Sorry Skip, you are lacking some significant clues
I don't know whether the GPL v3 will succeed in shutting off the web services loophole. But I guarantee you that the result that you describe is what they want to have happen.
As for your complaints about this ruining business, get a clue as to the history. Back when the GPL first came out, everyone said that no business would use it. They made arguments that were exactly analogous to your current argument. Remember, in the late 80s, shrinkwrap had a similar position to webservices today.
Ridicule about the GPL being a communistic pipe-dream started to sound hollow when companies like IBM started making billions off of GPLed software.
Now you're absolutely right that a GPL v3 will be anathema to companies like Amazon, eBay and Google. However you'd have been equally right back in 1992 to say that the GPL v2 was anathema to companies like Microsoft, Lotus and Corel. What you would have missed then, and are missing now, is that only a handful of highly visible companies care, and the potential community of programmers available from the ones to whom that is not an issue can outproduce the big players that you can readily think of.
Whether or not the FSF can get a new version of the GPL accepted and into widespread use is a good question. However the fact that the license is not liked by very visible big web services companies is not going to be a fatal flaw.
And your complaints about it being anti-capitalistic are exactly on par with Microsoft's FUD about the GPL v2 being anti-capitalist. Sure, it runs counter to someone's business model. That's life. Adapt or die. That is the essence of capitalism - you have the opportunity to try to make a profit. But nobody owes you the right to profit. If you can't, that is your problem.
Cheers,
Ben
