Then don't copyright the content you make, just release it out into the public domain. Be the change you want to see.
But let's be honest, the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other people's creations for free. Not those people actually creating the content.
Why would such people be at all concerned about Article 13? Torrent sites and swarms have been in flagrant disregard of the law since forever, one more law isn't going to change much. Likewise the other popular pirate mechanism, the old "upload an archive with the content to Mega or similar" technique, already frequently uses encrypted archives to make sure only people coming through the right channel (often an ad laden website + several even more ad laden URL shorteners) get access to the content, making a filter requirement ineffectual there as well.
News agencies know they are using dark patterns to skirt by GDPR while still using targeted advertising but since they know the fines will eventually start hitting, they want to move to paywalls. However, A paywall for a news company is practically useless as any major story one makes gets linked to and paraphrased by dozens of other news agencies within minutes. Users won't pay for a news website when they can get practically the same stories only slightly delayed at a free one that just paraphrases and links back to the original. Article 11 solves that problem and article 13 is to prevent 1 user who does pay for a website from copying the entire article and pasting it in a comment (I see that and archive/outline links all the time here and on reddit).
If we're going to be completely honest here, this is constructed as a personal attack and therefore doesn't merit the storage it takes up.
When someone plays music at an event, the collecting society will try to collect royalties from them, even if it's just CC or public-domain music, and the organiser is guilty until proven innocent.