I'm confused by this. This guy has publicly admitted, in detail, that he started a site specifically in order to facilitate copyright infringement. Regardless of his view of his own "intention", this is a violation. He's enabled piracy and has stated his specific intent to do so, and he is not a government agent.

What if someone started a club where drugs were sold and then publicly announced a year later that is why they started the club? Except it was supposed to be a citizen's sting operation? And he was trying to get a payout from the feds by providing information? Does he think that provides immunity? My guess is they'd nail him to the wall while laughing at him.

Hasn't this guy opened himself up to legal action, both governmental and private, by his statements? He has stated publicly that he enabled "illegal" activities IN ORDER TO MAKE A PROFIT.

What about Nuke Piracy's complicence through acquisition?

On another note, that is in no way an analysis or conversation starter, or even constructive: what a prick.