
mass behaviour control == copywrong
Copyright in the sense of controlling reproduction made some sense a couple of hundred years ago when printing presses were highly visible and only a couple of dozen rich men could afford them. Copying by hand, then meaning pen and paper, wasn't initially covered by copyright because it was obvious that trying to take away long exercised natural rights wouldn't wash. Enforcing copyright is now a complete failure, because everyone has access at hand to the means of efficient reproduction.
Mass behaviour control has costs which democratic countries don't do. So in this case the vested interests substitute enforcing the unenforceable on everyone by picking on a few unfortunates without either the ability to control what comes naturally (sharing to a nurse comes naturally if my stay in hospital as a younger man is anything to go by) or to cover our tracks the way most of us do, e.g. by using plausible deniability.
The content of what we communicate is the tail wagged by the dog which is our ability to communicate. But it's now the content tail that thinks it has the right to wag the communicating dog and not the other way around.