Ok, first I've mis-remembered what the Dunning-Krugger effect is. I was referring to something else entirely. I was saying I was suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect and I was referring to a different psychological effect by that name.

You can frankly argue the real Dunning-Kruger effect applies regardless, because people are radically over-estimating their cognitive ability to understand the law and judge which situations have violated what laws.

Now second, exactly how am I defending the studio by saying they haven't committed the specific crime of 'Entrapment'? That's just stating a legal fact, not "shilling" for the studio. I'm not defending the actions they've taken or their general moral character, I'm only saying what they've done isn't that specific crime of which people are accusing them.

Third, this part:

They're seeding a movie that OTHERWISE WOULDNT BE SEEDED, in hopes that people download DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE

is not clear from the article. You're making a big, big assumption here that Universal actually created the torrent and it wouldn't exist without them. Studios have connected to and logged existing torrents plenty of times before, what gives you this certainty the studio actually made and uploaded the torrent this time rather than observing one that was already there?

Even if they had created the torrent, it probably would not be entrapment, which again is all we're talking about here. Universal could create the opportunity for the crime and allow people to commit the crime, that would not mean Universal caused people to commit the crime. Therefore they would not have entrapped anyone. The actual ethical and legal problem might be that Universal is effectively attempting to investigate crime themselves by running a honeypot, which they probably can't do because they're not law enforcement.

But by all means continue spouting off about how I'm "skeezy" and "shilling" for the "multi billion dollar company".