Meh, the article mostly argues semantics. Sure “intellectual property” is a loaded phrase, but what is meant by the layperson is just “I made it, I should profit from it”, i.e. copyright. We’re not talking about massive corporations here and hindering right-to-repair, I’m talking to a guy who made something useful (likely software or music or whatever creative) and wants to sell it.

I agree that talking about it vaguely is not super useful, but this is just a small casual discussion forum, not some legal debate.