[clammer]

I think we're talking about 2 different things here.

Such licensed artwork (images, icons, etc...) that become part of a commercial application are different than same artwork displayed in an application.

The first is embedded by the commercial developer, the second is initiated and viewed by the user. Otherwise, by just viewing such licensed material in a commercial browser, you'd be breaking the license of the artwork. It's a catch 22 that makes no sense.

Again, the developer is selling a tool to better view content (not selling content). The tool in this case is software. Apple is doing the same, but their tool is hardware and no one complains.