I think the primary benefit is plausible deniability. Such a service wouldn't make it impossible to be legally targeted, but it could make it sufficiently unple

I think the primary benefit is plausible deniability. Such a service wouldn't make it impossible to be legally targeted, but it could make it sufficiently unpleasant that they decide to target a more brazen offender. It's a bit like fleeing from a bear; you don't need to be the fastest runner, you just have to be a little faster than the slowest person. Having the server in someone else's name provides a slight buffer, but is hardly insurmountable. If the server belongs to a company in another country then that could make it difficult for a local court to issue a subpoena that's enforceable in said company's jurisdiction. If you are one of a dozen users of a given server then that could hypothetically make it harder to prove which user was the infringer. All of that is obviously hypothetical, I am not a lawyer, and I certainly don't have expertise in international law. These are simply the musings of my groggy brain first thing in the morning. Anyone who isn't half asleep care to weigh in?