Copyright anarchy and copyright abolition are absolutely coherent moral frameworks.
I have a magnet link. It brings me information. You don't want me to have that information? Up yours.
Oh you made it did you? Should've thought about my BATNA before deciding how to put it on the market.
For the record, I'm quite a bit more moderate than this would imply. But copyright is a weird wrinkle to "encourage the useful arts and sciences", it's has no basis in natural rights, the opposite in fact: the State intervenes in my natural right to do things with my own computer and the Internet connection I pay for, in order to encourage the making of more cinema and so on.
Being totally opposed to copyright and also choosing to consume content that was only made in the expectation of copyright-enabled paid business models is where it breaks down, in my mind. There's a vast world of freely available content out there, as there would be in a no-copyright world, but if that's not enough for you, or you find benefits from consuming the content produced by the commercial industry enabled by copyright law, how consistent is your belief that copyright should be abolished? Seems like you just want to freely enjoy the benefits without upholding your side of the bargain in that case. I have not seen a case that the budgets to produce those things would be there in a "everything is free for everyone" world.
Other people's expectations are none of my business.
CostCo gives me free samples with the expectation that I'll buy something. That's on them, whether I buy something is on me.
A guy writes a poem. It's in the expectation that his lover will choose him and not his rival.
That's not his paramour's responsibility. She can do what she wants.
A guy writes a TV show, in the expectation that I'll subscribe for ten bucks a month to get it, and with the legal arm of the law to threaten me if I watch it any other way.
First off: Fuck that guy, and second, still not my responsibility what the person who created something expected.