We can use a simple hypothetical test for many of these issues: Say I read and memorize a book of poetry which statists and corporatists categorize as "copyrighted". I then go into my friend's house and tell him these poems aloud.
You either believe that I have the right to my own memories and I can talk to my friend or you think I should be fined/imprisoned to subsidize a particular business model.
Supposing there are only two alternatives and that the elimination of the one vindicates the other is at best intellectual laziness and at worst disingenuous.
One could posit you shouldn't be able to read poetry in the first place, so the rest becomes moot. And I would probably bet there are likely many more alternatives that someone more intelligent and more erudite than I could conceive.
First, you erred in thinking there only two poles in this argument. Then you erred by ascribing me to either one of them.
You, of course, are always free from this point forward (I wouldn't propose that you revisit all your former post as that would be an undue burden), but you are, of course, free from this point forward to prefix your further posts with: 'this post is hereby released under the terms of the CC0', or something equivalent.
You either believe that I have the right to my own memories and I can talk to my friend or you think I should be fined/imprisoned to subsidize a particular business model.