It's not a conflation at all. You really should have a reason why Disney movies should be censored from the internet, but Chinese dissident materials should not be. Clearly there could be such a reason, but there is a parallel.
Obviously there's nothing special about the internet from the perspective of copyright; but there's nothing special about the internet from the perspective of Chinese government censorship either. So once again, the two are parallel.
If you want to distinguish between them, come up with a reason why they're not parallel.
They are not parallel because most countries respect copyright. Enforcing copyright is not censorship in those countries. Putting (unexpired) copyrighted material on the public internet violates copyright. Ensuring that this does not happen is not censorship as commonly understood.
Censorship by government presumably violates its citizens' right to free speech. If this is not the case, then this is not censorship as commonly understood.
China is wrong because they're in the minority; essentially they're outvoted. If most countries didn't respect copyright but did censor, then that would be right instead.
I think what he is trying to say (though it might be worded a little wrong) is that by enforcing copyright a country is enforcing what is generally considered an attempt to maintain a fair balance (note: no comment on whether this is successful or not) on content distribution to stimulate positive net gain.
Compared to a government enforcing what is generally considered censorship and a negative net gain.
(if the vast percentage of the world agreed censorship of the type China exhibits was right, then, well, yes it would be "right" - but that is much more of a philosophical question)
What I am trying to say is ultimately in response to this:
> You really should have a reason why Disney movies should be censored from the internet, but Chinese dissident materials should not be.
Disney movies should be "censored" from the internet because countries which respect copyright ought to enforce such. Chinese dissident materials should not be "censored" from the internet because Chinese dissidents presumably have a right to free speech. This is the Western perspective, as I understand it.
I am pointing out the difference between the two scenarios and not necessarily endorsing the Western perspective.
But both Copyright and Censorship are similarly opposed to the reader's will.
Both are more about placing constraints on consumption than about restricting production. Neither care about what you produce as long as noone else sees it.
Obviously there's nothing special about the internet from the perspective of copyright; but there's nothing special about the internet from the perspective of Chinese government censorship either. So once again, the two are parallel.
If you want to distinguish between them, come up with a reason why they're not parallel.