I think your summary suffers from a bit of hyperbole ... just sending stuff to Cali residents wouldn't be enough. Affiliates benefit (short term) from sending spam, and the parent company (companies) have agreements and financial information for the offenders. The root company is not prevented from taking action to recoup costs from the offending affiliate (in fact, they should be encouraged to).
Holding root vendors liable does two things. First, it prevents vendors from affiliate hopping—that is, moving from one badly behaved affiliate to another. Second, if provides consumers, who typically have less relative power in these adversarial relationships, with an easy to identify entity that should hold some responsibility in solving the problem of spam. Tracking down vendors is easy; just follow the credit card payment. Tracking down spammers is hard (and often impossible, due to overseas connections).
No, the article was correct. I too "checked" (via dnsstuf.com):
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Dates: Created 03-jan-2007 Updated 04-jan-2011 Expires 03-jan-2012
DNS Servers: NS51.DOMAINCONTROL.COM NS52.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Info for both .net and .com ere the same. However, if you follow the whois information and look it up on GoDaddy, it does show it expired ... until you grab the underlying whois info from them, which shows the 2012 date. So, GoDaddy's data is a mess, but the whois seems consistent from multiple sources.
Note that nothing actually changes about the movie. When a copyright system punishes people based on how people classify a movie, that seems like the system isn't working.
Yet isn't that exactly what occurs for a parody exception, which you're in favor of? Indeed, most of the exceptions hinge on how we classify some new work without changing the work itself. Although I often agree with your arguments, I'm not sure the line of reasoning at the end was thought through.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Tom.