Nah, don't bother reading it. The importance of Benjamin's essay has been vastly overrated by academic art theorists. As proof I would point out that the very first image in the linked article is Hokusai's iconic "Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji" which is of course a woodblock print (i.e., a "mechanical reproduction") but no less appreciated as a work of art for being so.

To be able to make this point you still had to have read Benjamin's essay. Is academia not a constant conversation, constant disruption of previously unquestioned assumptions?

I would argue the continued usefulness of Benjamin's essay is similar to the writings of McLuhan - it forces you to think critically about the mode and method of the production of an image/artwork (or message), and how that mode affects (or doesn't) a work. It's a radically different and refreshing perspective for looking at art or media as a whole.

For instance - how different (and much more moving) is seeing a woodblock print of Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji in person from seeing a tiny thumbnail in Google Image search, a further step of mechanical reproduction?

Why do you think your opinion constitutes fact? I found the essay to hold a lot of weight with respects to the aura of art, and the presence of certain art that exists outside of a 2d format. The article goes into the concepts of originality and is worth a read to expand your viewpoints. To dismiss it seems short sighted.