Well they have stated on the record that they don't really hope to block all file sharing - they just want to make it as hard, impractical, frustrating, and inefficient as possible.
So poisoning downloads, breaking dns, domains, uploading fakes, scaring, suing, intimidating, etc, is their chosen strategy. War of attrition?
To be honest, I absolutely love what the media industry has done in their "war of attrition". The mass media's exposure of all the underhanded tactics they have employed has turned what might have been a quiet war of attrition into a public spectacle. The rootkits on audio CDs; the suing of dead grandmothers, children with single-digit-ages, and single moms for millions of dollars in "damages"; the "MAFIAA" tactics of knocking on people's doors and threatening them; all of this has contributed to the more rapid demise of the outdated, outmoded, and frankly outclassed business practices employed by the media control industry for decades. "DRM" has come to mean "Digital Restrictions Management", rather than "Digital Rights Management" in the public eye, and has mostly been destroyed as an effective means of restricting the distribution of licensed content.
The Streisand effect has made the ability to "steal" media ubiquitous, and there is practically no way to pull the plug on it, without destroying or crippling the greatest communications tool ever invented (the internet).
The general public is becoming more aware that the "pirates" are able to access the restricted content freely, in ways that are not possible for mere "paying consumers", and the backlash has been a sight to behold. The new "downloadable digital copy" is a good example of the media industry's lackluster response, as it only works if you have a Windows-based PC to download and view it on. Sorry, Linux and Mac, you guys need to pay the Microsoft tax or you don't get to (legally) transfer your (legally-purchased) digital media to your digital playback device.
My response to the previous paragraph's tactic is to simply rip the movie anyway - Fair Use laws guarantee me the right to make a backup copy, and I see no issue with having my original disc be my backup, with the digital version being the "in-use" copy on my media server. Theoretically, a pressed disc will last for decades, if not centuries, assuming you keep it in a vibration-less, cool, and dark place - the shelves and cabinets in my half-finished (and furnished) "shed" mostly qualify as exactly that. The peace of mind I enjoy because I don't have to worry about one of my friends' kids smashing, scratching, or otherwise injuring a plastic disc is well worth the effort of spending an hour with my newly purchased (from the $5 bin at the bigbox store, or even cheaper from the local pawn shop) media in a linux machine's optical drive.
Intellectual Property law is on the verge of being reformed in one way or another, and as far as practical implications, those laws may as well not even be on the books. I don't personally "steal" music and movies (unless you consider my "format shifted backup" of my legally-purchased media to be "theft"), but I know many people who do, and they do it with practical impunity. There is such a huge non-profit black market for movies now that (I am told) there is typically a BluRay rip available the same day the movie releases in the theaters (I'm assuming it's generated from a screener, or somehow lifted from the production-room floor, so to speak).
I understand the frustration and panic displayed by the media industry - they didn't pay enough attention to the rapid rise of technology, and their business model is now obsolete. They're still arranging the deck chairs and bailing with cocktail glasses, but the ship is most assuredly sinking. Unlike many proponents of "piracy", I don't think this is a completely good thing... Once "Big Money" loses interest in the media industry because it's not profitable enough to deal with anymore, I am concerned about what level of entertainment quality will rise from the ashes. On the other hand, the media industry has been ripping off the artists for as long as anyone can remember, so maybe they've just "had it coming" for long enough that no one will miss them. I am aware of many "professional" artists who have set aside the traditional media sales methods, and moved to "pay what you think it's worth" for direct downloads, etc, so maybe there is enough momentum that the artists will once again be in control of their own careers once the industry has "died".
I'm not against IP laws in toto, by the way - I simply disagree with their current implementation. Music recorded before I was born won't be in the public domain until after I am dead, and so I understand some (most?) people's disinclination to wait for the desired information to reach the point where they can have it for free. As an example, the copyright on "Happy Birthday" won't expire for nearly another 20 years... is there anyone in the US that hasn't at least heard, if not "publicly performed" that particular work?
From the Snopes article:
The Chicago-based music publisher Clayton F. Summy Company, working with Jessica Hill, published and copyrighted "Happy Birthday" in 1935. Under the laws in effect at the time, the Hills' copyright would have expired after one 28-year term and a renewal of similar length, falling into public domain by 1991. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so under current law the copyright protection of "Happy Birthday" will remain intact until at least 2030.
The original implementation of patent/copyright legislation, which wasn't nationwide until 1790, specified a maximum term of 28 years. This is still a bit long, considering the current level of technology, but is much more reasonable than our current period of 95 years from date of publication or 70 years from the author's death. As an example of the ridiculousness of current copyright legislation, consider Disney's "Mickey Mouse" character - is there anyone, anywhere, that both has electricity available to them and does not recognize that character? "Mickey Mouse" was created in 1928 - which makes him 83 years old. "Mickey Mouse" will not become public domain until at least 2023. Admittedly, even then he will still be trademarked, but my point is that this "Intellectual Property" has been protected (vigilantly and zealously) for nearly a century, despite the ubiquity of the name and likeness in homes across the globe.
Intellectual Property deserves to be protected for a short period of time, so that the original creator can profit from their own blood, sweat, and tears. On the other hand, that "short period of time" should be closer to 10 years than 100. Otherwise, the works in question will likely be irrelevant by the time they are released into the public domain, and thus them actually reaching public domain is a futile and wasted effort. As an example, Windows 9x will be copyrighted until at least 2090, given current legislation - there is practically no chance that the computing devices in use at that time will have enough resemblance to the x86 architecture for anyone to learn anything of more than historical value from that source code (assuming the source code ever makes it to the public eye). The company that produced the software product in 1995, with another version in 1998, hasn't supported any product using that kernel since 2006 - why isn't the source for that product in the public domain right now?
As an example of the detrimental effects we are currently experiencing as a result of the previous paragraph's example, try opening an MS Office95 Word document with MSWord2007 - watch the error message appear, and wonder why "backwards compatibility" should even be an issue for a text document.
Nothing has entered public domain in the United States since 1923. Absolutely nothing. We have managed to legislate ourselves into a self-enforced "dark ages". Patents and copyrights have turned a once-flourishing home-brew programming sector into paranoid corporate sweat shops, with IP lawyers raking in record profits as the companies attempt to exert control over one another instead of innovating. Not only is this detrimental to society in general, but it is in direct contravention to the original stated goals of the legislation introducing intellectual property protections - The current United States IP laws are unconstitutional in practice, if not in intent. Is it any wonder the American populace is ignoring the law, with some even actively seeking to subvert or destroy it? The world has the same issue, and thus we have places like "The Pirate Bay", dedicated to staying just legal enough to continue operating. If it weren't for the current IP legislation issues, "The Pirate Bay" wouldn't exist - we'd all be using google, bing, or yahoo for the purpose of finding new media (and quite possibly purchasing the media from legitimate channels, instead of adding ".torrent" to the search terms).
Samsung was banned from selling their Android tablets in Australia. Apple has been banned from selling iPhones and iPads in Germany. Companies are spending millions suing each other for "infringing 'look and feel'" instead of spending that money developing new products. In the 15th century, humans had the Catholic Church with its Inquisitions and Crusades causing fear and tyranny, with the accompanying persecution of scholars and scientists (for example, the Catholic Church only publicly accepted that the world revolves around the sun in 1992). In the early 21st century, humans are having to deal with persecution by a new religious order, similarly motivated by profit, greed, and self-importance: the media (control) industry.
In short, IP laws need to be fixed, and the "war of attrition" practiced by the media industry has been more of a factor in their declining sales than "piracy" ever had a chance to be. Here's to their war.