en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-library

The sentence implies that the district court dismissed the authors’ claims wholesale. But the court’s own November 20, 2023 order says Meta "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" and that motion was granted on those terms. In other words, the direct copyright claim based on unauthorized copying was not dismissed.

A later court summary likewise states that "All of the claims except the direct copyright infringement claim were dismissed early on."

So the article’s wording is inaccurate because it turns a partial dismissal into an apparent dismissal of the authors’ claims generally. A more accurate phrasing would say that the court dismissed several claims without prejudice, while allowing the core direct copyright infringement claim to proceed.

This claim is incorrect in two ways.

1. There is no such thing as an “Interpol warrant” in this sense. INTERPOL’s own documentation says a Red Notice is not an international arrest warrant; it is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a person pending extradition or similar proceedings.

2. A presiding judge does not issue an Interpol notice. INTERPOL states that notices are published by the General Secretariat at the request of a National Central Bureau/member country. A judge in a member country may issue a domestic arrest warrant or court order that underlies a request, but the INTERPOL notice itself is not “issued” by the judge.

Reporting on this Z-Library case specifically described the pair as being subject to an Interpol Red Notice, which is consistent with INTERPOL’s terminology and inconsistent with the article’s wording.

So the article should not say the judge issued an “Interpol warrant.” The accurate formulation would be that authorities sought or used an Interpol Red Notice (or similar notice), based on underlying judicial process.