Except that on a very real level, a website is a collection of resources along with instructions about how to assemble them. This is like getting upset at someone for putting together a Lego set "wrong."

Legos are specifically designed such that the instructions are optional. The Lego Group wants it that way. Funny you mention them, because they've been suing for trademark and copyright infringement for years.

And this is why we can't have nice things. Also playing devil's advocate, but there are days in which I think the DRM proponents actually have a point.

When all of your digital devices will be DRM enabled and controlled by means of all sorts of trusted computing techniques, when you'll no longer own or be able to tweak anything, when VLC and Firefox won't be able to play your media anymore, when the police will knock on your door because you downloaded tcpdump, remember this moment.

> I could argue that it's my website and I get to decide what features I want to be usable.

Sure, and you could also argue that it's your website so you'll decide if you want to use a self-signed certificate, or lots of popups, or auto-play video with audio. That doesn't mean the browser has to listen.

You could argue that, but the user who owns the web browser has all the power in this situation. It's an arms race the website operator cannot win.

Curious to see whether websites will start using DRM features for this purpose.

Also, as long as changing the User-Agent header is recognized by a jury as impersonation, I can imagine that some country with retarded lawmakers [1] could require that browsers display the website the way the website owner wanted it.

[1] a.k.a. where copyright owners are allowed many things over the citizen