In a discussion of copyright, wherein the right of refusal is enforceable by rule of law, you'd have a point. However, as a matter only of ethics you do not lose any ability to do whatever you wish if I refuse to grant you permission for something. You can choose to ignore my wish if you so please. 

To me, however, this all raises a question I've been meaning to ask throughout this discussion. Why do you need to use my work in the first place? Why can't you just whistle some other tune? Why can't you just use some other song in your play? I would imagine the answer is because you want to. Because something about that particular tune inspires you, or that particular song makes you feel as though your play is better. I'm not forcing you to have that desire. And I'm not forcing you to follow that desire, but you will feel compelled to do so regardless. Copyright or no copyright, you will not be free from this impulse. Your liberty to decide how you should employ your body is constantly compromised by your own desires, as it is for each and every one of us. I see plenty of arguments for abolishing copyright on the grounds that it restricts fulfillment of desires - why not abolish desire on the grounds that it restricts true freedom of choice. The two seem about as plausible as each other to me right now.