It still sounds like you’re skirting around the point… ignoring the possibility that this reasoning is motivated more by corporate profit than by a sense of justice, the argument that “copying is theft” assumes a lot of knowledge about what that industry’s baseline profit would be, absent the rampant piracy. It sounds like your reasoning here is “75% of goods are pirated, so if they weren’t pirated, earnings would be proportionately greater”, but I hope you agree that there are lots of questionable assumptions in there.
I don’t disagree with your criticism of Google as a whole. But I think you’re jumping past some underlying questions of “what does it mean to pirate? what does it mean to sell goods in a digital age?” that our legal system (and most other players) have done a horrible job addressing. So I wish your article had started by exploring these questions, or at least taking a clear and explicit stance rather than suggesting that “goods are goods”.