You identify as an opponent of copyright law.
Not as such. Rather, I'd like to be a proponent of optimal copyright law. A lot of fundamental law in America is expressed in very strong terms, evoking concepts like justice and freedom and unalienable rights. In contrast, the provision giving the new Congress the power to enact copyright laws is rather practical. The purpose of copyright is:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
So, it's not that Authors and Inventors have a right given by God (or "Providence"), it's that a government grant of a temporary monopoly is supposed to have practical effects -- "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
This calls for cost-benefit analysis.
Referring, of course, to the proposed U.S. legislation which could cause severe damage to the Internet—at least, that's what a lot of people are saying. See, e.g., this Open Letter From Internet Engineers to the U.S. Congress (the first signatory listed is Vint Cerf). On Wikipedia, people including Jimbo Wales are discussing strategies as extreme as blanking the entire site (except for an explanatory message) to get people's attention, and thereby perhaps incite them to action, such as calling their Congressional representative.
I just happened to find out about all this a few hours ago, being someone who tries to avoid distractions like most kinds of news, so possibly others here with similar habits will appreciate having it called to ther attention. Or possibly they won't. But to those of you who possess relevant kinds of expertise:
(I think this subject can be discussed without political advocacy, in which I am mostly not at all interested anyway. It just looks like a practical problem to me.)
Edited to Add: I forgot to include a fourth bullet point:
It seems to have been assumed by many commenters, nevertheless.