The way I read your answers, it appears that you feel an individual does not have the right to defend himself from aggression. This is equivalent to stating that individuals do not have a right to live. Is this what you believe?
Based on this interpretation of my answers, here is how I see the situation playing out.
I infringe on your copyright. When you find out, you respond by notifying me of the fine you have levied. Since I don't agree that I have done anything wrong, I ignore the fine. In response, you send men with guns to my house to extract the fine by force if necessary. Seeing this as an invasion and threat to my life, I defend myself from the men, killing some and driving the rest off.
This is where it gets confusing, because you have stated both that I do not have the right to defend myself, but also that they do not have the right to kill me. Only one of us can be the aggressor, who is it?
As far as your question, bitcoin2cash answered it the same way I would have.
People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
When did I say that people doesn't have the right to live? Please stop putting words in my mouth.
We now live in the real world where there is IP.
You infringe, I find out, I send you a notice, you ignore it. You are now the agressor. I had a rightful claim that you ignored. If money can't be extracted by any other means police will show up at your door, as a last resort. If you start shooting at the police you have a problem, as they have the right to defend themselves. Again, with minimal force.
However if you are a normal member of society things will never go that far.