1. It is too shallow
2. It is not economically or financially rigorous
3. It lacks any long-term analysis or understanding
For the record, while this is something I argue ad naseum, I do not think I have the requisite knowledge base and scholarly ability to deal with the above problems either. In fact, very few people do. The tech crowd suffers from severe methodological and analytical issues when considering the issue, while the traditionalists are simply over- emoting and running scared.
The article has the simple facade of being the "voice of reason" against a chorus of irrationality. The simple argument is that the top torrented movie, The Hobbit, was also wildly successful at the box office. Ergo, piracy is not bad. It is a reductionist argument that does not take into account any serious variables or other contextual issues. Rather it is more "lies, damned lies, and statistics". While Hollywood profits may be higher overall, they may be less when adjusted for costs. Production is not getting any cheaper. Peter Jackson's movies are among the most expensive, which was probably part of the reasoning behind the studio's choice to turn the Hobbit into a 3 part epic, as it would allow them to recover more money than otherwise. Regardless, the Hobbit was wildly expensive to produce, so the net profit on the film may not be as high as many would assume.
Neither is there any analysis of the broader state of the industry. Blockbusters may be doing fine, but how much money is the industry making on the margins? More critically, how much is it spending and losing on those margins? Expensive CG films like the Hobbit increase pressure to risk more money on other expensive CG projects and those risks don't always pan out, e.g. John Carter. Indeed, there is evidence that the risk involved has gone up, but so has the reward.
From my perspective, the industry seems to be doing quite well, but then so was the American Bison. They didn't make it out of the 19th century so well, due to similar chaotic and unpredictable variables that were introduced to their ecosystem. The point is that we need careful, sober minded thinking on these subjects, but as far as I can tell academia is struggling to provide it. The London School of Economics paper on the issue was woefully inadequate in my view. I am still digesting it, but it ties into the problem I describe above; it is difficult to find the right combination of tech knowledge, industry savvy, and scholarly ability in any one group of people. Because of this, I am afraid that the 21st Century will have similarly unanticipated negative outcomes as the 19th Century did.
Somewhere in all this chaos, libraries are trying to carve out a place for themselves. Easy enough, right?