Rage-fueled snark is good for catharsis, but not for communication. It's also unprofessional.

People should not buy into his weird alternate set of terms.

He should stop playing with terms on this stuff. Asset and liability already have clear meanings. There's no value in his alternate definitions.

"People might disagree on this, therefore I'll choose it to stop them from arguing" is such a stupid trend among some software developers. Ideally we avoid anything written by people like that.

The weird status of public domain work with copyrighted elements led to a fairly recent "cleaned" version of it made with the musical elements removed/replaced.

It's possible the story credits may be challenged at some point in the future, although with any luck by that point the original story will have also fallen out of copyright protection.

Not how it works.

Practically all those products would still be available digitally because anything else would be too great an opportunity for vendors to avoid. DRM is a scourge. It is a net minus for consumers.

The "being banned" should be possible because the apps should not be able to find out.

No, we need a hard line against DRM. These companies need to accept that, just like in the age of VCR, people might record whatever they want. They'll still show up because they won't be able to pass up on the profits, and customers should keep control over their devices.

Apps should not be able to block or prevent screenshots. It's the user's device. The user decides policy.

Nope; the standards are the basis of proper communication between websites and browsers. We're right to keep pointing at those standards as a way to define proper or improper behaviour.

When you provide APIs, you decide what to expose and what not to, with most of the time a published/external API being at least some level of commitment to keep it stable longer-term. Having well-defined APIs can make maintaining software (both the caller and the called) easier.

Moving from a "the entire guts of our application are exposed" to "we're going to have a set of APIs we'll try to keep reasonably stable and that's what you should use" is reasonable.

There isn't enough overlap between Netscape 4 and modern browsers in terms of things they can support to make that reasonable. Government sites would be crappy, backwards things if they went by that metric.

I can sympathise somewhat with the spirit of your comment, just not the specifics.

Allowing extensions to do that is a nightmare for software maintenance; having well-defined interfaces for extensions makes refactoring possible with breaking things being more predictable and less frequent.

"Render things properly" means following standards, not following Google.

Browser markets are not exactly perfect competition.