Depending on who you are, being non-responsive can be seen as a feature or a bug. That's "fine" or whatever when you are talking about requests for documents for news reporting or other not-as-time-sensitive stuff. (It isn't fine, but let's disregard that for the moment)
My main concern would be whether this is the same system they use for searching during actual, pressing investigations. It would be very disturbing if in the course of investigating something like the OKC bombing they missed connections and evidence because they were doing these same sorts of half-assed queries.
Heck, who knows - maybe that is a feature, not a bug, as well.
But in this specific case, I think the whole issue is that Google is saying that Hood and the MPAA were working in cahoots and Hood and the MPAA are saying, "No way, dude!!!" Meanwhile they are saying that the communication between an attorney and their client is privileged and shouldn't be disclosed. All to say, the reason they don't want it disclosed is the exact reason they are being sued by Google in the first place.
Basically, this sounds like a last ditch effort to stay the execution.
But it will cost $X per year for 20 years without monitoring and treatment. Do you think that monitoring and treatment will cost $4X per year?
In 2010, the average was right around $30k for a high security inmate. So if we spent up to $120k per year for 5 years, we'd be better off. That is basically giving that guy his own psychologist for 5 years. You have to imagine we could have one psychologist treat at least a half dozen of these dudes per year.
I don't think he is doing funny business here. If he was calling Marco Rubio "Marco Boobio" instead, then I would say you have a point.
This is satire which typically is NOT funny. Mass surveillance is a serious issue and Marco Rubio is actually the one making light of it. His meh-its-no-big-deal attitude is a problem and by satirically pointing out that Marco should be subject to it, he is bring the seriousness of the situation to the forefront.
I'm going to agree with the dev as well. Unleashing Starbound on your bro because you are both gushing over it on the phone is way different than buying an unknown game that is unfinished on someone who may or may not be interested in the first place.
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.