"It is widely accepted public knowledge that the material on television is covered under copyright. I know this when I turn it on, except for when I am very young perhaps. So there is a contract in the same way that as you say, "some things are just out there". Also the credits for television programs and films contain explicit copyright information."

"Further there is a way for Joe to know if he pays attention at all throughout life, as copyright is a well known fact of cultural life. Pleading ignorance in such a case is not a sufficient defense."

Contract is always a two-side thing. A contract which is presented to me as an ultimatum is not a contract. I may well be aware of copyright, but I am not obliged to agree to it. So I do not plead ignorance, I plead disagreement.
Do you propose I do not watch TV? If yes, it is the burden on content creators and distributors to exclude unwanted public from their services, not mine.
It is as if someone says that I can only use smth under particular conditions and then throws this something into my window without me agreeing first. And he then feels he has the right to sue me or consider me to behave unfairly.

"But I do think that if a group of people wants to enter into a collective agreement to share content in a certain way, that should be their right. If I happen to come onto some of that content without having entered into their covenant, then that community should take action against the one who made that content available to me. If I take the content in full knowledge that such a covenant exists, then I am acting inappropriately."

I would agree with this under particular circumstances. Under other circumstances this might not be the case. It hugely depends on the situation.
But what you are describing is voluntary interactions. I am all for that. I am against copyright, which is an interaction from the state.