I wonder why anyone would use such a passive-aggressive construction in their writing. Believe it or not, most people do not study copyright law for years in o

I wonder why anyone would use such a passive-aggressive construction in their writing. Believe it or not, most people do not study copyright law for years in order to develop opinions about what activity should be infringing. Really? Anyway, I don't think you can disregard the point by pointing out (quite correctly IMO) that copyright law is a pile of crap. I think in general, Internet mobs are pro-piracy of songs/movies, but in this case these people saw something massively wrong with what is basically piracy of someone's article. Staying away from the legal side, what moral/ad-hoc/intuitive basis do you think the people had for making this distinction?