology — Revenue Attribution
The second component of the § 504(b) recovery is StreamNow's profits attributable to the infringement. CipherTrace Analytics performed comprehensive content fingerprinting that confirmed the presence of all 217 Aurelius titles on StreamNow's platform throughout the infringement period. CipherTrace further conducted detailed viewership and traffic analysis to attribute StreamNow's revenue to the Aurelius content across each of StreamNow's three principal revenue streams.
The revenue attribution methodology employed by CipherTrace, in consultation with Hargrove, involves the following analytical steps: (i) identification and quantification of total streams, viewer minutes, and unique viewers for each of the 217 Aurelius titles on StreamNow's platform during the infringement period; (ii) calculation of the Aurelius content's proportional share of StreamNow's total viewership metrics; (iii) application of refinements to account for premium-tier weighting, geographic variation in subscriber pricing, and differential advertising rates; and (iv) allocation of sublicensing fees based on the proportion of Aurelius titles in sublicensed content bundles, weighted by content value and viewership.
Three revenue streams were analyzed separately and then aggregated to determine total attributable gross revenue.
2. Subscription Revenue
StreamNow operates multiple subscription tiers, ranging from a basic ad-supported plan to premium ad-free plans with enhanced features. During the 22-month infringement period from April 2024 through January 2026, StreamNow's total estimated subscription revenue was approximately $497.6 million. This figure is derived from StreamNow's estimated FY2025 revenue of $312 million, annualized and prorated to cover the full 22-month period, with adjustments for estimated revenue growth during the period.
CipherTrace's viewership analysis determined that Aurelius titles accounted for approximately 7.18% of total StreamNow streams during the infringement period. On a raw proportional basis, this viewership share would yield attributable subscription revenue of approximately $35.7 million ($497.6 million × 7.18%).
However, CipherTrace's refined attribution model, developed in consultation with Hargrove, incorporates a premium-tier weighting adjustment that reduces this figure. The adjustment reflects the empirical finding that Aurelius titles were disproportionately viewed by subscribers on StreamNow's higher-priced premium tiers, but that these premium subscribers also consumed a disproportionately large volume of non-Aurelius content. When the weighting is applied to normalize for the differential consumption patterns across tier levels and to avoid over-attribution, the refined attributable subscription revenue figure is $22.4 million.
The premium-tier weighting methodology is conservative and defensible. It recognizes that while Aurelius content attracted premium subscribers, those subscribers' total viewing behavior—and, accordingly, the revenue they generated—cannot be attributed solely or even primarily to Aurelius content. This adjustment protects against the risk that a court would find the raw proportional approach to be an overstatement of Aurelius's contribution to StreamNow's subscription revenue.
3. Advertising Revenue (AVOD Tier)
In addition to its subscription tiers, StreamNow operates an advertising-supported (AVOD) tier, through which content is made available to viewers at no or reduced subscription cost in exchange for exposure to advertisements. Revenue on the AVOD tier is generated through the sale of advertising impressions, with rates determined by CPM (cost per thousand impressions) pricing, programmatic advertising auctions, and direct advertising sales.
CipherTrace's analysis of ad impression data, CPM rates, and viewership of Aurelius content on the AVOD tier yields attributable advertising revenue of $9.7 million for the 22-month infringement period. This figure is based on the total number of ad impressions served during streams of Aurelius content, multiplied by the applicable CPM rates, and adjusted for geographic and demographic variations in advertising pricing.
The advertising revenue attribution is particularly robust because it is based on a direct, content-specific linkage between ad impressions and the specific content being viewed at the time the ads were served. Unlike subscription revenue, where the attribution must account for the bundled nature of the subscription offering, advertising revenue on the AVOD tier can be traced with greater precision to specific content streams.
4. Sublicensing Fees from FAST Channel Operators
StreamNow sublicensed bundles of content—including Aurelius titles—to four third-party FAST (Free Ad-Supported Television) channel operators:
• Brindoval Channel Networks, Inc., headquartered in Dallas, Texas;
• BrightLoop Media, LLC, headquartered in Miami, Florida;
• Velvet Stream Partners, LP, headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and
• Pacific Lantern Digital Pty Ltd, headquartered in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
These sublicensing arrangements enabled the downstream distribution of Aurelius content through linear FAST channels and on-demand catalogs operated by these entities, further expanding the unauthorized reach of the infringing exploitation.
Total sublicensing fees received by StreamNow from these four operators for content bundles containing Aurelius titles during the infringement period amount to $6.5 million. This figure represents the actual fees paid to StreamNow by the sublicensees, as estimated through CipherTrace's analysis of available data regarding the sublicensing arrangements. The attribution methodology allocates sublicensing fees based on the proportion of Aurelius titles in each sublicensed bundle, weighted by the relative content value and viewership performance of the Aurelius titles compared to other titles in the bundle.
5. Total Attributable Gross Revenue
The three revenue streams yield the following total attributable gross revenue for StreamNow during the 22-month infringement period:
Under § 504(b), Aurelius need only present proof of this gross revenue figure. The burden then shifts to StreamNow to prove its deductible expenses and any elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted works. If StreamNow fails to carry this burden, the full $38.6 million stands as the measure of infringer's profits.
6. Anticipated Deductions by StreamNow
StreamNow will almost certainly assert deductions against the gross revenue figure in an effort to reduce the net profits attributable to the infringement. Anticipated categories of deductions include:
• Platform operating costs, including server infrastructure, software development and maintenance, employee compensation for engineering and operations personnel, and general platform overhead;
• Bandwidth and hosting costs, including fees for cloud computing services, content delivery network (CDN) charges, and data storage costs attributable to the storage and delivery of Aurelius content;
• Content delivery network costs, including fees paid to third-party CDN providers for the efficient distribution of streaming content to end users;
• Marketing expenses, including advertising, promotional campaigns, and customer acquisition costs that StreamNow may argue contributed to the viewership of Aurelius content; and
• Overhead costs allocable to the Aurelius content, including corporate administrative expenses, legal and accounting fees, and other general and administrative costs.
Hargrove's preliminary analysis does not credit speculative or unsupported deductions at this stage, as the specific quantum and allocation of StreamNow's costs cannot be determined without access to StreamNow's internal financial records. However, the model anticipates that StreamNow will establish some legitimate deductible costs, and the net recoverable figure of $41.3 million (discussed in Section IV.D below) already incorporates a preliminary adjustment for anticipated deductions.
It is important to note that StreamNow bears the burden of proving each claimed deduction, and courts have been skeptical of inflated or poorly documented deduction claims. See Hamil Am., Inc. v. GFI, 193 F.3d at 107 (holding that the infringer bears the burden of proving deductible expenses with "reasonable certainty"). Moreover, certain categories of costs—such as general corporate overhead that would have been incurred regardless of the infringement—may not be properly deductible. See Frank Music Corp., 772 F.2d at 516.
D. Apportionment to Avoid Double-Counting
1. Legal Requirement
Section 504(b) expressly provides that the copyright owner may recover both actual damages and infringer's profits, but only to the extent that these two components do not overlap. The statute's requirement that infringer's profits be those "not taken into account in computing the actual damages" reflects the fundamental principle that the copyright owner is not entitled to recover the same dollar twice.
In this case, the potential overlap arises from the relationship between Aurelius's lost licensing revenue ($14.2 million) and StreamNow's retained profits. The lost licensing fee represents the amount that Aurelius would have earned had StreamNow paid for a legitimate license. From StreamNow's perspective, the failure to pay this license fee meant that StreamNow retained an additional $14.2 million in revenue that it would otherwise have paid to Aurelius. Thus, the lost licensing fee and a portion of StreamNow's profits are two sides of the same coin: the license fee that was not paid.
If the lost licensing fee ($14.2 million) were simply added to the full infringer's profits ($38.6 million) without adjustment, the total of $52.8 million would include a $14.2 million overlap—the license fee that Aurelius would have earned and that StreamNow saved by not paying.
2. Hargrove's Apportionment Methodology
To address this overlap and ensure that Aurelius does not recover the same dollar twice, Hargrove applies a standard apportionment methodology that is consistent with prevailing case law and economic principles.
Under Hargrove's approach, the lost licensing fee of $14.2 million is treated as Aurelius's minimum recovery floor—the amount that Aurelius would have earned in a legitimate transaction, regardless of StreamNow's profitability. This represents the actual damages component of the § 504(b) recovery.
The infringer's profits of $38.6 million represent the total gross revenue attributable to the infringement that StreamNow retained. To the extent that this gross revenue includes the $14.2 million that StreamNow saved by not paying a license fee, combining the two figures without adjustment would result in double-counting. Accordingly, Hargrove subtracts the $14.2 million lost licensing fee from the combined gross total:
$14.2 million (actual damages) + $38.6 million (infringer's gross profits) = $52.8 million (combined gross)
$52.8 million − $14.2 million (overlap adjustment) = $38.6 million (adjusted combined total before deductions)
However, this intermediate figure does not yet account for StreamNow's anticipated deductible expenses or for the apportionment of profit elements attributable to factors other than the copyrighted works. Hargrove applies additional adjustments for:
(i) StreamNow's anticipated deductible expenses. Based on industry benchmarks for streaming platforms of comparable size and operating model, Hargrove estimates that StreamNow will be able to establish deductible expenses that reduce the gross profit figure. The precise quantum of these deductions cannot be determined without access to StreamNow's financial records, but Hargrove's preliminary estimate incorporates a conservative reduction to account for anticipated legitimate deductions.
(ii) Apportionment of profit elements attributable to factors other than the copyrighted works. StreamNow will likely argue that a portion of its profits is attributable to non-infringing factors, such as its proprietary streaming platform technology, its brand recognition and marketing, its user interface and recommendation algorithms, and the contributions of its other (non-Aurelius) content to overall subscriber retention and engagement. Hargrove's model applies a preliminary apportionment adjustment to account for these factors, based on industry data regarding the relative contribution of content, technology, and brand to streaming platform revenue.
After all apportionment adjustments, Hargrove's preliminary estimate of net recoverable damages is $41.3 million.
3. Reconciliation. The reconciliation of the gross combined figure to the net recoverable damages is summarized as follows:
Gross combined actual damages plus infringer's profits: $52.8 million
Less: Apportionment for overlap between lost licensing revenue and infringer's retained profits, anticipated deductible expenses, and apportionment for non-infringing profit elements
Net recoverable damages (preliminary): $41.3 million
The $41.3 million figure represents a conservative, defensible preliminary estimate of Aurelius's net recoverable damages under the actual damages plus infringer's profits theory. We emphasize that actual recovery may be higher or lower than this estimate depending on the information obtained through discovery, particularly StreamNow's detailed financial records, internal viewership analytics, cost allocation data, and sublicensing agreements with the FAST channel operators. If StreamNow's actual financial data reveals higher attributable revenue or lower deductible expenses than estimated, the net recoverable figure could increase. Conversely, if StreamNow establishes substantial deductible expenses or persuasive evidence of non-infringing profit elements, the figure could decrease—though in that event, the statutory damages alternative would serve as a valuable fallback.
V. Statutory Damages Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)
A. Legal Framework
Section 504(c)(1) of the Copyright Act provides that a copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover statutory damages in lieu of actual damages and profits. This election is wholly within the discretion of the copyright owner, subject only to the registration timeliness requirement of § 412.
The statutory damages framework provides for the following ranges of awards:
• Non-willful infringement: Not less than $750 and not more than $30,000 per work infringed, as the court considers just. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1).
• Willful infringement: The court may, in its discretion, increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000 per work infringed. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).
• Innocent infringement: Where the infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted infringement, the court may, in its discretion, reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200 per work infringed. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2).
Statutory damages are awarded on a per-work basis. Each independently copyrightable work counts as one "work" for purposes of the statutory damages calculation. For compilations or derivative works, the analysis of what constitutes a single "work" can be complex, but for purposes of this analysis—and consistent with the individual copyright registrations for the major television series at issue—each episode registered individually is treated as a separate work.
A key advantage of statutory damages is that they do not require proof of the copyright owner's actual harm or the infringer's profits. The award is set by the court within the statutory range, based on range factors including the willfulness of the infringement, the deterrent effect of the award, and the need to compensate the copyright owner. This can be particularly valuable where proof of actual damages or infringer's profits is difficult to establish or where the infringer has been effective in concealing its financial records.
B. Applicability to Aurelius's Claims
Statutory damages are available to Aurelius only with respect to the 189 timely-registered titles that satisfy the registration requirements of § 412. The remaining 28 late-registered titles are not eligible for statutory damages, regardless of the severity of the infringement.
Each of the 189 timely-registered titles constitutes a separate "work" for statutory damages purposes. For the television series included within these 189 titles, each episode that was registered individually with the Copyright Office counts as a separate work, consistent with established case law recognizing that individual episodes of a television series are independently copyrightable works. For any series that was registered as a compilation rather than on an episode-by-episode basis, the compilation may count as a single work, potentially reducing the total per-work count. Lexington IP Services' registration data will be consulted to confirm the precise episode-level registration count for each series. For purposes of this preliminary analysis, however, the 217 total works figure is used as the denominator (consistent with the information currently available indicating individual episode registrations for the major series), and the 189 timely-registered works figure is used for the statutory damages calculation.
C. Calculation — Maximum Statutory Damages
Based on the willfulness analysis set forth in the separate Willfulness Analysis Memorandum dated March 4, 2026, there is strong support for a finding of willful infringement by StreamNow. Assuming a finding of willfulness, the statutory damages calculation is as follows:
If all 217 works were timely registered (theoretical maximum):
217 works × $150,000 per work = $32,550,000
Actual maximum (189 timely-registered works only):
189 works × $150,000 per work = $28,350,000
If the court were to find non-willful infringement, the maximum statutory damages would be significantly lower:
189 works × $30,000 per work = $5,670,000
The disparity between the willful and non-willful statutory damages calculations underscores the critical importance of establishing willfulness. A finding of willfulness increases the maximum statutory damages exposure from $5.67 million to $28.35 million—a factor of approximately five.
It should also be noted that if Aurelius elects statutory damages for the 189 timely-registered works, the remaining 28 late-registered works would only be compensable through actual damages and profits under § 504(b). This hybrid approach—statutory damages for some works, actual damages for others—is permissible but would introduce additional complexity in the damages presentation.
D. Comparison with Actual Damages Plus Profits
A side-by-side comparison of the two damages frameworks reveals the following:
The actual damages plus infringer's profits theory exceeds the statutory damages alternative by approximately $12.95 million, a difference of approximately 46%. Moreover, the actual damages plus profits theory applies uniformly to all 217 works without the registration timing limitations that constrain the statutory damages election.
The conclusion on current estimates is clear: actual damages plus infringer's profits is the superior theory. It yields a substantially higher recovery, applies to the full portfolio, and is supported by robust forensic and economic analysis.
E. Strategic Role of Statutory Damages
Notwithstanding the foregoing analysis, statutory damages should be retained as a strategic fallback for several important reasons.
First, statutory damages do not require proof of actual harm or infringer's profits. If the actual damages proof encounters difficulties at trial—for example, if StreamNow's financial records, once produced in discovery, reveal lower attributable revenue than CipherTrace has estimated, or if the court applies a more aggressive apportionment reducing the net profits figure—statutory damages provide a guaranteed minimum recovery (subject to registration) that does not depend on the quality of financial evidence.
Second, statutory damages may prove more advantageous if StreamNow's financial records show that its actual profits attributable to the infringement are lower than the preliminary estimates. For instance, if StreamNow establishes substantial deductible expenses that reduce net attributable profits below the statutory damages maximum, switching to statutory damages would yield a higher recovery.
Third, the per-work exposure inherent in the statutory damages framework exerts significant settlement leverage. StreamNow and its counsel at Grantham Roth & Pearce LLP will be acutely aware that a finding of willful infringement exposes StreamNow to up to $150,000 per work for each of 189 works, creating a total exposure of $28.35 million before any fee-shifting. This per-work calculation, when communicated in pre-suit demand correspondence, underscores the magnitude of the risk and creates strong incentives for settlement.
Fourth, and critically, the election of statutory damages need not be made until final judgment. Under § 504(c)(1), Aurelius may elect statutory damages "at any time before final judgment is rendered." This means that Aurelius can pursue the actual damages plus profits theory through discovery, motion practice, and trial, and reserve the right to switch to statutory damages if circumstances warrant. No irrevocable election is required at the pre-suit stage, in the complaint, or during discovery. This flexibility is a significant strategic advantage.
VI. Willfulness and Its Impact on Damages
A. Relevance to Damages
The willfulness of the infringement has a direct and significant impact on the damages analysis in three respects.
First, as discussed in Section V above, willful infringement enhances the maximum statutory damages from $30,000 to $150,000 per work under § 504(c)(2). This five-fold increase in the per-work ceiling transforms statutory damages from a modest fallback ($5.67 million at the non-willful maximum) into a substantial recovery tool ($28.35 million at the willful maximum).
Second, willfulness may support an upward adjustment in the actual damages calculation. While § 504(b) does not expressly provide for enhanced actual damages based on willfulness, courts have recognized that the willfulness of the infringement may inform the court's exercise of discretion in apportioning profits and assessing the reasonableness of deductions claimed by the infringer. A court may be less inclined to credit questionable deduction claims asserted by a willful infringer.
Third, willfulness is a significant factor that courts consider in determining whether to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party under § 505. The Supreme Court's decision in Kirtsaeng v. Crowne Albany Industries, Inc., 579 U.S. 197 (2016), identified the objective unreasonableness of the losing party's position as a key consideration in the fee-shifting analysis. A finding of willfulness strongly supports a finding of objective unreasonableness, which in turn supports a fee award in Aurelius's favor.
B. Summary of Willfulness Factors (Cross-Reference to Willfulness Analysis Memo)
The detailed willfulness analysis is set forth in the separate Willfulness Analysis Memorandum dated March 4, 2026. For purposes of this damages memorandum, the key factors supporting a finding of willful infringement are summarized below.
Failure to conduct reasonable due diligence. StreamNow failed to conduct adequate due diligence on MDD's authority to license Aurelius content. Industry custom and practice in the content licensing space requires platforms to verify the chain of title for licensed content, particularly when dealing with newly formed intermediaries purporting to represent the rights of major content owners. StreamNow either failed to request proof of MDD's licensing authority or accepted facially insufficient documentation without further inquiry.
Red flags regarding Franklin Ogilvie. Franklin Ogilvie's known former employment at Aurelius Media Americas, Inc. (from approximately 2017 through June 30, 2021) and the circumstances of his departure—which followed an internal investigation into unauthorized access to Aurelius's content management systems—should have raised significant red flags for any reasonably diligent content acquirer. A former employee of a major content owner, recently separated under circumstances suggesting misconduct, purporting to license that content owner's titles through a newly formed entity, presents an obvious risk of unauthorized exploitation.
MDD's lack of track record. MDD was incorporated in California in late 2021, shortly after Ogilvie's departure from Aurelius. At the time of the initial content supply arrangements with StreamNow, MDD had no established track record as a content distributor, no publicly known content licensing relationships with major studios or distributors, and no meaningful operating history. The absence of any credible indicia of legitimate licensing authority should have prompted further inquiry by StreamNow.
Scale and duration of infringement. The infringement involved 217 titles exploited over a period of approximately 22 months, generating $38.6 million in attributable revenue for StreamNow. The scale and duration of the exploitation are inconsistent with inadvertent or innocent infringement and suggest a deliberate, ongoing course of conduct.
StreamNow's sophistication. StreamNow is a substantial commercial enterprise operating in 14 countries with estimated FY2025 revenue of $312 million. It employs in-house legal and business affairs personnel and retains outside counsel. As a sophisticated participant in the content licensing market, StreamNow is held to a higher standard of care in verifying the provenance and legitimacy of the content it acquires and distributes.
Continued exploitation after notice. Aurelius's Senior Vice President of Content Licensing & Distribution, Raj Anantharam, raised informal inquiries regarding the presence of Aurelius content on StreamNow's platform. In response, Sandra Yee, StreamNow's Vice President of Content Acquisitions, sent an email on November 3, 2025, claiming that StreamNow had obtained the content through a valid sublicense from MDD. StreamNow continued to exploit the Aurelius content after this exchange, without conducting any further investigation into MDD's authority or contacting Aurelius to verify the legitimacy of MDD's purported license. This post-notice conduct significantly strengthens the willfulness finding.
Editorial control. StreamNow exercised editorial control over the selection, categorization, pricing, and geographic availability of the Aurelius titles on its platform. This level of active curation and management is inconsistent with any defense that StreamNow was a "passive intermediary" or "mere conduit" for content supplied by MDD.
C. Impact Assessment
If willfulness is established, the impact on the damages analysis is substantial:
• The maximum statutory damages increase from $5,670,000 (189 works × $30,000) to $28,350,000 (189 works × $150,000), a five-fold increase.
• The fee-shifting argument under § 505 is significantly strengthened, as willful infringement is among the strongest indicators of objective unreasonableness under Kirtsaeng.