It is not at all clear if Mozilla could be held legally liable for its extension, but it is clear that as a group located within the US it is generally not a good idea to get "cutesy" with the DHS and the DOJ.
Mike, et al.,
I think what the AC is referring to here is the likelihood that DHS is seriously wondering if they could get away with "seizing" mozilla.org/com now that Mozilla has publicly pushed back against DHS. Asking questions privately, even though they didn't get a response, allows DHS to forget about it, and brush it under the rug. Making it public puts egg on DHS's collective face, and makes Mozilla a bigger target.
Is it right? NO
Does it change the threat to Mozilla? YES
Granted, making it public MIGHT make it harder for DHS to retaliate against Mozilla. And then again, it might not. So far DHS hasn't appeared to care about public opinion (or legal opinions for that matter) with this little game they are playing. Their egos might just feel they have to power to take down a major internet software company for allowing the circumvention of their highly questionable, yet still in their eyes "legal" seizures.
All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if mafiaafire.com is seized in the next round. It would make DHS look petty, and it appears (from text on the MAFIAAFire site) that not only is MAFIAAFire taunting DHS into doing it, but it looks like they have a backup site ready to go as well. So that seizure would be moot. Nevertheless, DHS still might do it because again, everything they've done so far they believe to be legal.
Part of me really wants to see DHS "seize" mozilla.org/com. That would be a big enough site, with a big enough budget to get this thing finished once and for all.
Doesn't Omega's argument nullify their standing to begin with? Omega is arguing that "first sale doctrine doesn't apply since the watches weren't manufactured under US Copyright Law." If that is so, than other parts of US Copyright Law don't apply either.
To put it another way, if part of the US Copyright Law doesn't apply, then wouldn't all parts of the US Copyright Law not apply? Thus, there's nothing stopping someone from manufacturing an exact duplicate.
(layman's view of law here)
After all, you can't pick and choose what parts of a law you want to follow. Either it applies, or it doesn't.
We ran into a problem with Sprint wireless redirecting all DNS traffic to their servers. So instead of blocking it, their servers were/are masquerading as the server you're trying to reach, and responding as such.
We figured this out when we were trying to setup dynamic DNS. Any updates going to the server (over port 53) were never making it to the server, yet the client was establishing a connection, to what ended up being the Sprint servers.