Wow..... how could you possibly have gotten things this wrong.
I can only imagine that you have no idea of the history or state of copyright in the United States, or you are being purposely disingenuous. I realize that you don't have an equivalent to the First Amendment over on your side of the pond so perhaps you really don't understand these things.
Because of the First Amendment, copyright is illegal. Yes, you read that correctly [go back and re-read it again if you want, I'll wait.]. Copyright is a restriction by the government on your right to expression (a.k.a. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.."). Of course, the Constitution itself addresses copyright in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 ('The Copyright clause'):
“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Since the Bill of Rights, came after (technically) the constitution itself, normally the later would over ride the former so in case of conflict, the First Amendment wins. The Supreme Court has reconciled this with a liberal application of what's commonly known as 'Fair Use'. As the court correctly stated, to UMG's dismay, it's not a defense. If a use is considered 'fair' then that use, by definition, doesn't violate the rights granted to the copyright holder.
In the United States at least, there is no concept of 'moral rights of creators'. There is no reward for 'the sweat of the brow'. There is only the reservation of certain rights to the creators of a particular expression, not the ideas behind them, in certain situations, for a limited time (yea, that last one's something of an open joke at this point). Authors, publishers, creators have no right, god given or government bestowed, to make a profit nor to control all uses of their creations. Don't like it, too bad. The only other option is to do away with copyright entirely (probably for the best, but not currently up for discussion).
In the beginning, copyright was limited to certain classes of expression (and music wasn't originally one of them). It was limited to those things that a creator specifically registered (formalities). It was limited to a certain time (until the 1976 revision that was 28 years with the option to renew for another 14 years). For most of recorded time everyday people didn't have to think about copyright as it was very unlikely that it applied to them. Don't own a printing press, or a music publishing house? You couldn't infringe upon copyright. The exceedingly few cases where you might run up against copyright were almost always covered by 'fair use'. In fact, until the enactment of the No Electronic Theft Act (a.k.a. NET Act) in 1997, it was perfectly legal to share (download/upload) books, mp3 files, and movies or television shows as long as you weren't doing it commercially. This law was passed when record companies found out they couldn't sue, or have arrested, an individual sharing music files electronically.
Unfortunately copyright has been perverted from it's original form. Copyright has been mutated from a cute little gecko into a rabid Godzilla hopped up on PCP. Copyright is now applied to every utterance or stray thought that someone fixed into any sort of tangible medium (which in the internet age means pretty much everything). It lasts more than a century in most cases. Copyright holders (mostly corporations) believe that they have a government granted right to demand payment for any and all uses of any work that they believe they have rights to. This doesn't even include the individuals who abuse copyright as a mean to limit competition or censor content (the latter you seem to wholeheartedly endorse in your article).
In the modern era, copyright maximalists would have you believe that if you're not paying then, your violating their rights multiple times with nearly anything you do. You seem to be of the opinion that they are correct. That organizations such as the EFF have some semi secret agenda to collude with Silicon Valley corporations to convert innocent users into virtual share cropping slaves. Most people don't own enough aluminum foil to make that make sense. The solution isn't making licensing agreements easier to execute or more frictionless to apply. It's for copyright holders to get a clue and stop harassing creators. It's telling how you so easily you dismissed the rights of the actual creator when you wrote;
"Nor did the takedown cause any harm to Ms Lenz."
Sure it did, someone else removed her work when they had no legal right to do so. You seem so focused on the rights of UMG, which didn't actually create anything, and Google, which provided the forum where Ms Lenz could publish her work, that you give no thought to those people copyright was designed to encourage, you know the actual creators. You spend hundreds of words claiming EFF is working with tech companies to enslave creators in order to defend a publishing company's right to enslave creators. From where I sit, the only one thinking about the actual creators is the EFF.
Of course, having spent the last 50 years getting fat on selling/licensing other people's content, I can see why certain companies wouldn't want that gravy train to end. That doesn't make it right.
There is NO inherent property right in an expression. If anything copyright infringes in actual honest to god physical property rights. If I have bought a book, or a record, or a DVD, then I have an actual right to that property. I can shred it, burn it, play it, read it, give it to my dog. If I have a pile of blank pages, a hard drive, a DVD-R I have the right to write whatever words I want on that paper, rearrange the bits on that hard drive, burn whatever pattern of pits onto that DVD-R I want. I own it, I have the right to do what I want with my actual property. The only thing stopping me, the only thing infringing or abridging my property right is copyright. It says that I am not allowed to do what I want with something I own in (and this is important so pay attention) some cases.
So, copyright isn't sacred, not every use is covered by it, there is no such thing as a property right in an expression, and creators aren't entitled to be paid whenever a creation is used. Music publishers aren't creators and keeping them from extracting payments from grandmothers is a noble cause. If a theater opens it doors to whomever wants to perform and then chooses to charge advertisers put up ads on the walls (what Google is doing with YouTube) it doesn't make them modern day plantation owners and creators modern day share croppers (or slaves). Finally organizations like the EFF that choose to do pro bono work defending poor creators from corporations making questionable uses of the law to silence them isn't part of some great conspiracy with Silicon Valley.
Copyright was supposed to incentivize the creation of works for the public good. The way it's being used now just risks swallowing up our shared culture.