Depending on the severity of the offense, these damages can reach $150,000 per infringement.

In 2009 Jammie Thomas-Rasset learned about these massive fines the hard way when she was fined $1,920,000 for sharing 24 songs online, an amount that was eventually reduced to $220,000 after several appeals. In a similar case, Boston student Joel Tenenbaum was ordered to pay $675,000 for sharing 30 songs.

Fines of this magnitude are often viewed by the public as disproportionate, but copyright holders argue that they are needed to deter the public from engaging in unauthorized file-sharing.

In court, the Obama administration sided with copyright holders earlier this year. However, in its recent Green Paper the Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force suggests that the current limits may need an update.

“Much public attention has focused on the size of the awards in the two infringement cases against individual file sharers that have gone to trial,” the Task Force wrote.

“These cases have led to calls for further calibration of levels of statutory damages. The Task Force reiterates the importance of statutory damages in online copyright enforcement, but believes that there are certain areas where recalibration of their scope may be appropriate.”

The Internet Policy Task Force asked the public to share their thoughts on this, and several other copyright related issues that were addressed in the paper. The comments, which have now been made public, include several from copyright industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA in which they advise the Government not to lower the maximum fines.

The MPAA argues that the current Internet landscape doesn’t warrant a policy change.

“While we understand the concerns giving rise to the discussion around statutory damages in the Green Paper, the MPAA does not believe the experience in practice supports altering the existing regime, which has fostered investment and innovation not just in the production of content but also with respect to applications, devices and other digital technologies.”

The movie group says that P2P file-sharing, cyberlockers and streaming sites remain a massive threat to the industry and since it’s not always possible to accurately calculate the losses that are generated by piracy, statutory damages are helpful to come to a sizable punishment.

“Statutory damages play an essential role in redressing the financial harm caused by such infringement and punishing the wrongdoers. But, perhaps most importantly, statutory damages deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, advancing the societal goal of promoting innovation and creativity,” MPAA writes.

The studios don’t fear disproportionate fines and are confident that juries will eventually decide on an amount that is fitting in each case.

“The MPAA is confident that juries will continue to award statutory damages only in appropriate cases, in appropriate amounts, taking into consideration all salient factors, to serve the public interest.”

The RIAA also submitted their comments in response to the Internet Policy Task Force paper. In line with the MPAA the music group sees no reason to change the current policy, and says that “proper consequences” are needed in response to copyright infringement.

“We do not believe that recalibration of statutory damages is appropriate,” RIAA writes.

“Statutory damages must be meaningful, serving as a deterrent beyond mere restitution. And the law recognizes the need for flexibility within this statutory damages construct, and provides juries with wide discretion to determine the appropriate award,” RIAA adds.

The RIAA adds that in the Thomas and Tenenbaum cases the Appeal courts held that the “damage awards were entirely appropriate, based on the facts of each case.”

The music group does say that it’s open to discussing alternatives to statutory damages, as long as the deterrent function of the punishments for copyright infringement remain a core issue.

Besides copyright holders, there were also many comments from civil rights groups, copyright experts and the public that argued against high penalties. Copyright lawyer Andrew Bridges, for example, highlights that a potential $150,000 fine per shared file is ammunition for “predatory” copyright trolls such as Prenda and Righthaven.

“The current structure of statutory damages gives Predatory Enforcers (PEs) the weapons they need to extract significant settlements from accused infringers without regard to the truth of their allegations or the harm of the alleged infringing, just as Righthaven and Prenda did,” Bridges writes.

“One need only allege that there was copying in order to seek a subpoena unmasking anonymous online defendants, at which point PEs can send letters threatening maximum damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work and extract settlements without proving infringement, much less any harm.”

According to Bridges the Government may want to follow the example of Canada, where statutory damages for non-commercial file-sharing were reduced to an amount of between $100 and $5,000 per offense.

All comments in response to the Green Paper have been published on the Internet Policy Task Force website. The issue of statutory damages, as well as many related subjects, will be discussed during a public meeting on December 12 and will be followed by another round of comments.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

With his “fair use” defense kicked out hours before his trial, a week later a jury decided that Tenenbaum had engaged in “willful infringement” and awarded the RIAA $22,500 for each of the 30 songs listed in the case.

What followed was years of legal wrangling, with a yo-yo’ing of the damages award and a 2011 decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals that the original decision should stand.

Tenenbaum then tried to take his case to the Supreme Court, arguing the damages awarded against him were unconstitutional. In May last year that request was denied.

Following yet another hearing in this case that refuses to die, the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided yesterday that the penalty handed down in 2009 should indeed stand.

“Joel Tenenbaum illegally downloaded and distributed music for several years. A group of recording companies sued Tenenbaum, and a jury awarded damages of $675,000, representing $22,500 for each of thirty songs whose copyright Tenenbaum violated,” Judge Howard wrote.

“Tenenbaum appeals the award, claiming that it is so large that it violates his constitutional right to due process of law. We hold that the award did not violate Tenenbaum’s right to due process, and we affirm.”

The Court said that Tenenbaum had downloaded and shared copyrighted music without permission from 1999 to at least 2007 knowing it to be illegal, had pressed on regardless, later dening his actions.

“On appeal, Tenenbaum invites us to assume that he is ‘the most heinous of noncommercial copyright infringers.’ We need not go so far as to accept his offer. The evidence of Tenenbaum’s copyright infringement easily justifies the conclusion that his conduct was egregious,” the Court wrote.

“Much of this behavior was exactly what Congress was trying to deter when it amended the Copyright Act. Therefore, we do not hesitate to conclude that an award of $22,500 per song, an amount representing 15% of the maximum award for willful violations and less than the maximum award for non-willful violations, comports with due process.”

Tenenbaum has thus far declined to comment on the decision.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

LeMay revealed that a lawfirm has written a series of letters to major Aussie ISPs asking that they hand over the personal details of individuals said to have downloaded and shared their clients’ copyright material without permission.

After confirming with several sources, Delimiter revealed that the company in question is Sydney-based law firm Marque Lawyers.

So far, several of the ISPs contacted have informed Marque that they will not be handing over the information requested. In response the law firm said it is considering using the courts to force them to do so.

Delimiter contacted Marque both by telephone and email yesterday morning requesting an interview, but when we spoke with LeMay last night nothing had yet been heard back. However, when that call does come it is likely to be an uncomfortable one.

Yesterday morning, just after the Delimiter article went live, a tipster sent TorrentFreak an interesting document. Titled “It wasn’t me, it was my flatmate! – a defense to copyright infringement?” the paper, a newsletter published by Marque themselves, details the company’s stance on file-sharing accusations.

The paper begins with a potted history of the Joel Tenenbaum case in the United States but gets the facts wrong straight from the beginning.

“You may have heard that the US Supreme Court recently refused to hear the appeal of a college student who was ordered to pay $675K in damages for illegally downloading and redistributing thousands of songs through BitTorrent,” the Marque paper begins, wrongly mentioning BitTorrent and the number of songs in the case.

The company then moves on to the big issue of the day – U.S.-based companies who write to ISPs in the hope of identifying alleged pirates so that cash settlements can be obtained. This is where it gets awkward – really awkward.

Referencing a previous case in New York, Marque notes that a court refused to hand over the personal details of Internet subscribers to the plaintiff.

“The judge, rightly in our view, agreed with the users that just because an IP address is in
one person’s name, it does not mean that that person was the one who illegally
downloaded the porn,” Marque Lawyers write.

“As the judge said, an IP address does not necessarily identify a person and so you can’t
be sure that the person who pays for a service has necessarily infringed copyright.”

The law firm then goes on to back up its assertion with scenarios in which the account holder would not be the infringer.

“For example, in an office or at home, where there is a WiFi connection, only one IP
address will be allocated to that wireless connection. This means that every user of each
device (computer, iPad, iPhone etc) connected to that WiFi connection will use the same
IP address. Even a random passerby accessing the WiFi network would be using the
same IP address,” the company explains.

“This decision makes a lot of sense to us. If it holds up, copyright owners will need to be a whole lot more savvy about how they identify and pursue copyright infringers and, perhaps, we’ve seen the end of the mass ‘John Doe’ litigation,” they conclude.

The big question is whether Marque’s clients have indeed become “more savvy” or whether they still intend to rely on IP address-only evidence. If so, the Marque Lawyers document (which can be downloaded here and also from Marque’s own server) will come in very handy for letter recipients.

If the lawfirm writing the letter doesn’t believe that the evidence is up to much, there’s no reason the recipient should either. A simple denial is going to be difficult to argue with.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The lawsuit claims that CNET’s Download.com distributed file-sharing software including uTorrent and LimeWire after they “shameless promoted” the tools for infringing uses. This week the coalition – Sugar Hill Music, et al – filed a motion for preliminary injunction that if granted would stop Download.com from continuing to distribute BitTorrent software.

But despite this aggressive action that could potentially put an end to Download.com’s streak of 65 million BitTorrent client downloads to its customers, Alki David says that he is actually grateful for file-sharing services.

Speaking with TorrentFreak the FilmOn owner said that he uses locker services such as YouSendIt for transferring edits and reviewing shows his company is working on. P2P networks, he says, also have their place.

“There is a future still for effective load balanced distribution using P2P networks without a doubt,” he explains. “I also think there is a future for live distribution of video on P2P networks.”

But of course, David’s lawsuit against Download.com has the potential to hurt a service that has done much to spread file-sharing software around the world, which in turn has assisted with its growth and development. Might a win over CNET and Download.com have a negative overall effect for P2P technologies?

“Other sites will pop up and good luck to them. The Internet is a small place and easy to navigate. However, Viacom’s CNET and its partner sites are on the one hand perpetuating file-sharing for their own gain whilst throwing the entertainment, software and literary world under the bus,” David explains.

“Viacom is the same company that lobbied for SOPA and arrests, sues and fines kids like Joel Tenenbaum hundreds of thousand of dollars for downloading a handful of songs. The same people who want to have Richard O’Dwyer extradited from the UK for doing something that in the UK is not illegal!

“Viacom is the same company that paid millions of dollars to companies like Media Defender and Artists Direct to monitor and police file-sharing whilst these companies profited from porn sites being exposed to young kids looking for other types of content,” David adds.

One thing we wanted clear up with David was a statement in this week’s motion that predicted that torrent client creators might “soon” be held secondarily liable for infringement. We asked, could that really happen as long as torrent clients aren’t promoted for infringing uses?

“I do NOT think that torrent makers should be held liable.They can distribute but not promote the illegal use of their software. Herein lies the problem. You cannot sell guns and tell people the best way to use them to kill people,” says David.

“This is the fundamental truth the judge realized. That there is not freedom of speech when you coerce people to act illegally and then help them to do so.” (see earlier ruling)

But while the battle against CBS continues, so do millions of unauthorized BitTorrent downloads, whether Download.com supplied the software or not. What does David think about, for example, The Pirate Bay, a site that he says operates with a “socio economic socio political agenda” ?

“Fine… do your thing bro. But don’t be like CNET which is to vacillate between the camps like a hooker selling herself and the entertainment world to the highest bidder. That is lies and deceit. A company as powerful as Viacom needs to be checked otherwise we really start to live the Orwellian nightmare,” David says.

So considering the huge popularity of sites such as The Pirate Bay, how can Big Media move forward in the digital age viewed through the prism of massive online file-sharing?

“I believe that music, movies and software et al is going to continue fragmenting and more people will get a shot at making entertainment for smaller margins and greater choice. I mean it’s already happened really,” David explains.

“There will be the exception of the big tentpole extravaganza but that is a highly specialized and very expensive game. There are models out there today… the free TV model…. the free movie model…. subsidized by sponsors and advertisers.”

And BitTorrent?

“Torrents are a great method of distribution,” David says, while reminding us again that CBS need to pay for what he describes as their “hypocrisy.”

Finally, it seems appropriate that when speaking to a billionaire one should ask him a billion-dollar-question. So, given a magic wand, how would David solve the piracy dilemma – try to crush torrent sites like The Pirate Bay, or take a different approach?

“I would send the ISP of the websites an invoice for a small fee (say 5 dollars) for each torrent download to give to the rights holders. The ISP would have to collect from the customer or pay it themselves,” David concludes.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The decision comes after the Supreme Court declined to look at the case on Constitutional Grounds earlier this year, and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal reinstated the original verdict a year ago. In its decision last year, the appeal court said that if a new judge assigned to the case could reduce the award again if it granted the record labels a new trial.

US District Court judge Rya Zobel ruled that the damages were proportionate given his attitude and claims he had infringed “for at least eight years, from 1999 to 2007.” He was also criticized heavily for not admitting straight away.

“In spite of the overwhelming evidence from which the jury could conclude that Tenenbaum’s activities were willful, the award of $22,500 per infringement not only was at the low end of the range – only 15% of the statutory maximum – for willful infringement, but was below the statutory maximum for non-willful infringement. Considering all of the aforementioned evidence, the jury’s damage award was not so excessive as to merit remittitur.”

The constitutional aspect of the appeal – that the damages awarded were excessive – also didn’t stand up to the 80yo Carter-administration-appointee. . Referring to the Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, she notes that these large sums are intended by Congress for this exact reason, and so dismissed that argument too.

“Given the deference afforded Congress’ statutory award determination and the public harms it was designed to address, the particular behavior of plaintiff in this case as explained above, and the fact that the award not only is within the range for wilful infringement but also below the limit for non-willful infringement, the award is neither “wholly disproportioned to the offense” nor “obviously unreasonable.” It does not offend due process.”

There has been no comment from the RIAA, Sony, or the Tenenbaum defense at this time.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

The Supreme Court has refused to hear his case. While this is not the be-all-and-end-all for the case, it’s another roadblock.

At issue was the matter of excessive damages, specifically the statutory damages that allow for between $750-$150,000 per infringement.

In their brief, Tenenbaum’s lawyer is reported by the Boston Globe as saying “This pernicious interpretation of the Copyright Act transforms every bit of cyberspace into a potentially exploding lawsuit and is sparking the development of a spam-litigation industry”. He is, of course, referring to the many copyright trolls we’ve covered in recent weeks and months.

Regardless, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, without comment.

Meanwhile the case is not over. The sole issue being referred to the Supreme Court was the constitutionality of the damages, not the merits of the case in any form.

The trial judge had already reduced the damages awarded to $65,000 before having it restored by the 1^st US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Nancy Gertner could still reduce the damages again, but in doing so the RIAA and it’s member studios can ask for a retrial. This has happened twice with Jammie Thomas in a similar case. It’s an option Tenenbaum has expressed support for in the past.

Who knows when this case, which started in 2004, will end, and how much more court time will be taken up .

Meanwhile, the real winners are the lawyers for the RIAA (and to a lesser extend the government), racking up fee’s despite having a poor record of getting any kind of money for artists.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

As of today, the case is still ongoing.

In 2009, a jury found Tenenbaum guilty of “willful infringement” and awarded damages mounting to $675,000. A year later this amount was reduced by 90% when Judge Nancy Gertner ruled that the penalty was excessive and unconstitutional. In 2011 this decision that was reversed after a new hearing at the Court of Appeals.

In yet another appeal, Tenenbaum’s legal team, headed by Harvard law professor Charles Nesson, is asking the court to reduce the $22,500 fine per song to the minimum statutory damages of $750 per song. This request is made on due process grounds.

As expected, the RIAA doesn’t agree with the request and presented its arguments to the court last Friday. But they were not alone – on the same day the Department of Justice also filed a brief with the court, backing the RIAA’s vision on the case.

In a 26-page filing the Department of Justice makes the argument that previous cases, as cited by Tenenbaum’s legal team, do not apply in this instance. It concludes that the due process grounds are not relevant yet and that the damages therefore shouldn’t be reduced before the case continues.

The due process question should only be answered when the court decides that the jury’s award of $22,500 per song is not excessive, according to the Departement of Justice.

“The only circumstance in which the Court can reach Defendant’s due process challenge at this time is if the Court first determines the jury’s statutory damages award is not excessive under the common law remittitur standard. The United States, therefore, does not believe it is necessary at this juncture to address the merits of Defendant’s constitutional claim,” the DoJ writes.

Although this is not the first time the Justice Department has become involved in an RIAA civil case, it remains unclear why they chose to intervene this time. What we do know is that the authorities are very up-to-date with the legal proceedings, as five former RIAA lawyers are now employed by the Department of Justice.

Whether these connections between the Justice Department and the RIAA have increased the likelihood of the authorities getting involved is hard to say. However, it is clear that Tenenbaum and his legal team are up against some serious resistance, and that the US authorities don’t want the student to get off that easily..

To be continued, indefinitely.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

After spending years on various educational campaigns, none of which worked, a new plan was put into motion. It involved monitoring P2P networks for infringements, unmasking the perpetrators, and then threatening to sue unless a large ‘fine’ or settlement was paid.

Although the RIAA stopped its settlement actions against US citizens some time ago, the fallout from the campaign is still felt today, with cases ongoing against Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum. However, while those Stateside are no longer targets for the RIAA’s so-called “sue-em-all” campaign, the same cannot be said of citizens in Europe.

In common with their counterparts in the gaming industry, the major labels – Universal, Sony, EMI and Warner – are all actively sending out cash settlement demands to alleged file-sharers.

For the past several years, 2011 included, the labels have been pursuing cash settlements from German Internet users for the alleged sharing of music from dozens of major stars artists. A small sample is shown below:

Universal

Amy Winehouse, Blink 182, Bon Jovi, Eminem, Florence And The Machine, Jamiroquai, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Take That, The Black Eyed Peas, The Rolling Stones.

Settlement amount demanded: 1,200 euros

Sony

AC/DC, Alexandra Burke, Alica Keys, Avril Lavigne, Backstreet Boys, Beyonce, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Foo Fighters, Kasabian, Kesha, Kings of Leon, Leona Lewis, Michael Jackson, Ozzy Osbourne, Pink, Pitbull, R. Kelly, Shakira, The Strokes.

Settlement amount demanded: Up to 950 euros

EMI

Bryan Ferry, Coldplay, David Guetta, Depeche Mode, Good Charlotte, Gorillaz, Katy Perry, Snoop Dogg, U2

Settlement amount demanded: Up to 1,200 euros

Warner

Of the four labels, Warner appears to be least active, particularly when chasing settlements on behalf of major acts. Warner’s activities appear to be limited to local artists of limited international appeal.

Settlement amount demanded: Up to 1,200 euros

Although these labels are playing a major part in the settlement business, they are not doing so in isolation. Dozens of other labels are acting in their own right including RoadRunner Records, Ministry of Sound and Pink Floyd Music.

As previously reported, getting payments from Internet users in Germany is trivial since the law there requires the accused to prove their innocence (rather than rightsholders prove guilt) and holds account holders responsible for the actions of others.

So, despite their recent protestations in response to findings from YouHaveDownloaded, the RIAA would be found liable had they been judged by German standards.

Although hundreds of thousands of people are currently being targeted for settlements in the United States for sharing adult titles, currently the major labels and movie studios there aren’t pursuing the strategy locally. That, however, could all change at the flick of a switch.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

His case has been dragging on for half a decade already. In 2009, a jury found Tenenbaum guilty of “willful infringement” and awarded damages mounting to $675,000.

July last year judge Nancy Gertner ruled that the penalty was excessive and unconstitutional and the jury-awarded damages were subsequently reduced by 90%, a decision that was reversed two months ago after a new hearing at the Court of Appeals. And this week the case moved forward again.

“The defendant seeks an en banc hearing on one ground: that it is unconstitutional to instruct a jury that it can return an unconstitutionally excessive award,” Harvard law professor Charles Nesson now writes to the court.

Nesson, who along with a group of students defends Tenenbaum, claims that it was unconstitutional for the judge to allow the jury to award damages that she later found to be unconstitutionally high.

“To instruct the jury that it may ascribe an award in a range of up to $4,500,000 against a noncommercial copyright infringer is punitive, excessive, not authorized by statute, and a denial of due process. Indeed, it is difficult to find the right word,” the petition reads.

“The trial judge misinstructed the jury that it could legally ascribe an award 67 times what she herself later found to be the legally permissible constitutional maximum. For each of thirty separately listed songs, the verdict form directed the jury to fill in a blank answering the question, ‘[W]hat damages do you award the Plaintiff for this copyrighted work, from $750 to $150,000?’: This was error, plain and simple.”

Tenenbaum’s legal team is asking for a rehearing before the full court in the hope of getting the fine reduced or thrown out altogether, as they argue that the RIAA’s campaign was not warranted in the first place.

“The defendant has challenged as unconstitutional the use of federal law and process to threaten catastrophic fines against the generation of kids who were downloading and sharing music peer-to-peer. The massive campaign of lawsuits initiated by the recording industry against people who copied music for personal use and never sold or considered selling it in any commercial way was entirely unprecedented,” the petition reads.

In an interview last year Tenenbaum described himself as someone with a passion for music, who paid for music, perhaps even more than the average consumer. For him, file-sharing was a means to discover new bands at a time where there were few legal alternatives online.

“I often have bought music as a result of the free exploration I’ve done. In that respect, I’m much like the average downloader, who actually spends more money on music than people who don’t download at all,” he said.

Although the RIAA stopped pursuing casual file-sharers years ago, for the music industry group this case is now a matter of principle. They are paying much more in lawyer fees than they will ever be able to get back from Tenenbaum, but they feel an example must be set.

To be continued, indefinitely.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.

But in July 2010, the severe punishment handed out to the Boston student was in the spotlight.

Judge Nancy Gertner ruled in Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum that the awarded damages were both excessive and unconstitutional. She slashed the jury-awarded damages by 90% to $67,500 – $2,250 for each of 30 infringed works.

Unhappy, Tenenbaum lodged an appeal, as did the RIAA, and in April this year both parties were back in court before Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch, Judge Juan R. Torruella, and Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson at the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal in Boston.

In its decision released yesterday, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals reversed U.S. District Court Judge Nancy Gertner’s decision. Although the appeal court did not necessarily disagree with the response to the constitutional question, it found that Judge Nancy Gertner should not have considered it.

“Citing the doctrine of ‘constitutional avoidance,’ which dictates that courts should avoid tackling constitutional issues unnecessarily, the court found that Judge Gertner should first have considered using a procedure called ‘remittitur‘,” explains EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry.

“Under this procedure, she could have lowered the damages amount, but, if the record companies chose not to accept the new amount, they could have asked for a new trial.”

“A decision on a constitutional due process question was not necessary, was not inevitable, had considerable impermissible consequences, and contravened the rule of constitutional avoidance,” wrote Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch in her decision.

“That rule had more than its usual import in this case because there were a number of difficult constitutional issues which should have been avoided but were engaged.”

Noting that this has been a difficult case, the Court found against Tenenbaum and in favor of the plaintiffs, Sony BMG.

“We have, inter alia, rejected Tenenbaum’s arguments that the Copyright Act is unconstitutional under Feltner, 523 U.S. 340, that the Act exempts so-called ‘consumer copying’ infringement from liability and damages, that statutory damages under the Act are unavailable without a showing of actual harm, that the jury’s instructions were in error, and his various trial error claims,” wrote Judge Lynch.

“We vacate the district court’s due process damages ruling and reverse the reduction of the jury’s statutory damages award. We reinstate the jury’s award of damages and remand for consideration of plaintiff’s motion for common law remittitur based on excessiveness.”

So yet again, in common with the case against Jamie Thomas, Joel Tenenbaum’s case grinds on while serving no obvious purpose.

Source: TorrentFreak, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing and anonymous VPN services.