File Sharing: Selected Universities Report Taking Action to Reduce Copyright Infringement
Published: 2004-05-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The emergence of peer-to-peer file-sharing 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-to-peer networks as well as agency views on any legislative barriers to dealing with the problems.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: File sharing—the use of peer-to-peer 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.  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.
subsections: section_title: File Sharing Is a Principal Tool for Distribution of Copyrighted Works
paragraphs: 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 million downloads.  According to the Recording Industry Association of America, the  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 peer- to-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-to- peer 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  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.
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.
section_title: Federal Agencies Have Law Enforcement Responsibilities Regarding Illegal File Sharing
paragraphs: 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.
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.)
section_title: Selected Universities Report Taking Action to Reduce Illegal File Sharing on Campus Networks
paragraphs: 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-to- peer file-sharing technology on their networks.
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-to- peer 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.
subsections: section_title: University Officials We Interviewed Are Aware of the Use of File-Sharing Applications on Their Networks
paragraphs: 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  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.)
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.)
section_title: Use of Peer-to-Peer Technology Has Reportedly Had a Negative Impact on University Networks
paragraphs: 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 file- sharing 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  academic year to deal with the effects of the use of peer-to-peer file- sharing applications on their networks, with the median amount of  additional spending being between $50,000 and $99,999; 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.)
section_title: Universities Report Taking Steps to Reduce Copyright Infringement on Peer-to- Peer Networks
paragraphs: All of the colleges and universities whose officials we interviewed  indicated that they are taking steps to reduce or eliminate the use of peer- to-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.)
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 indexes on their institution’s network.  When file downloading was discovered, all the officials stated that  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.)
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.
section_title: Federal Enforcement of Copyright Infringement through File Sharing Focuses on Organized Groups
paragraphs: 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 warez 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-to- peer 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,  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.
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.
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  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-to- peer 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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    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  universities in each of eight geographic regions of the United States that  provide Internet access to students in university administered housing. 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Description of File Sharing and Peer-to-Peer Networks
paragraphs: 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-to- peer programs is that they build virtual networks with their own  mechanisms for routing message traffic.
The ability of peer-to-peer networks to provide services and connect users  directly has resulted in a large number of powerful applications being  built around this model. 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. 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– 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, 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 Gnutella network, in which individuals find and  interact directly with each other.
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.
The broker model made Napster vulnerable to legal challenges 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, 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.
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. 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  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.
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. 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.
section_title: Appendix III: Key and Supporting Federal Agencies Involved in the Investigation and Prosecution of Copyright Infringement
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Investigating Agencies
subsections: section_title: Department of Homeland Security
paragraphs: 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 Service  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.
section_title: Department of Justice
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Prosecuting Agencies
subsections: section_title: Department of Justice
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Supporting Agencies
subsections: section_title: Department of Homeland Security
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Department of Justice
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Federal Bureau of Investigation
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Department of State
paragraphs: 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,  New Mexico; Budapest, Hungary; Bangkok, Thailand; and Gaborone,  Botswana.
section_title: U.S. Department of Commerce
paragraphs: International Trade Administration. The administration monitors foreign  governments’ compliance and implementation with international trade  agreements, especially those pertaining to intellectual property rights  enforcement.
section_title: Others
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice
section_title: Glossary
paragraphs: 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).
subsections: section_title: Gnutella
paragraphs: A file-sharing program based on the Gnutella protocol. Gnutella enables  users to directly share files with one another. Unlike Napster, Gnutella- based programs do not rely on a central server to find files.
section_title: Gnutella protocol
paragraphs: Decentralized group membership and search protocol, typically used for  file sharing. Gnutella file-sharing programs build a virtual network of  participating users.
section_title: Instant messaging (IM)
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Internet Protocol (IP) address
paragraphs: 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.
A network node that may function as a client or as a server. In the peer-to- peer 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. virtual name space (VNS)
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.
section_title: World Wide Web
paragraphs: A worldwide client-server system for searching and retrieving information  across the Internet. Also known as WWW or the Web.