Duplicating the functionality is not a violation of copyright. He admits he's created similar functionality, that's not illegal. If you come at a problem in a different language, the methodology (and therefor the code) you use to recreate that functionality will be different.
Nor is duplicating functionality (with different code) inherently going to expose vulnerabilities in the original. They're written differently and will have different vulnerabilities.
I agree. These filters aren't good enough. And they'll never be good enough as long as they continue to block any amount of non-infringing content. And as long as they're not good enough, they shouldn't be used.
I've had to take a polygraph for work before. They couldn't get a passing result, so I ended up taking it like, four times. Take it til you pass is not a security measure, unless you admit that it's just a prop for a normal interview.
I admit, as a software developer, I spend eight hours of work a day on the internet (some of it is even work related). I then go home, and hop online to relax (Youtube channels like SciShow, Veritasium, and MinutePhysics being cheaper and more entertaining than the cable TV service I cancelled years ago). Clearly I am hopelessly addicted to the internet, and belong back in the psych ward. Obviously going home and watching the latest episodes of whatever the current reality tv craze, or the half hour of "infotainment" the 24 hour news channels recycle all day would be far healthier.
Your reason by analogy is based on a faulty analogy. This is more like someone looking through a real estate agent's listings and then telling a friend about places for sale, then sending to the agent to purchase.
So, in a shocking twist, the search engine returns what you ask for. Clearly, we shouldn't go after the people providing the material. Clearly, we shouldn't go after the people receiving the material. Obviously, we should go after the streetmap telling the druggies how to get to the buy.
You're partially right. This is to piss people off. But they're not going to get pissed at Warner. They're going to get pissed at Netflix. The average person is terrible at following causal chains. Nor are they likely to realize it's Warner pulling it's movies without going looking for it. They'll just see "Netflix used to give me this movie, now it doesn't. Netflix sucks."
Warner wants to drive people out of VOD entirely by ruining their trust that it will continue to provide value.
There comes a point, in any argument that runs long enough, where the best thing you can do is shut up. That it's the best thing doesn't mean shutting up is a good thing, though. A company interested in maintaining a good relationship with its customer base (EA has demonstrated that it is not one of these) should not let things get to the point where fans look at anything coming out of the company is either a lie, wrong, or meaningless pacifying.
Actually, you can be added to a group without any action on your part, I was added to several by friends (Admittedly, most of them were things I didn't object to being in). I suspect there's an option somewhere in the privacy settings to change that, but I'll be damned if I can find it.