While replacing the global DNS infrastructure would be an expensive pain in the ass, it's preferable to allowing the Internet to be broken in order to serve the myopic vision of a dying industry.
You say dying industry, but as the article points out, the film industry is booming.
To be more exact, top-down industry representation is dying. Groups like the MPAA just aren't really needed any more and their support is drying up, slowly but surely.
In any case, as you point out, I think the challenge to DNS is a good thing, much like NSA over-reach has been for encryption. Something like DNS 2.0 can't really grow until it is has been sufficiently stressed to the breaking point.
Just had an awesome idea. How about we make a law saying that safes cannot have doors on them. Think about what people put in safes: criminal stuff! Obviously! There are probably hundreds of kidnapped kids locked in safes RIGHT NOW!
"Despite the fact that the investigation has been widely condemned by legal experts and Constitutional scholars—former Times general counsel James Goodale said Holder might as well be investigating WikiLeaks for “a conspiracy to commit journalism”—recent court documents show the grand jury is still active."
Too bad we don't have a constitutional scholar in charge over the DoJ that could step in and make sure what they are doing is constitutional.
Wait! What? Obama is a constitutional scholar?!? WTF!?!
I don't want to make it another wikipedia (because it definitely has its issues), but it seems like the OED could have the menial work done by crowd-sourcing.
If you wanted to have a bit more control, develop a github-like control environment where people can make commits and then the experts review. Others could vote on the commits so the experts could review the important/popular first.
Building something like Ubuntu would probably take as long as the OED if they didn't use tools like launchpad and github.