The author mentions that most people think personal use copying is ok.
I would say the same is true of companies, but only for open source, for some reason.
Companies often download open source, modify the software, copy the modified software among hundreds of people, demonstrate the modified software publicly, then say they will release the software when the product is released.
But, there was no copyright or licence that granted the internal copies of the modified software, as the modifications were not published.
If a company used evaluation copies of Windows, internally, copying to hundreds of developers, then demonstrated something publicly obviously on an evaluation copy of windows, what would happen?
Side rant: Often "viral" is mentioned in FUD concerning Open Source, but one should note that regular copyright is also "viral", in the sense that if you make a derivative copy of commercial software (or writing or music ...), you are still bound my the copyright/license of the original work.