en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-library
2 corrections found
The U.S. lawyers retained as official representatives requested a dismissal of the criminal indictment in June 2023.
The motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants’ U.S. attorneys in July 2023, not June 2023.
Full reasoning
The date in this sentence is wrong.
A court filing shows the motion to dismiss was filed on July 12, 2023, not in June 2023. The filing begins: “Defendants Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova, by and through their undersigned attorneys, respectfully jointly submit this memorandum of law in support of their joint Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.” The docket header on that filing states “Filed 07/12/23.”
Contemporaneous reporting also described the motion as being made in July 2023. TorrentFreak reported on July 13, 2023 that the defendants had “retained U.S. attorneys who asked the New York federal court this week to dismiss the criminal indictment.”
So the article’s statement is inaccurate on the timing: the dismissal request was made in July 2023, not June 2023.
2 sources
- United States v. Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova — Motion to Dismiss Memorandum
Case 1:22-cr-00525-NRM-CLP Document 12-1 Filed 07/12/23 ... ‘Defendants Anton Napolsky and Valeriia Ermakova, by and through their undersigned attorneys, respectfully jointly submit this memorandum of law in support of their joint Motion to Dismiss the Indictment.’
- Alleged Z-Library Operators Ask Court to Dismiss Criminal 'Piracy' Indictment
Published July 13, 2023. ‘They have retained U.S. attorneys who asked the New York federal court this week to dismiss the criminal indictment.’
The District Court dismissed without prejudice the authors' claims
The court did not dismiss all of the authors’ claims. Meta’s direct-copyright claim remained, and a later order also let the DMCA claim proceed.
Full reasoning
This overstates what the court did.
In the November 20, 2023 order, the court said Meta had moved to dismiss all claims except the one alleging unauthorized copying of the plaintiffs’ books for training LLaMA. The order granted that motion, which means the direct copyright infringement claim was not dismissed.
The case then continued, and in a later March 7, 2025 order the court again did not dismiss all claims: it ruled that Meta’s motion to dismiss was granted as to the CDAFA claim and denied as to the DMCA claim.
So it is inaccurate to say simply that the district court “dismissed ... the authors’ claims.” The court dismissed some claims, but not all of them.
2 sources
- ORDER granting 23 Motion to Dismiss for Kadrey et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
‘Meta has moved to dismiss all claims except the one alleging that the unauthorized copying of the plaintiffs’ books for purposes of training LLaMA constitutes copyright infringement. The motion is granted.’
- ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 413 Motion to Dismiss for Kadrey et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
‘The motion to dismiss is granted as to the CDAFA claim and denied as to the DMCA claim.’