Just my 2 cents: Locating the warez sites should be the most difficult part of the job. As Anton has retained an attorney, it should be pretty simple to generate a form cease-and-desist letter to the ISPs at issue. Once an ISP knows about warez activity on their servers, it behooves them to boot the offenders, from a legal standpoint. Of course, the bandits can always move to another server. Anton might ask his counsel whether, if the bandits are domestic, as these seem to be, whether it might be appropriate to get an ex parte seizure warrant. It is not unheard of for intellectual property firms to get such a warrant (ex parte meaning without notice to the target), and simply seize the offending machinery. Wouldn't you like to see the faces of some of these folk when you turn up on their door step and take their computer? A warez bandit without a computer is a chastened warez bandit, I'll wager. And I would also bet that word would get around not to F with Anton or his lawyer. As for the Napster issue, that case has not taken a long time because the artists have had to show that they own the copyrights. In fact, that probably took almost none of the time, as I would bet that the songs are all registered in the Copyright Office, and the ownership of all, or almost all, of the recordings themselves is probably documented either in the Copyright Office or in contracts retained by the record labels. Rather, the Napster litigation has been lengthy because: (1) most litigation is lengthy; and (2) the copyright issues in the case are profound. The federal appellate court that recently ruled in the case also held that VCRs violated copyright law. The US Supreme Court disagreed. The US Supreme Court may well take an appeal in the Napster case, though they may not disagree with the lower courts in this case, as Napster is not quite the same as home taping on a VCR.