a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2004 FILE SHARING

Selected Universities 

Report Taking Action 

to Reduce Copyright 

Infringement

GAO-04-503
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-503.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Linda Koontz at 

(202) 512-6240 or koontzlj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-503, a report to 

congressional requesters 

May 2004

FILE SHARING

Selected Universities Report Taking 

Action to Reduce Copyright Infringement 

The college and university officials we interviewed are aware of the use of 

file-sharing applications on their networks, almost all of them have 

experienced some problems and increased costs as a result of the use of 

these applications, and they are taking steps to reduce the use of these 

applications on their networks. All of the officials interviewed indicated that 

their colleges or universities routinely monitor their networks, and most of 

them indicated that the institutions also actively monitor their networks 

specifically for the use of these file-sharing applications. When infringing use 

is discovered, all of the representatives stated that enforcement actions are 

taken against the individuals responsible. These actions included issuing a 

warning to the user or users, banning them from the network for a period of 

time, and managing the bandwidth available for a group of users. 

Federal law enforcement officials have been taking action to investigate and 

prosecute organizations involved in significant copyright infringement. 

These groups use a wide range of Internet technologies to illegally distribute 

copyrighted materials over the Internet. Federal law enforcement officials 

did not identify any specific legislative barriers to investigation and 

prosecution of illegal file sharing on peer-to-peer networks. According to the 

Department of Justice officials, the department’s recently created 

Intellectual Property Task Force will examine how the department handles 

intellectual property issues and recommend legislative changes, if needed. 

U.S. Customs Agent with Hard Drives Seized during Operation Buccaneer 

The emergence of peer-to-peer filesharing applications that allow 

networks to share computer files 

among millions of users has 

changed the way copyrighted 

materials, including digital music, 

videos, software, and images can 

be distributed and has led to a 

dramatic increase in the incidence 

of copyright infringement (piracy) 

of these digital materials. These 

applications enable direct 

communication between users, 

allowing users to access each 

other’s files and share digital 

music, videos, and software. 

According to a coalition of 

intellectual property owners in the 

entertainment industry, an 

increasing number of students are 

using the fast Internet connections 

offered by college and university 

networks to infringe copyrights by 

illegally downloading and sharing 

massive volumes of copyrighted 

materials on peer-to-peer networks. 

GAO was asked to describe (1) the 

views of major universities on the 

extent of problems experienced 

with student use of file-sharing 

applications as well as the actions 

that the universities are taking to 

deal with them and (2) the actions 

that federal enforcement agencies 

have taken to address the issue of 

copyright infringement on peer-topeer networks as well as agency 

views on any legislative barriers to 

dealing with the problems. 
Page i GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Selected Universities Report Taking Action to Reduce Illegal File 

Sharing on Campus Networks 8

Federal Enforcement of Copyright Infringement through File 

Sharing Focuses on Organized Groups 15

Summary 19

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 20

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 22

Appendix II Description of File Sharing and Peer-to-Peer 

Networks 24

Appendix III Key and Supporting Federal Agencies Involved 

in the Investigation and Prosecution of Copyright 

Infringement 30

Investigating Agencies 30

Prosecuting Agencies 31

Supporting Agencies 32

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Justice 34

Glossary 38

Table 

Table 1: Federal Entities and Supporting Agencies and 

Organizations Involved in the Investigation and 

Prosecution of Intellectual Property Rights Violations and 

Copyright Infringement 7

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Figures 

Figure 1: Average Percentage of Bandwidth Used for Peer-to-Peer 

File Sharing (Selected universities) 9

Figure 2: Number of Notifications and Ability to Trace to an 

Individual Student (Selected universities) 10

Figure 3: Expenses Associated with Responding to Peer-to-Peer 

File Sharing: Amount of Reported Additional Funding and 

Categories of Expense (Selected universities) 11

Figure 4: Educational Activities: Planned and Completed (Selected 

universities) 13

Figure 5: Enforcement Activities Used (Selected universities) 14

Figure 6: U.S. Customs Agent with Hard Drives Seized during 

Operation Buccaneer 17

Figure 7: Peer-to-Peer Models 26

Figure 8: Topology of a Gnutella Network 29

Abbreviations 

CIO chief information officer 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

IM Instant messaging 

IP Internet Protocol 

VNS virtual name space 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

May 28, 2004 

The Honorable Ted Stevens 

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Harry Reid 

Assistant Minority Leader 

United States Senate 

The Honorable John A. Boehner 

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

House of Representatives 

File sharing—the use of peer-to-peer1

 networks to distribute computer 

files among millions of users—has dramatically changed the way 

copyrighted materials, including digital music, videos, software, and 

images can be distributed. By permitting fast, cheap, and easy production 

of identical copies, file-sharing applications have facilitated both the 

legitimate distribution of copyrighted materials by the copyright holder 

and the illegal copyright infringement (piracy) and distribution by 

unauthorized users. According to a coalition of intellectual property 

owners in the recording industry, an increasing number of students are 

using fast Internet connections offered by college and university networks 

to infringe copyrights by illegally downloading and sharing massive 

volumes of copyrighted songs, movies, and video games on peer-to-peer 

networks. 

As requested, our objectives were to describe (1) the views of major 

universities on the extent of problems experienced with student use of 

 1

Peer-to-peer file-sharing network programs enable direct communication between users, 

allowing them to access each other’s files and share digital music, software, images, and 

videos. 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

file-sharing software applications, as well as the actions that the 

universities are taking to deal with them and (2) the actions that federal 

enforcement agencies have taken to address the issue of copyright 

infringement on peer-to-peer networks, as well as agency views on any 

legislative barriers to dealing with the problems. 

To address the first objective, we conducted structured interviews with a 

judgmentally selected group of 13 officials that oversee the computer 

systems of major postsecondary educational institutions. The selected 

colleges and universities were located in each of eight geographic regions 

of the United States. All of these institutions provided Internet access to 

students in university-administered housing and were large public or 

private degree-granting colleges and universities. In this analysis, we 

provide details on the responses of the 13 college or university officials we 

interviewed; however, because we did not randomly select interviewees, 

our results are not generalizable to all colleges or universities. 

To describe federal law enforcement efforts and agency views related to 

copyright infringement on peer-to-peer networks, we analyzed budget and 

program documents from the Department of Justice (Justice) Computer 

Crime and Intellectual Property Section; the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) Cyber Division; and the Cyber Crimes Center of the 

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). We also interviewed officials from these 

organizations. 

We performed our work from May 2003 to April 2004 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Further details on our 

objectives, scope, and methodology are provided in appendix I. 

The college and university officials we interviewed are aware of the use of 

file-sharing software applications on their networks; and almost all of 

them report that they have experienced some problems and increased 

costs as a result of the use of these applications, therefore, they are taking 

steps to reduce the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing technology on their 

networks. Specifically, several of the college or university officials 

interviewed stated that, on average, a significant amount of bandwidth on 

their networks appeared to be used for file-sharing applications; several of 

the respondents estimated that a sizable portion of the students at the 

college or university were using file-sharing applications to download or 

share music, images, and video files during the 2003 to 2004 academic 

term. Further, most of the officials interviewed stated that their 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

institutions had experienced either network performance problems or 

security incidents as a result of the use of the file-sharing applications on 

their networks, and almost all indicated that they had spent additional 

funds to deal with the problems associated with the use of these 

applications, including two respondents who indicated that they had spent 

between $250,000 and $749,999. 

At the same time, all the college and university officials we interviewed 

stated that they have implemented technical controls to limit the use of 

file-sharing technology on their networks and that they have either 

undertaken or plan to undertake educational and enforcement efforts to 

limit student copyright infringement. Further, most of the officials 

interviewed stated that they felt they had the right tools and knowledge to 

address the issue and that they thought the approaches they have used 

have been either somewhat or very successful at controlling the problem. 

Federal law enforcement officials are taking actions to investigate and 

prosecute organized software-piracy groups that use a wide range of 

Internet technologies—including file sharing over peer-to-peer networks—

to illegally distribute copyrighted materials over the Internet. Two recent 

examples of major federal law enforcement action that has focused on 

international piracy groups are (1) the Operation Fastlink coordinated by 

Justice Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, and (2) Operation Buccaneer, led by the U.S. 

Customs Service and Justice. These operations resulted in the 

identification of individuals engaged in online piracy and the seizure of 

tens of thousands of pirated copies of software, music, and computer 

games worth millions of dollars. 

Federal law enforcement officials did not identify any specific legislative 

barriers to investigation and prosecution of illegal file sharing on peer-topeer networks. According to Justice officials, the department’s recently 

created Intellectual Property Task Force will examine how the department 

handles intellectual property issues and recommend legislative changes, 

assuming there is a need for such changes. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General provided information on a recent international law enforcement 

effort against online piracy and presented additional detail on the 

department’s policy on investigating and prosecuting intellectual property 

rights infringers on the Internet and on the peer-to-peer networks. These 

comments, which are reprinted in appendix IV, have been incorporated 

into this report as appropriate. 
Page 4 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

In addition, we received comments (via e-mail) from the unit chief of the 

Cyber Crime Center on behalf of DHS. The unit chief clarified the center’s 

approach to investigations of individual copyright infringers and provided 

various technical comments, which have been incorporated into this 

report as appropriate. 

U.S. copyright law protects books, photographs, videos, movies, sound 

recordings, software code, and other creative works of expression from 

unauthorized copying. A copyright gives its owner the exclusive right to 

reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license a work, and the 

exclusive right to produce or license the production of derivative works.2

Copyright protection attaches as soon as the work is “fixed in a tangible 

medium of expression,” thus covering both published and unpublished 

works. However, there are some limits to the protections afforded by 

copyright law, such as in the use of a copyrighted work for purposes such 

as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.3

File-sharing software applications work by making selected files on a 

user’s computer available for downloading by anyone using similar 

software, which, in turn, gives the user access to selected files on 

computers of other users on the peer-to-peer network. The growing 

popularity and proliferation of file-sharing applications such as KaZaA has 

had a profound effect on the dissemination of copyrighted works, by both 

the copyright holder and infringers. 

The use of file sharing has grown steadily over the past few years. For 

example, by May 2003, KaZaA had become the world’s most downloaded 

software program of any kind, with more than 230 million4

 downloads. 

According to the Recording Industry Association of America, the 

 2

17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 201(d). 

3

For example, a copyright holder’s exclusive right to distribute and perform the work, 

make reproductions, and create derivative works is limited by the fair-use doctrine. The 

fair-use doctrine operates as a limitation on and exception to the rights granted by 

copyright by permitting the copying of copyrighted works for certain uses that include 

criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Use of 

copyrighted work is not an infringement if the use falls within the scope of “fair use,” based 

on a case-by-case analysis of four factors identified by statute. 

4

Testimony of Cary Sherman, President, Recording Industry Association of America before 

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, September 17, 2003. 

Background 

File Sharing Is a Principal 

Tool for Distribution of 

Copyrighted Works 
Page 5 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

increased use of peer-to-peer networks has contributed to an increase in 

copyright infringement, with millions of users downloading more than 2.6 

billion copyrighted files (mostly sound recordings) each month via various 

peer-to-peer networks. 

The widespread unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material on peerto-peer systems is a concern not only for copyright owners but also for 

those who administer the networks on which the file-sharing applications 

run. Because of their high-bandwidth connections and the concentration 

of large groups of young, computer-literate users, college and university 

networks are particularly vulnerable to adverse impacts from the use of 

file-sharing applications. In 2002, a committee of representatives from 

education and the entertainment industry—the Joint Committee of Higher 

Education and Entertainment Communities—was convened to discuss and 

address matters of mutual concern, including the misuse of university 

networks for copyright infringement. In addition, the Recording Industry 

Association of America has conducted searches for copyrighted material 

being illegally shared on peer-to-peer networks and has sent more than 

30,000 notices to colleges and universities regarding files that are being 

shared on systems connected to university networks. 

Congress has moved to address piracy issues that have been raised by 

developments in computer and Internet technology. With regard to the 

widespread unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material on peer-topeer systems, the crime of felony copyright infringement has four essential 

elements: 

1. A copyright exists; 

2. The copyright was infringed by the defendant, specifically by 

reproduction or distribution of the copyrighted work, including by 

electronic means; 

3. The defendant acted “willfully.” Under the law, evidence of 

reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, is not 

sufficient to establish willful infringement; and 
Page 6 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

4. The defendant infringed at least 10 copies of one or more copyrighted 

works with a total retail value of more than $2,500 within a 180-day 

period.5

In addition to criminal liability, significant civil remedies are available to 

copyright holders for infringement. Copyright holders are entitled to 

receive either “actual damages and profits” from an infringer, or they can 

elect to receive “statutory damages” ranging from $750 to $30,000 for each 

infringed work, increasing to $150,000 if the copyright holder proves the 

infringement was willful. In addition, a court can order an injunction 

against further infringement, the impoundment and disposition of 

infringing articles, and attorneys’ fees and costs.6

Several federal entities are responsible for enforcing the federal statutes 

pertaining to intellectual property protection and copyright infringement. 

Table 1 shows these agencies, along with other key organizations involved 

in efforts to protect intellectual property rights and combat copyright 

infringement, including illegal file sharing on peer-to-peer networks. 

 5

Generally, the criminal infringement statute provides that where the offense consists of 

willful infringement of a copyright with a retail value of at least $2,500 over a 180-day 

period, the penalty is not more than 5 years imprisonment if the offense was for the 

purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, that is, there is an attempt to 

gain an advantage or profit (violations of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)). If the infringement consists 

of willful distribution and reproduction of copyrighted materials with no aspect of 

commercial advantage or private financial gain (violations of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2)), the 

penalty is not more than 3 years imprisonment. 

6

17 U.S.C. § 502-505. 

Federal Agencies Have 

Law Enforcement 

Responsibilities Regarding 

Illegal File Sharing 
Page 7 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Table 1: Federal Entities and Supporting Agencies and Organizations Involved in the Investigation and Prosecution of 

Intellectual Property Rights Violations and Copyright Infringement 

Agency Unit Focus 

Investigating agencies 

Department of Homeland 

Security 

Cyber Crimes Center, U.S. 

Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

Investigates international criminal activity conducted on or facilitated by 

the Internet, including money laundering, drug trafficking, intellectual 

property rights violations, arms trafficking, and child pornography, and 

provides computer forensics support to other agencies. 

Department of Justice Cyber Division, Federal 

Bureau of Investigation 

Investigates federal violations, including intellectual property rights 

violations, in which the Internet, computer systems, and networks are 

exploited as the principal instruments or targets of criminal activity. 

Prosecuting agencies 

Department of Justice Computer Crime and 

Intellectual Property section 

Consists of specialized attorneys who prosecute cybercrime and 

intellectual property cases worldwide. 

 Computer Hacking and 

Intellectual Property units 

Consist of prosecutors in select U.S. Attorneys Offices dedicated 

primarily to prosecuting high-technology crimes, including intellectual 

property offenses. 

 Computer and 

Telecommunication 

Coordinator network 

Consists of prosecutors in U.S. Attorneys Offices specifically trained to 

address the range of novel and complex legal issues related to high-tech 

and intellectual property crime. 

 U.S. Attorneys Offices Serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction of the U.S. 

Attorney General. 

Supporting agencies 

Department of Commerce International Trade 

Administration 

Monitors foreign governments’ compliance and implementation of 

international trade agreements, especially those pertaining to intellectual 

property rights enforcement. 

Department of Homeland 

Security 

Intellectual Property Rights 

Coordination Center, U.S. 

Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 

Coordinates the investigation of leads provided by the general public and 

industry pertaining to intellectual property rights infringement. The Center 

is a joint effort of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the 

Federal Bureau of Investigations. 

Department of Justice Criminal Division Provides, through its Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance 

and Training Office and its International Criminal Investigation Training 

Assistance Programs, training and assistance to foreign law enforcement 

and foreign governments to foster the robust protection of intellectual 

property rights in foreign countries. 

 Federal Bureau of 

Investigation 

Fosters the protection of intellectual property rights in foreign countries 

and assists U.S. prosecutions of intellectual property violations 

originating in foreign countries through its legal attaches located in 

foreign countries. 

Department of State International Law 

Enforcement Academies 

Provides specialized training courses in fighting intellectual property 

rights crime. 

National Intellectual 

Property Law Enforcement 

Coordination Council 

Interagency Coordination 

Council 

Coordinates domestic and international intellectual property law 

enforcement among federal and foreign entities (including law 

enforcement liaison, training coordination, industry and other outreach) 

and increases public awareness. 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data. 
Page 8 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

The federal law enforcement agencies work with state and local law 

enforcement agencies, including state police and local district attorneys, in 

the investigation and prosecution of intellectual property crime. In 

addition, industry organizations, such as the Recording Industry 

Association of America, the Business Software Alliance, and the Software 

and Information Industry Association, provide federal law enforcement 

organizations with information and documentary evidence in support of 

federal investigations and prosecutions. (See app. III for a detailed 

description of federal organizations involved in investigating and 

prosecuting copyright infringement.) 

The college and university officials we interviewed are aware of the use of 

file-sharing applications on their networks, almost all of them have 

experienced some problems and increased costs as a result of the use of 

these applications, and they are taking steps to reduce the use of peer-topeer file-sharing technology on their networks.7

All of the college and university officials we interviewed stated that they 

have implemented technical controls to limit the use of file-sharing 

technology on their networks and that they have either undertaken or plan 

to undertake educational and enforcement efforts to limit student 

copyright infringement. Most of the officials interviewed stated that they 

felt they had the right tools and knowledge to deal with the use of peer-topeer file-sharing applications to download or share copyrighted material 

on university networks, and almost all of the officials stated that they 

thought the approaches they have used to address the problem have been 

either somewhat or very successful at controlling the problem. 

All of the university officials we interviewed indicated that their colleges 

or universities routinely monitor their networks and most of them 

indicated that the institutions also actively monitored their networks 

specifically for the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing applications during the 

2003 to 2004 academic term. For those colleges and universities that 

monitored specifically for the use of file-sharing technology (10 of 13 

respondents), university officials stated that the amount of bandwidth that 

 7

Although we provide details on the responses of the 13 college or university officials we 

interviewed, our results are not generalizable to all colleges or universities. 

Selected Universities 

Report Taking Action 

to Reduce Illegal File 

Sharing on Campus 

Networks 

University Officials We 

Interviewed Are Aware of 

the Use of File-Sharing 

Applications on Their 

Networks 
Page 9 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

appeared to be used by file-sharing applications varied, from as low as 0 to 

9 percent to as high as 90 to 100 percent. (See fig. 1.) 

Figure 1: Average Percentage of Bandwidth Used for Peer-to-Peer File Sharing 

(Selected universities) 

While several university officials were unable to estimate the percentage 

of students using file-sharing applications to download or share music, 

images and video files, several estimated that 30 percent or more of 

students were doing so during the 2003 to 2004 academic term. One 

official estimated that between 90 and 100 percent of the students at the 

institution were using file-sharing applications. 

In addition, all of the college and university officials interviewed indicated 

that they had received notices from representatives of copyright holders 

alleging file-sharing copyright violations by students, with more than half 

of the interview respondents indicating that they had received more than 

100 notifications. In most or all of these cases, university officials were 

able to trace the infringement notification to an individual student. (See 

fig. 3.) 
Page 10 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Figure 2: Number of Notifications and Ability to Trace to an Individual Student (Selected universities) 

Overall, most of the college and university officials we interviewed 

indicated that they had experienced some network performance or 

security problems as a result of the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing 

applications on their institutions’ networks. Specifically, two officials 

interviewed stated that their institution had experienced network 

performance problems somewhat often as a result of student use of filesharing applications, and six officials indicated that they had experienced 

few network performance problems. Further, of the 13 institutions whose 

officials we interviewed, 9 indicated that they had experienced security 

problems as a result of file sharing or downloading. For those who 

indicated that they had experience problems, the most common types of 

security incidents reported were the introduction of viruses or malicious 

code (eight interview respondents) and temporary loss of network 

resources (five interview respondents). 

In addition, almost all of the officials that were interviewed stated that 

their institutions had spent additional funding during the 2003 to 2004 

Use of Peer-to-Peer 

Technology Has 

Reportedly Had a Negative 

Impact on University 

Networks 
Page 11 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

academic year to deal with the effects of the use of peer-to-peer filesharing applications on their networks, with the median amount of 

additional spending being between $50,000 and $99,999;8

 two officials 

stated that their institutions had spent between $250,000 to $749,999. This 

additional funding was spent on a variety of network infrastructure and 

operational areas, including bandwidth expansion, bandwidth 

management software/hardware, system management, and system 

maintenance. (See fig. 3.) 

Figure 3: Expenses Associated with Responding to Peer-to-Peer File Sharing: Amount of Reported Additional Funding and 

Categories of Expense (Selected universities) 

 8

A median is the value in an ordered set of values below and above which there is an equal 

number of values; if there is no one middle number, it is the value that is the arithmetic 

mean of the two middle values. 
Page 12 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

All of the colleges and universities whose officials we interviewed 

indicated that they are taking steps to reduce or eliminate the use of peerto-peer file-sharing technology for copyright infringement on their 

networks. Specifically, all of the officials interviewed stated that they have 

implemented technical controls to limit the use of file-sharing technology. 

These technical controls include (1) limiting access to file-sharing 

applications, both among internal users of the network and between 

internal and external users; (2) reducing or limiting the amount of 

bandwidth available to network users seeking to download or share files; 

and (3) segregating the portion of the network serving college or 

university administered housing from the rest of the university network. 

In addition, all of the officials interviewed stated that they have either 

undertaken or plan to undertake educational and enforcement efforts to 

limit student copyright infringement. All of the officials that were 

interviewed stated that they have undertaken educational efforts, such as 

issuing or revising network use policies and student codes of conduct; and 

12 of the 13 officials that were interviewed stated that they plan to 

undertake educational activities regarding intellectual property violations 

or illegal file sharing of copyrighted materials. (See fig. 4.) 

Universities Report Taking 

Steps to Reduce Copyright 

Infringement on Peer-toPeer Networks 
Page 13 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Figure 4: Educational Activities: Planned and Completed (Selected universities) 

Further, all the officials interviewed stated that they have undertaken 

enforcement efforts to address copyright infringement on peer-to-peer 

networks. During the 2002 to 2003 academic year, all of the college and 

university officials interviewed stated that they had either discovered or 

had been made aware of individuals using file-sharing applications such as 

KaZaA or peer-to-peer network indexes9

 on their institution’s network. 

When file downloading was discovered, all the officials stated that 

 9

Peer-to-peer network indexes are high-capacity searchable indexes of files located on 

other computers on a local area network (similar to the original Napster; see app. II). These 

indexes are sometimes also referred to as “mini-Napsters” and use software such as Phynd 

to create and maintain searchable indexes of files shared on a peer-to-peer network. 
Page 14 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

enforcement actions were taken against the individuals responsible. These 

actions included issuing a warning to the user or users, banning them from 

the network for a period of time, and shaping the bandwidth available for 

a group of users. (See fig. 5.) 

Figure 5: Enforcement Activities Used (Selected universities)

Most of the officials interviewed stated that they felt they had the right 

tools and knowledge to deal with the use of peer-to-peer file-sharing 

applications to download or share copyrighted material. Further, almost 

all of the officials stated that they thought the approaches they have used 

to address the problem have been either somewhat or very successful at 

controlling the use of peer-to-peer applications for downloading and 

sharing copyrighted materials. 

0 2 4 6 8 10

Other actions

Disciplined 

the users

Banned users 

from the networks 

permanently

Banned users 

from the networks 

for a period of time

Shaped the 

bandwidth for a 

group of users

Reduced the 

bandwidth available 

to the users

Issued warning 

to users

Took no action

0 2 4 6 8 10

Other actions

Disciplined Node 

owners

Banned Node 

owners from the 

networks permanently

Banned Node owners 

from the networks for 

a period of time

Reduced the bandwidth 

available to the 

Node owners

Removed the 

Node from 

the networks

Issued warning 

to owners

Took no action

Source: GAO analysis of survey responses.

0

10

6

10

10

3

9

3

0

4

3

0

1

0

2

1

Actions taken regarding students who were using file sharing 

applications to download or share copyrighted files

Actions taken regarding students who were operating file 

sharing Nodes or "mini-Napsters"
Page 15 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Federal law enforcement officials told us that they have been taking 

actions to investigate and prosecute organizations involved in significant 

copyright infringement, such as the warez10 groups—loosely affiliated 

networks of criminal groups that specialize in “cracking” the copyright 

protection on software, movies, game and music files. These groups use a 

wide range of Internet technologies—including file sharing over peer-topeer networks—to illegally distribute copyrighted materials over the 

Internet. According to the Deputy Chief for Intellectual Property 

Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Justice, the top warez 

groups serve as major suppliers of the infringed works that eventually 

enter the stream of file sharing on peer-to-peer networks. 

Two recent examples of major federal law enforcement actions that have 

focused on international piracy groups are the Justice’s Operations 

Fastlink and the U.S. Customs Service’s Operation Buccaneer. 

Operation Fastlink is an international investigation coordinated by 

Justice’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and the FBI. 

According to the Deputy Chief for Intellectual Property Computer Crime 

and Intellectual Property Section, Fastlink is the largest international 

enforcement effort ever undertaken against online piracy. As part of 

Operation Fastlink, on April 21, 2004, U.S. and foreign law enforcement 

officials executed more than 120 simultaneous searches across multiple 

time zones. In addition to the United States, searches were executed in 

Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, 

Singapore, Sweden, Great Britain, and Northern Ireland. As a result, more 

than 100 individuals believed to be engaged in online piracy have been 

identified, many of them high-level members or leaders of online piracy 

release groups that specialize in distributing high-quality pirated movies, 

music, games, and software over the Internet. More than 200 computers 

were seized worldwide, including more than 30 computer servers that 

function as storage and distribution hubs for the online piracy groups 

targeted by this operation. 

Operation Buccaneer was an international investigation and prosecution 

operation led by the U.S. Customs Service and Justice. The operation 

resulted in the seizure of tens of thousands of pirated copies of software, 

 10Warez refers to software applications that have had all copy protection removed or 

circumvented, and are therefore available for unlimited copying, free of charge, in violation 

of the software owner’s or publisher’s copyright. 

Federal Enforcement 

of Copyright 

Infringement through 

File Sharing Focuses 

on Organized Groups 
Page 16 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

music, and computer games worth millions of dollars and led to 30 

convictions worldwide. Operation Buccaneer targeted a number of highly 

organized and sophisticated international criminal piracy groups that had 

cracked the copyright protection on thousands of software, movie, and 

music files and distributed those files over the Internet. 

As part of Operation Buccaneer, on December 11, 2001, the U.S. Customs 

Service and law enforcement officials from Australia, Finland, Norway, 

Sweden, and the United Kingdom simultaneously executed approximately 

70 search warrants worldwide. Approximately 40 search warrants were 

executed in 27 cities across the United States, including several at 

universities. Pursuant to the search warrants, law enforcement seized 10 

computer “archive sites” that contained tens of thousands of pirated 

copies of software, movies, music, and computer games worth millions of 

dollars. According to the Deputy Chief for Intellectual Property Computer 

Crime and Intellectual Property Section, as of April 1, 2004, 27 defendants 

had been convicted in the United States, with 2 awaiting sentencing and 1 

other under indictment. Internationally, six defendants have been 

convicted in Finland and the United Kingdom, with four additional 

defendants scheduled to go to trial in the United Kingdom in the fall of 

2004. 
Page 17 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Figure 6: U.S. Customs Agent with Hard Drives Seized during Operation Buccaneer 

According to DHS officials, the Cyber Crime Center of the U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement does target individual violators 

who are involved in cyber intellectual property piracy on a profit or 

commercial basis. The officials noted that the center does not pursue 

investigations of individual peer-to-peer file violators due to the statutory 

dollar-value threshold limits and lack of a profit motive. 

According to these officials, the statutory dollar-value threshold is very 

difficult to meet in peer-to-peer cases, since most peer-to-peer 

infringement is based on the sharing of music, and the major record labels 

have set $0.80 as the dollar value of each copy of a song (the officials 

noted that most successful prosecutions are based on copyright 

infringement of software applications, because these tend to have a higher 

dollar value than songs). Proving criminal intent is also often a problem in 

these cases, since file sharing is a passive act, and in most cases there is 

no profit motive. 
Page 18 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

According to Justice officials, federal intellectual property protection 

efforts do not focus on investigation and prosecution of individual 

copyright infringers on peer-to-peer networks, but instead they focus on 

organizations or individuals engaged in massive distribution or 

reproduction of copyrighted materials. According to these officials, this 

focus exists because: 

• Federal law enforcement is best suited to focus on large-scale or 

sophisticated infringers, including organized groups, large-scale 

infringers, infringers operating out of numerous jurisdictions and foreign 

countries, and infringers using sophisticated technology to avoid 

detection, identification, and apprehension. By and large, individual 

copyright holders do not have the tools or ability to pursue these types of 

targets. 

• Copyright holders do not have the legal tools or ability to tackle the 

organized criminal syndicates and most sophisticated infringers, but 

they have the tools and ability to target the individual infringer. While 

federal law enforcement has the tools, ability, expertise, and will to tackle 

the most sophisticated infringers, including those operating overseas who 

are part of a large syndicate and those using sophisticated technology to 

avoid detection, individual copyright holders have the tools to pursue 

individual infringers. Congress has provided for civil enforcement actions. 

Individual copyright holders, mostly through industry associations, have 

been very active in their pursuit of individual infringers using peer-to-peer 

applications. 

• Focusing law enforcement and industry on their respective strengths 

results in maximum impact. By using both the criminal and civil tools 

given to law enforcement and industry by Congress, Justice can achieve a 

more significant impact. 

• Technological limitations pose a challenge. Given the technology 

involved, it is challenging to gather the necessary evidence for a successful 

criminal prosecution of individuals using peer-to-peer applications. For 

example, it may be possible to prove that someone is offering copyrighted 

material for download through a peer-to-peer application; but, according 

to law enforcement officials, it is usually difficult or impossible to 

determine the number of times files were downloaded. 

• Burden of proof in criminal prosecutions is more onerous. The criminal 

statute at issue requires proof of a willful intent and requires that each 

element of the offense be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The willful 

intent is a higher burden than is found in most criminal statutes. By 
Page 19 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

contrast, the intent element and overall burden of proof is significantly 

less onerous in civil enforcement. 

• Statutory thresholds favor a federal criminal enforcement focus on the 

more significant targets. The thresholds require a retail value of $2,500 or 

more for the goods pirated by the infringer. With a valuation of $0.80 per 

song that is traded on a peer-to-peer application, federal criminal law 

enforcement could not be used to target individuals downloading fewer 

than 3,100 music files, for example. The technological limitations 

mentioned earlier, combined with the heightened burden of proof, make it 

challenging to show criminal violations for each of the more than 3,100 

downloads. 

• The need for efficient use of resources suggests a focus on large-scale 

sophisticated targets. The need for law enforcement to use resources 

efficiently suggests that federal law enforcement should focus their efforts 

in a way that yields the greatest impact. For many of the reasons detailed 

above, federal law enforcement has determined that they can make the 

biggest impact by focusing on the larger-scale, more sophisticated targets. 

According to Justice officials, the recently created Intellectual Property 

Task Force—headed by the Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to the 

Attorney General, and comprised of several of the highest-ranking 

department employees who have a variety of subject matter expertise—is 

charged with examining all aspects of how Justice handles intellectual 

property issues and with developing recommendations for legislative 

changes and future activities. One of the issues to be addressed by the task 

force is the most appropriate use of department resources to ensure that 

the department has the most effective enforcement strategy. 

Federal law enforcement officials did not identify any specific legislative 

barriers to investigation and prosecution of illegal file sharing on peer-topeer networks. According to Justice officials, the department’s Intellectual 

Property Task Force will also recommend legislative changes, assuming 

there is a need for such changes. 

The college and university officials we interviewed are aware of the use of 

file-sharing applications on their networks, almost all of them have 

experienced some problems and increased costs as a result of the use of 

these applications; therefore, they are taking steps to reduce the use of 

peer-to-peer file-sharing technology on their networks. All of the officials 

interviewed indicated that their colleges or universities routinely monitor 

Summary 
Page 20 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

their networks; and most of them indicated that the institutions also 

actively monitor their networks, specifically for the use of peer-to-peer 

file-sharing applications. When infringing use was discovered, all of the 

officials stated that enforcement actions were taken against the 

individuals responsible. These actions included issuing warnings to the 

users, banning them from the network for a period of time, and shaping 

the bandwidth available for a group of users. 

Federal law enforcement officials have been taking action to investigate 

and prosecute organizations involved in significant copyright 

infringement. These groups use a wide range of Internet technologies to 

illegally distribute copyrighted materials over the Internet. Federal law 

enforcement officials did not identify any specific legislative barriers to 

investigation and prosecution of illegal file sharing on peer-to-peer 

networks. According to Justice officials, the department’s recently created 

Intellectual Property Task force will examine how the department handles 

intellectual property issues and recommend legislative changes, if needed. 

In providing comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, provided 

additional information on a recent international law enforcement effort 

against online piracy, coordinated by the department’s Computer Crime 

and Intellectual Property Section and the FBI, and presented a detailed 

description of the department’s policy on investigating and prosecuting 

intellectual property rights infringers on the Internet and on peer-to-peer 

networks. The Deputy Assistant Attorney General also noted that the 

department’s recently created Intellectual Property Task Force will 

examine how the department handles intellectual property issues and 

recommend legislative changes, if needed. We have incorporated this 

information into this report. 

We also received comments (via e-mail) from the unit chief of the Cyber 

Crime Center on behalf of DHS. The unit chief provided additional details 

on the number of investigations conducted by the Cyber Crime Center and 

clarified the center’s approach to investigations of individual copyright 

infringers. Specifically, the unit chief stated that, while the center targets 

individual violators who are involved in cyber intellectual property piracy 

on a profit or commercial basis, it does not pursue investigations of 

individual peer-to-peer file violators, due to the difficulties in meeting the 

statutory dollar-value threshold in peer-to-peer infringement cases and the 

lack of a profit motive. We have incorporated these details into this report. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 21 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of other Senate and House 

committees and subcommittees that have jurisdiction and oversight 

responsibility for Justice and DHS. We are also sending copies to the 

Attorney General and to the Secretary of Homeland Security. Copies will 

be made available to others on request. In addition, this report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 

512-6240 or Mirko J. Dolak, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-6362. We can 

also be reached by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov and dolakm@gao.gov, 

respectively. Key contributors to this report were Jason B. Bakelar, 

Barbara S. Collier, Nancy E. Glover, Lori D. Martinez, Morgan F. Walts, 

and Monica L. Wolford. 

Linda D. Koontz 

Director, Information Management Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 22 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Our objectives were to describe (1) the views of major universities on the 

extent of problems experienced with student use of file-sharing software 

applications, as well as the actions that the universities are taking to deal 

with them and (2) the actions that federal enforcement agencies have 

taken to address the issue of copyright infringement on peer-to-peer 

networks, as well as agency views on any legislative barriers to dealing 

with these problems. 

To describe the views of college and university officials, we conducted 

structured interviews with a judgmental sample of large colleges and 

universities. The interview contained 35 questions referring to (1) the 

extent to which the college or university monitors its network or networks 

and the impact of the use of file-sharing applications on the network, (2) 

estimates of the number of students using file-sharing applications and the 

number of files shared or transferred over the network, (3) the discovery 

of nodes or mini-Napsters on the network and response of the university 

to their existence, (4) the discovery of file-sharing applications on the 

network and response of the university to their use, and (5) the actions 

taken by the college or university to address copyright infringement and 

the use of file-sharing applications on its networks. 

We pretested the content of the interview with chief information officers 

(CIO) of four major colleges and universities. During the pretest, we asked 

the CIOs to judge the following: 

• how willing the CIOs would be to participate in the interview, particularly 

given the sensitive nature of some of the information requested; 

• whether the meaning and intent of each question was clear and 

unambiguous; 

• whether the CIOs were likely to know the information asked, and if the 

questions should be addressed to someone in a different position; and 

• whether any of the questions were redundant. 

We made changes to the content and format of the final structured 

interview based on pretest results. 

To administer the structured interviews, we selected 45 colleges and 

universities from the Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System. The colleges and universities were judgmentally 

selected from among large public and private degree-granting colleges and 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 23 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

universities in each of eight geographic regions of the United States that 

provide Internet access to students in university administered housing.1

 Of 

the 45 colleges and universities selected and contacted, 13 agreed to 

participate in the interview. We then analyzed the interview responses. 

Our analysis provides details on the responses of the 13 college and 

university officials we interviewed; however, because we did not randomly 

select interviewees, our results cannot be generalized to all colleges and 

universities. 

To describe federal law enforcement efforts and agency views related to 

copyright infringement on peer-to-peer networks, we analyzed budget and 

program documents from the Justice Computer Crime and Intellectual 

Property Section; the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Cyber 

Division; and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Cyber 

Crimes Center, under the Department of Homeland Security. We also 

reviewed agency documents related to the efforts of other organizations 

that support the investigation and prosecution of copyright infringement, 

including the Department of State’s International Law Enforcement 

Academies; the Department of Commerce’s International Trade 

Administration; and the Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center 

and the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination 

Council. 

We performed our work between May 2003 and April 2004 in Washington, 

D.C. Our work was conducted in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

 1

The universities that were involved in pretesting the interview questions were not included 

in the interviews. 
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and 

Peer-to-Peer Networks 

Page 24 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Peer-to-peer file-sharing programs represent a major change in the way 

Internet users find and exchange information. Under the traditional 

Internet client/server model, the access to information and services is 

accomplished by the interaction between users (clients) and servers—

usually Web sites or portals. A client is defined as a requester of services, 

and a server is defined as the provider of services. Unlike the client/server 

model, the peer-to-peer model enables consenting users—or peers—to 

directly interact and share information with each other’s computer 

without the intervention of a server. A common characteristic of peer-topeer programs is that they build virtual networks with their own 

mechanisms for routing message traffic.1

The ability of peer-to-peer networks to provide services and connect users 

directly has resulted in a large number2

 of powerful applications being 

built around this model.3

 Among the uses of peer-to-peer technology are 

the following: 

• File sharing, which includes applications such as Napster and KaZaA, 

along with commercial applications such as NextPage.4

 File-sharing 

applications work by making selected files on a user’s computer available 

for download by anyone else using similar software. 

• Instant messaging, which includes applications that enable online users 

to communicate immediately through text messages. Commercial vendors 

include America Online, Microsoft, and Jabber. 

• Distributed computing, which includes applications that use the idle 

processing power of many computers. The University of California–

 1

Matei Ripenau, Ian Foster, and Adriana Iamnitchi, “Mapping the Gnutella Network: 

Properties of Large Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems and Implication for System Design,” IEEE 

Internet Computing, vol. 6, no. 1 (January–February 2002). 

(people.cs.uchicago.edu/~matei/PAPERS/ic.pdf)

2

Zeropaid.com, a file-sharing portal, lists 88 different peer-to-peer file-sharing programs 

available for download. (http://www.zeropaid.com/php/filesharing.php) 

3

Geoffrey Fox and Shrideep Pallickara, “Peer-to-Peer Interactions in Web Brokering 

Systems,” Ubiquity, vol. 3, no. 15 (May 28–June 3, 2002) (published by Association of 

Computer Machinery). (http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/g_fox_2.html) 

4

NextPage provides information-intensive corporations with customized peer-to-peer filesharing networks. It enables users to manage, access, and exchange content across 

distributed servers on intranets and via the Internet. 

Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and 

Peer-to-Peer Networks 
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and 

Peer-to-Peer Networks 

Page 25 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Berkeley’s SETI@home project uses the idle time on volunteers’ 

computers to analyze radio signal data. 

• Collaboration applications, which enable teams in different geographic 

areas to work together and increase productivity. For example, the Groove 

application can access data on traditional corporate networks and on 

nontraditional devices such as personal digital assistants and handheld 

devices. 

As shown in figure 7,5

 there are two main models of peer-to-peer networks: 

(1) the centralized model, based on a central server, or broker, that directs 

traffic between individual registered users and (2) the decentralized 

model, based on the Gnutella6

 network, in which individuals find and 

interact directly with each other. 

 5

Illustration adapted by Lt. Col. Mark Bontrager from original by Bob Knighten, “Peer-toPeer Computing,” briefing to Peer-to-Peer Working Groups (August 24, 2000), in Mark D. 

Bontrager, Peering into the Future: Peer-to-Peer Technology as a Model for Distributed 

Joint Battlespace Intelligence Dissemination and Operational Tasking, Thesis, School of 

Advanced Airpower Studies, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama (June 2001). 

6

According to LimeWire LLC, the developer of a popular file-sharing program, Gnutella was 

originally designed by Nullsoft, a subsidiary of America Online. The development of the 

Gnutella protocol was halted by America Online management shortly after the protocol 

was made available to the public. Using downloads, programmers reverse-engineered the 

software and created their own Gnutella software packages. 

(http://www.limewire.com/index.jsp/p2p) 
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and 

Peer-to-Peer Networks 

Page 26 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Figure 7: Peer-to-Peer Models 

Note: Adapted from Mark Bontrager’s adaptation of original by Bob Knighten. 

As figure 7 shows, the centralized model relies on a central server/broker 

to maintain directories of shared files stored on the respective computers 

of the registered users of the peer-to-peer network. When user C submits a 

request for a file, the server/broker creates a list of files matching the 

search request by checking the request with its database of files belonging 

to registered users currently connected to the network. The broker then 

displays that list to user C, who can then select the desired file from the 

list and open a direct link with user D’s computer, which currently has the 

file. The download of the actual file takes place directly from user D to 

user C. 

The broker model was used by Napster, the original peer-to-peer network; 

it facilitated mass sharing of copyrighted material by combining the file 

names held by thousands of users into a searchable directory that enabled 

users to connect with each other and download MP3 encoded music files. 
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and 

Peer-to-Peer Networks 

Page 27 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

The broker model made Napster vulnerable to legal challenges7 and 

eventually led to its demise in September 2002. 

Although Napster was litigated out of existence and its users fragmented 

among many alternative peer-to-peer services, most current-generation 

peer-to-peer networks are not dependent on the server/broker that was the 

central feature of the Napster services, so, according to Gartner,8

 these 

networks are less vulnerable to litigation from copyright owners. 

In the decentralized model, no brokers keep track of users and their files. 

To share files using the decentralized model, user A starts with a 

networked computer equipped with a Gnutella file-sharing program, such 

as KaZaA or BearShare. User A connects to user B, user B to user C, user 

C to user D, and so on. Once user A’s computer has announced that it is 

“alive” to the various members of the peer network, it can search the 

contents of the shared directories of the peer network members. The 

search request is sent to all members of the network, starting with user B, 

who will each, in turn, send the request to the computers to which they are 

connected, and so on. If one of the computers in the peer network (for 

example, user D) has a file that matches the request, it transmits the file 

information (name, size, type, etc.) back through all the computers in the 

pathway toward user A, where a list of files matching the search request 

appears on user A’s computer through the file-sharing program. User A 

will then be able to open a connection with user D and download the file 

directly from user D’s computer.9

One of the key features of Napster and the current generation of 

decentralized peer-to-peer technologies is their use of a virtual name 

space. A virtual name space dynamically associates user-created names 

with the Internet address of whatever Internet-connected computer users 

happen to be using when they log on.10 The virtual name space facilitates 

point-to-point interaction between individuals, because it removes the 

need for users and their computers to know the addresses and locations of 

 7

A&M Records v. Napster, 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000). 

8

Lydia Leong, “RIAA vs.Verizon, Implications for ISPs,” Gartner (Oct. 24, 2002). 

9

LimeWire, Modern Peer-to-Peer File sharing over the Internet. 

(http://www.limewire.com/index.jsp/p2p) 

10S. Hayward and R. Batchelder, “Peer-to-Peer: Something Old, Something New,” Gartner 

(Apr. 10, 2001). 
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and 

Peer-to-Peer Networks 

Page 28 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

other users; the virtual name space can, to a certain extent, preserve users’ 

anonymity and provide information on whether a user is or is not 

connected to the Internet at a given moment.11

The file-sharing networks that result from the use of peer-to-peer 

technology are both extensive and complex. Figure 8 shows a map, or 

topology, of a Gnutella network whose connections were mapped by a 

network visualization tool.12 The map, created in December 2000, shows 

1,026 nodes (computers connected to more than one computer) and 3,752 

edges (computers on the edge of the network connected to a single 

computer). This map is a snapshot showing a network in existence at a 

given moment; these networks change constantly as users join and depart 

them. 

 11Peer-to-peer users may appear to be, but are not, anonymous. Law enforcement agents 

may identify users’ Internet addresses during the file-sharing process and obtain, under a 

court order, their identities from their Internet service providers. 

12Mihajlo A. Jovanovic, Fred S. Annexstein, and Kenneth A. Berman, Scalability Issues in 

Large Peer-to-Peer Networks: A Case Study of Gnutella, University of Cincinnati Technical 

Report (2001). (http://www.ececs.uc.edu/~mjovanov/Research/paper.html)
Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and 

Peer-to-Peer Networks 

Page 29 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Figure 8: Topology of a Gnutella Network 
Appendix III: Key and Supporting Federal 

Agencies Involved in the Investigation and 

Prosecution of Copyright Infringement 

Page 30 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

The emergence of the Internet as a principal medium for copyright 

infringement and other crimes has led to the development of new divisions 

within the federal government that are specifically trained to deal with 

cybercrime issues. These divisions, as well as other entities that are 

involved in combating copyright infringement, fulfill three main roles: 

investigation, prosecution, and support. The investigation role includes 

activities related to gathering and analyzing evidence related to suspected 

copyright infringement, while the prosecution role includes activities 

related to the institution and continuance of a criminal suit against an 

offender. The support role includes activities that are not directly involved 

in either investigation or prosecution, but which assist other organizations 

in these activities. Support activities include providing specialized training, 

producing reports specifically pertaining to intellectual property rights and 

copyright infringement, observing international trade agreements, and 

providing investigation leads and supporting evidence. 

Federal agencies involved in the investigation process of copyright 

infringement include the following: 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Cyber Crimes Center. The 

Cyber Crimes Center, independently or in conjunction with Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement field offices, investigates domestic and 

international criminal activities conducted on or facilitated by the Internet. 

The organization’s responsibilities include investigating money laundering, 

drug trafficking, intellectual property rights violations, arms trafficking, 

and child pornography cases, and they provide computer forensics 

support to other agencies. For fiscal year 2002, the U.S. Customs Service1

referred 57 investigative matters related to intellectual property rights 

cases to the U.S. Attorneys Offices. Of these cases, 37 involving 54 

defendants were resolved or terminated. 

FBI Cyber Division. The Cyber Division coordinates, supervises, and 

facilitates the FBI’s investigation of federal violations in which the 

Internet, computer systems, and networks are exploited as the principal 

 1

On March 1, 2003 the U.S. Customs Service was reconfigured into two agencies within 

DHS, at which time the Office of Investigations and the Cyber Crimes Center became part 

of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

Appendix III: Key and Supporting Federal 

Agencies Involved in the Investigation and 

Prosecution of Copyright Infringement 

Investigating Agencies 

Department of Homeland 

Security 

Department of Justice 
Appendix III: Key and Supporting Federal 

Agencies Involved in the Investigation and 

Prosecution of Copyright Infringement 

Page 31 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

instruments or targets of criminal, foreign intelligence, or terrorism 

activity and for which the use of such systems is essential to that activity. 

For fiscal year 2003, the Cyber Division investigated 596 cases involving 

intellectual property rights. Of these cases, 160 were related specifically to 

software copyright infringement and 111 were related to other types of 

copyright infringement. The results of these investigations include 92 

indictments and 95 convictions/pretrial diversions. 

Federal agencies involved in the prosecution process of copyright 

infringement include the following: 

Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. The Computer Crime 

and Intellectual Property Section consists of 38 attorneys who focus 

exclusively on computer and intellectual property crime, including (1) 

prosecuting cybercrime and intellectual property cases; (2) advising and 

training local, state, and federal prosecutors and investigators in network 

attacks, computer search and seizure, and intellectual property law; and 

(3) coordinating international enforcement and outreach efforts to combat 

intellectual property and computer crime worldwide. 

Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Units. Computer Hacking 

and Intellectual Property units are comprised of highly trained prosecutors 

and staff who are dedicated primarily to prosecuting high-tech crimes, 

including intellectual property offenses. There are 13 Computer Hacking 

and Intellectual Property units located in U.S. Attorneys Offices across the 

nation. Each unit is comprised of between four and six prosecutors and 

dedicated support staff. 

Computer and Telecommunication Coordinator Network. The Computer 

and Telecommunication Coordinator program consists of prosecutors 

specifically trained to address the range of novel and complex legal issues 

related to high tech and intellectual property crime, with general 

responsibility for prosecuting computer crime, acting as a technical 

advisor and liaison, and providing training and outreach. The Computer 

and Telecommunication Coordinator program is made up of more than 

200 Assistant U.S. Attorneys, with at least one prosecutor who is part of 

the program in each of the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices. 

U.S. Attorneys Offices. The U.S. Attorneys serve as the nation’s principal 

federal litigators under the direction of the U.S. Attorney General. U.S. 

Attorneys conduct most of the trial work in which the United States is a 

Prosecuting Agencies 

Department of Justice 
Appendix III: Key and Supporting Federal 

Agencies Involved in the Investigation and 

Prosecution of Copyright Infringement 

Page 32 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

party and have responsibility for the prosecution of criminal cases brought 

by the federal government, the prosecution and defense of civil cases in 

which the United States is a party, and the collection of debts owed the 

federal government which are administratively uncollectible. There are 94 

U.S. Attorneys stationed throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the 

Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. For fiscal year 

2002, the U.S. Attorneys Offices received 75 referrals involving 

investigative matters for Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2319—Criminal 

Infringement of a Copyright—and 28 cases involving 56 defendants were 

resolved or terminated. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Intellectual Property 

Rights Coordination Center. The Center is a multiagency organization 

that serves as a clearinghouse for information and investigative leads 

provided by the general public and industry, as well as being a channel for 

law enforcement to obtain cooperation from industry. 

The Criminal Division, through its Overseas Prosecutorial Development, 

Assistance and Training Office and its International Criminal Investigation 

Training Assistance Programs, provides training and assistance to foreign 

law enforcement and foreign governments to foster the robust protection 

of intellectual property rights in foreign countries. 

Through its legal attaches located in foreign countries, the FBI fosters the 

protection of intellectual property rights in foreign countries and assists 

U.S. prosecutions of intellectual property violations that have foreign 

roots. 

International Law Enforcement Academies. The academies foster a 

cooperative law enforcement partnership and involvement between the 

U.S. and participating nations to counter the threat of international crime 

within a specific region. The academies develop foreign police managers’ 

abilities to handle a broad spectrum of contemporary law enforcement 

issues, including specialized training courses in fighting intellectual 

property rights crime, and increases their capacity to investigate crime and 

criminal organizations. As of 2003, academies were operating in Roswell, 

Supporting Agencies 

Department of Homeland 

Security 

Department of Justice 

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation 

Department of State 
Appendix III: Key and Supporting Federal 

Agencies Involved in the Investigation and 

Prosecution of Copyright Infringement 

Page 33 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

New Mexico; Budapest, Hungary; Bangkok, Thailand; and Gaborone, 

Botswana. 

International Trade Administration. The administration monitors foreign 

governments’ compliance and implementation with international trade 

agreements, especially those pertaining to intellectual property rights 

enforcement. 

National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council.

The Council’s mission is to coordinate domestic and international 

intellectual property law enforcement among federal and foreign entities, 

including law enforcement liaison, training coordination, industry and 

other outreach, and to increase public awareness. The Council consists of 

members from several agencies, including the Director of the U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office (co-chair); the Assistant Attorney General of the 

Department of Justice’s Criminal Division (co-chair); the Undersecretary 

of State for Economics, Business, and Agricultural Affairs; the Deputy U.S. 

Trade Representative; the Commissioner of Customs; and the 

Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade. The council is 

required to report annually on its coordination activities to the President 

and to the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees of the House and 

Senate. 

U.S. Department of 

Commerce 

Others 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice 

Page 34 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Justice 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice 

Page 35 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice 

Page 36 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice 

Page 37 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 
Glossary 

Page 38 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

A file-sharing program for Gnutella networks. BearShare supports the 

trading of text, images, audio, video, and software files with any other user 

of the network. 

In the peer-to-peer environment, an intermediary computer that 

coordinates and manages requests between client computers. 

A networking model in which a collection of nodes (client computers) 

request and obtain services from a server node (server computer). 

A file-sharing program based on the Gnutella protocol. Gnutella enables 

users to directly share files with one another. Unlike Napster, Gnutellabased programs do not rely on a central server to find files. 

Decentralized group membership and search protocol, typically used for 

file sharing. Gnutella file-sharing programs build a virtual network of 

participating users. 

A popular method of Internet communication that allows for an 

instantaneous transmission of messages to other users who are logged into 

the same IM service. America Online’s Instant Messenger and the 

Microsoft Network Messenger are among the most popular instant 

messaging programs. 

IP address. A number that uniquely identifies a computer connected to the 

Internet to other computers. 

A file-sharing program using a proprietary peer-to-peer protocol to share 

files among users on the network. Through a distributed self-organizing 

network, KaZaA requires no broker or central server like Napster. 

A file-sharing program running on Gnutella networks. It is open standard 

software running on an open protocol and is free for public use. 

Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG) MPEG-1 Audio Layer-3. A widely 

used standard for compressing and transmitting music in digital format 

across Internet. MP3 can compress file sizes at a ratio of about 10:1 while 

preserving sound quality. 

A computer or a device that is connected to a network. Every node has a 

unique network address. 

Glossary 

BearShare 

broker 

client-server

Gnutella 

Gnutella protocol 

Instant messaging (IM) 

Internet Protocol (IP) address 

KaZaA 

LimeWire 

MP3 

node 
Glossary 

Page 39 GAO-04-503 File Sharing 

A network node that may function as a client or as a server. In the peer-topeer environment, peer computers are also called servents, since they 

perform tasks associated with both servers and clients. 

A computer that interconnects client computers, providing them with 

services and information; a component of the client-server model. A Web 

server is one type of server. 

Search for extraterrestrial intelligence at home. A distributed 

computing project, SETI@home uses data collected by the Arecibo 

Telescope in Puerto Rico. The project takes advantage of the unused 

computing capacity of personal computers. As of February 2000, the 

project encompassed 1.6 million participants in 224 countries. 

The general structure—or map—of a network. It shows the computers and 

the links between them. 

Having the properties of x while not being x. For example, “virtual reality” 

is an artificial or simulated environment that appears to be real to the 

casual observer. 

Internet addressing and naming system. In the peer-to-peer environment, 

VNS dynamically associates names created by users with the IP addresses 

assigned by their Internet services providers to their computers. 

A worldwide client-server system for searching and retrieving information 

across the Internet. Also known as WWW or the Web. 

peer

server

SETI@home 

topology

virtual 

virtual name space (VNS) 

World Wide Web 

(310369) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs