Privacy and Piracy

Privacy is an interesting thing.
If you've ever wondered just how exposed you truly are, go ahead and Google your own name sometime. It's remarkably disturbing, the things that pop up. I guess, since I have two different social networking accounts and a blog, I should be used to it.
So, if I'm all over the Internet (not really, but for argument's sake), then how much of my information actually belongs to me? The art I post on Facebook, the words I write here, do those still belong to me? Are they mine, and mine alone, or do they now belong to the world?
The same question applies to any other form of media. If an artist releases a video on, say, YouTube, does it really still belong to that artist? Does a song still belong to the musician after it's bought and paid for online? Or is it public property, free to be distributed at the leisure of the users?
I cannot help but feel that the Internet has caused art to head towards the latter, rather than the former. But is that really such a bad thing? If a person cannot share your art with others, in any way, does that promote your name? What benefit do you have from keeping your work bottled? While royalties might produce some income, I feel it's safe to say actual performances and appearances are more profitable. If notoriety increases your worth, isn't it more beneficial for you to gain popularity in any way possible?
People who share music do not claim to have created the song, nor do they claim to be the artist. That is where I feel a line should be drawn- I'm not opposed to the sharing of art and media, but I am opposed to plagiarism. If I saw my writing on another site, I would be flattered- until someone claims those words as his or her own.
But how does anyone enforce something like this, except on a case-by-case basis? There is no foolproof way to verify the creator of something, unless their rights to the creation are enforced absolutely. This, however, is an impossible feat- the Internet is far too large for an entity to monitor everything equally.
I suppose this is the motivation for Congress's latest, sad attempt to do such policing. In this proposed piece of legislature, the users would become the police, reporting websites they personally deem in violation of vague copyright laws. This bill, however, gives law enforcers the ability to shut down access to reported websites without the due process that has served as a cornerstone of our judicial system.
The bill is so poorly-written, so vague, that it can only serve to harm the free flow of information over the Internet. Giving a government agency permission to condemn any reported website so blatantly violates freedom of speech.
I guess the question here is whether access to the Internet is a right or not. On the one hand, it is a channel for people to express themselves. On the other, however, there is no such thing as free Internet- we are required to pay some company in order to gain access. Is it our right to make ourselves more vulnerable, to give away information about ourselves, or is it a privilege to do so? If being on the Internet means that we give up certain parts of ourselves, would information such as music and art not also fall under this truth? Don't artists give up their right to absolute control when they choose to be a part of the Internet?
These are questions that are not about to be answered on my blog, or any blog. It is entirely possible that there are no answers, that the best we can do is come to an agreement on how to handle the Internet. However, the current approach is outdated and dangerous; we cannot use arcane methods to deal with such a modern problem. We need a modern solution.