Lukewarm take: Copyright is based on mass freedom infringement. If you publish something, you should be prepared for others to reproduce it and take it without credit. This is particularly true on mediums like the internet, where the net cost of copying data is effectively nothing.

I'll entertain arguments from either side of the infringement debate, but this opinion piece reads more like a reactionary defense of copyright rather than a measured response. These damages are... not that significant. It feels like Big Tech swooping in to defend Open Source not because they care about freedom, but because without it they would have no software. But instead of copyleft, it's copyright. Hmm.