Instead of that, the author could just talk about why interlacing was used in video in the past. No need to bring any DRM context in the discussion. The tone of the article is what's offending, not the technical details.
Also this part:
> seems like there is a problem — let’s solve it for fun and profit
It's like saying: "Police state struggles with policing measures. Let's help it for fun and profit". I hope you get the idea why this can sound offending.