The author of this piece seems to not or realise, or conveniently ignore, that the very services which he derides for exploiting content-creators wouldn't exist without the Safe Harbor provision in the first place.

Under which, these creators would never have had a platform to distribute their content, or would be beholden to the traditional film and music distributors.

I don't really get much point to this, other than 'we could be making more money, its unfair we're not.'