From the comments section of that article:<p>Original Permalink to the comment:<p><a href="http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/28303586" rel="nofollow">http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/28303586</a><p>>> This wasn't a "high-profile" website! Do some research! Alexa ranks these cowboys as being the 234,734th most popular website on the 'net.<p>This was a small time site, this is a small time outfit who are trying to get into the anti-piracy business by using a nothing site who nobody used to generate news (and business). Congratulations on being duped!<p><a href="http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/28303653" rel="nofollow">http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/28303653</a><p>>> I have a blog (no I'm not telling you the address, I like to post anonymously!), it gets about 300-500 hits a day, I'm 299,749th on alexa btw. So this "high profile" website you just generated a nothing story about gets, at most, about 1000 hits per day. Real big time!
CAUTION: if you follow links from that article, prepare yourself for some extremely fucked up shit. I was wondering how CashWhore doxxed so many people, so I followed the link to WJunction, then clicked on one of the threads. There was a link to a site with young girls without much clothing. I had to close my browser immediately. Just wanted to put that out there, if anyone is browsing from work or doesn't have a strong stomach.
Looks like a failed publicity stunt to me, borderline link farm. There's hardly any posts on this forum -- a mere hundred threads spread over dozen sub-forums, plus a bot-populated "News" section. No telling how much of the threads are just seed posts by forum founders. Moreover, polls -- a popular fixture of forums -- seem deserted.<p>Any damage dealt to piracy scene will be minimal, and the `NukePiracy LLC' will soon be forgotten.
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>What about Nuke Piracy's complicence through acquisition?<p>On another note, that is in no way an analysis or conversation starter, or even constructive: what a prick.
“I work for Nuke Piracy now, this is very bad for anyone profiting from piracy,” proclaimed WDF.<p>Except WDF really did profit from piracy by literally selling everyone else out. Ironic.
Aside : Did anyone notice that stephen's email address is hidden in the URL. These analytics tracking programs should really anonymize things a bit better.
I can't help but laugh. I always joke with my irc buds that we are chatting in a NSA honeypot. Maybe it's actually true? lol I think I'm actually disillusioned now. Just another example of why you should never put information you wouldn't want someone to know on the internet.
Don't want to risk downloading from a honeypot?<p>Download encrypted and anonymously (from friends-of-friends-of-friends-of-friends-of... you get the picture): <a href="http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/" rel="nofollow">http://retroshare.sourceforge.net/</a>