People promote fallacies on boards like this, and I sometimes feel obligated to show how they are erroneous, for the benefit of readers who would otherwise be encouraged to think in terms of deceptive rhetoric.
In the USA, "communism" has been made into a term of condemnation for anything that diverges from the sort of corporate-crony capitalism that exists here inthe US. In fact, the system proposed by Marx and other theorists is rather different from your crude caricature as "the state to own everything and private people and companies nothing". For example, it's only capital, not all property, that is supposed to be state-owned.
Communism is actually a very bad system, but for reasons the parent poster shows an ignorance of (and which have little bearing on the current copyright controversy). Its main defect is substituting a command economy for free markets, which leads to irrational allocation of resources.
As for the Green party in Sweden, they're basically in the genre known as "Social Democrats". What they advocate is more of a welfare state, not a Soviet- or Maoist-style communist system.
More to the point, the differences on copyright are not a case of "property rights" versus "communism". In fact, copyright is more of a feudal concept than either capitalist or communist. As grandpinaple
very imperfectly tries to point out, intellectual property is a monopoly established by the state by fiat. As such, it is grossly contrary to the principles of classical capitalism, which recject government interference in the market (and especially artificial monopolies).