I initially wasn't even going to dignify this was a response, but....
Your article stopped short of "Not liking copyright == FASCIST!" by the narrowest of narrow margins, presumably so you could get all self-righteous when somebody called you out on it. Sorry buddy, you don't get to use language like the kind you used in your article and then get all uppity that somebody took exception to it.
Then you utterly dismiss the Steamboat Willy Permanent Copyright complaint, even though it's a perfectly valid complaint. All the people who had creative input on that film is now long dead. How does it benefit anybody other than the Mouse House that the copyright on that film keeps getting extended? As for hundreds of works falling out of copyright every year, I wonder what proportion of those copyrights are individuals versus corporations? I'd wager it's a fairly safe bet that there aren't an awful lot of corporate copyrights being allowed to expire. Hell, it took a protracted court battle to get the copyright on Happy Birthday To You overturned, for crying out loud.
As for Facebook, Twitter, Google, et al abusing the copyrights of individuals, what is it that they have in common with Disney? Could it be that they're big corporations? Just a thought!
Copyright is heavily biased in favour of the wealthy and powerful, those with legal teams who can fight for every concession and lobbying teams who can butter up lawmakers for stacking the deck even more in their favour. Meanwhile I don't get to enjoy any of the benefits that strong copyright is supposed to afford me. I don't get an extension on my holiday snaps or creative writing exercises, if I use a big corporation's IP in one of my own projects I'm subject to being sued into enough debt that my grandkids would be born owing, yet in the reverse situation I'm expected to lube up and take it.
Copyright does not protect individuals. If it did, Facebook, Google, Twitter et al wouldn't be able to abuse it so egregiously. You even admit it yourself that they do it (And I know that because I RTFA). It doesn't even protect creators. It's not creators who are issuing an endless stream of bogus DMCAs on YouTube, it's "IP enforcement companies" that are doing that. Copyright as currently implemented simply allows those with big legal budgets to bolster their bottom line.
Finally you try to paint me as having some sort of "irrational rage" against copyright. That's pretty rich coming from someone who accused me of not RTFA. As I keep saying, I'm all for copyright as long as it's fair and equitable, and does what it was intended to do (protect the works of a creator for a limited period in exchange for the work becoming public domain when the copyright expires). It currently does nothing of the sort.
Ironically I suspect we basically want the same thing, for people who create things to get their dues. But you fetishise copyright so blindly that you won't even engage with somebody who thinks that copyright reform is best served by limiting it and levelling the playing field rather than making it even stronger than it already is. The current system does not work and needs to be heavily reformed.