The explanation doesn't make sense. Of course the HTML code of a web site should be copyrighted. The issue is whether this implies it should be consumed in a c

The explanation doesn't make sense. Of course the HTML code of a web site should be copyrighted. The issue is whether this implies it should be consumed in a certain way (ie rendered by a certain browser), which obviously should be a no. And the other issue is whether a plugin or "browser" that modifies it (in the client) should be considered to be publishing a modified version. That should obviously also be a no. From the article it is not clear if any of those concerns have even been addressed properly.