At first I thought you were trolling, then I saw the downvotes and realised, Its' more of a misunderstanding.
I think you need to read my post carefully. Then read your own again. Thank you for confirming what I suspected.
"The login to the domain registrar was not hacked" ... I did not say it was, I wrote *If my* login to the registrar of the domains *I* own was hacked. The DNS could return any IP address desired.
(as an analogy to cache poisoning, pointing a domain to any desired address)
"Secondly, if they have successfully replaced the page that a user sees when pointing their (no doubt Internet Explorer) browser at www.ourfilmsareshitbutwewantthegovernmenttomakeyoupayusanyway.com then the site has been effectively hacked. "
They haven't physically replaced any pages, they created another one hosted somewhere else that appears to be provided by the MPAA. Now If I had said the server on which this site is hosted was not compromised you would agree?
The site as in the online presence of ... Yes it was hacked. The site and it's actual pages as is physically hosted NO not hacked.
All this is semantics. My interpretation of site is the real physical data and the hosting platform.
Your interpretation is what the user sees.
We could debate for a long time whether or not DNS cache poisoning is website hacking, I personally don't think it is.
So I stand by what I originally stated.
"Anonymous plants pirate flag on MPAA website" is a misleading title because the "hackers" went no where near the MPAA website.