Specifically, re: 2), the way that was pointed out was condescending, as is your implication that contacting support - which is one of the few publicly visible contact points - is "clearly" "unorthodox".
The "Seriously, calling the tech support line for a copyright infringement?" parts sounds like it could be calling out the author for doing something you feel should have been the obviously wrong to them.
I can't argue against having that part in there -- I wasn't personally offended I, and it's important to give what you write your own voice -- but it is good to know the kind of reactions that your writing will illicit.
(Just a side story -- I once posted a comment on a forum that was entirely meant to be sarcastic. Someone missed my sarcasm and responded with what turned out to be valuable information. Since then, I've tried my best to strip anything that might be unnecessarily negative out of my comments, but I'm sure stuff slips through....)
Funny, I often do ignore sarcasm if it serves no useful purpose. People sometimes get offended by answers they get or are just
dumbfounded. Personally, I'm more often than not irritated when someone uses it as it tends to derail discussions. This thread is a nice example ;).
1) Apologised upfront for giving bad news;
2) Pointed out the clearly unorthodox nature of contacting the wrong communication channel (tech support for a non-tech support problem);
3) Pointed out the correct communication channel;
4) Provided information of what to send to the channel in item 3); and
5) Gave the address of where to send the claim.
Can you tell me which part was condescending? As far as I see it, the parent commenter when above and beyond; they went out of their way to help.