Why take exception to the first part of that statement when you can take exception to the second?
Sure, you can decide how to monetize your own work however you want. You can decide your own copyright terms. But if you decide on copyright terms that do not fit into a business model which operates within the market, you have shot yourself in the foot, plain and simple. Go ahead, for all I care.
I too, create copyrighted works ( as a developer ). In the end, I realize that the vast majority of the time, I better benefit myself by giving the majority of it away for free ( useful libraries and such get my name out there ), and then charge for premium services ( such as consulting, contracted projects, and keeping me on retainer - otherwise known as a 'job' ). There are many other companies who have realized this. Several of the "big corporate bad guys" that Mr. Lowery lambasts have provided - free of charge - libraries such as Google's v8 that have the potential to kickstart entire fucking companies - like Nodejitsu. I suppose this is somewhat analogous to a big-name band giving a lesser known band a shot, but more importantly, this is the "new model" in the software industry, which long ago - before the music industry - realized that it could not sell boxes of physical objects and expect a profit in the 21st century marketplace. Even old companies, like Microsoft and Apple, are moving far away from this.
The only difference I can see between myself and an artist - other than our audience - is that there are fewer opportunities for an artist to actually be kept on retainer. But that's the nature of the market with relation to being an artist, not the nature of being a creator of copyrighted works.