Yeah, that's what happens when you decide on issues separately instead of following a consistent set of principles. I, personally, try to follow a consistent set of principles, with as few caveats as I can muster. Here's my take:

• copyright should be much shorter, perhaps back to the original 14 years w/ a single optional renewal of 14 years - principle: information should be freely available; caveat: smaller creators shouldn't get immediately screwed by a large org with more publishing capacity
• ISPs should only provide internet, and if a law is broken, LE should go after individuals - principle: personal responsibility, ISPs aren't responsible for how you use their service, they're only responsible for providing a consistent service
• piracy is wrong, but it shouldn't be prioritized - principle: piracy is a form of theft, since you're accessing something you don't have a legal right to; caveat: there's no evidence that piracy actually reduces sales, and some evidence that it improves it, so let it be
• AI is copyright violation because it has been shown to be capable of reproducing entire texts, so AI companies should compensate creators - principle: copyright, as above; exception: personal use should be fine (similar argument as piracy), but commercial use is profiting off another's work directly

I think everyone should decide what their principles are, and frame every time they deviate as an exception to those principles instead of just taking every issue at face value. If we don't have that foundation, everything becomes way too subjective.

I take my principles from libertarianism (NAP), not from objectivism (Ayn Rand), and I make exceptions based on utilitarianism.