I disagree.

>To allow the Altmans and Amodeis of the world to escape the kinds of consequences that Swartz could not ... would be the height of injustice.

Simply put, he's demanding two injustices. Let's break this down with a imaginary law.

"If you do not wear your hat you will be beheaded. This includes the poorest man and the king himself".

In OPs definition, this kind of equality is justice. But I do not consider this justice at all, simply equality.

"If you do not wear your hat you will be fined $1. This includes the poorest man and the king himself".

This is something much more close to justice as the punishment fits the crime.

There are two injustices here. The first injustice is the sheer existence of this notion of intellectual property. The second injustice stems from the selective application of the associated laws.

Intellectual property should not exist, but since it does, one can and should expect it to be applied consistently in all cases. Just look at what they did to Kim Dotcom, he basically got destroyed. SWAT rappelled down helicopters and descended upon this guy for the egregious crime of copying bits. That's exactly what should happen to Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and Meta. Anything less than that is an insult to previous enforcement victims.

Inconsistency robs authorities of all credibility. Selective enforcement exposes them for the arbitrary tyrants they are and delegitimizes their decisions.

> This is something much more close to justice as the punishment fits the crime.

True, but to put a still finer point on it, still fantastically more harmful to that poorest man than the king.