I would prefer a balance, because I understand the arguments at both ends of this spectrum, and sympathize with them both.
Sure, it's convenient to limit the thinking to "both" sides of the spectrum. All you have to do is pick the middle, and even a first grader could do that. Notice how "both" means there are only 2 sides you need to concern yourself with.
If you are balancing between left and right you'll always get the middle. If you are balancing black and white, you'll get a shade of gray while the answer you are looking for may be closer to pink. If you are balancing between -100 and 100, you'll end up with 0, while the answer you want may not be even be a number. These 2-sided views on most issues - i.e. black vs. white, left or right, up or down, good or bad, etc. - are what results in a balance that's in a different dimension from reality.
So, if you limit yourself to a one-dimensional spectrum depicted to you by two oversimplified "ideological over-reactions" you are limiting the scope of your thinking to those agendas. Copyright should not be a "balance" between some kind of intellectual property dictatorship vs. no copyright at all, just for the sake of achieving one. Instead, think public good, freedom of expression, progress of science and useful arts, the Internet, global role, enforcement, economy, industries, fair use, fair trade, safe harbor, encryption, exclusive rights, etc., etc. - care to add a few? Then gather some facts and strike a "balance" between all the factors that come into play.