So, the Robin Hood analogy works perfectly then.
The movie and music companies aren't suffering, artists aren't suffering (in fact, in can be argued that artists embracing the new media world are flourishing), software companies and developers aren't suffering. There is more music, movies and software than ever before.
The whole piracy issue is overblown.
In the US, the copyright exists To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts (2). It essentially is allowed to exist with the hopes that on average it will further the common good, but it is limited because even at the time, there was a good deal of skepticism about that monopoly power. With regards to music and the visual and performing artists, I think many might actually argue that they are expressly uninterested in meeting the definition of "useful": "Art is art and everything is everything else." (3). But even if we offend them, it must surely be useful to lower the cost music in the air. It must surely be in the public good to reduce the cost of happiness.
I would be interested in hearing why you think right is what you think it is, your understanding of the history of where copyright came from.
(1) http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html
(2) US Constitution, Article 1, section 8, clause 8
The whole piracy issue is overblown."
In real world economics, you argument actually supports the exact opposite. When supply increases and demand decreases, the ability for an artist to sell enough music to live on gets exponentially harder.
When a few people buy the music, then spread it by piracy means its not just the artist and music companies who are losing money. It's the producers, the mixers and dozens of other technical people not making a million dollars when Jay-Z's new album sells 10K copies in the first week.
The piracy issue is overblown only to those who have never experienced it first hand. It's not just the artist and the big music companies you're hurting, there's a ton of lower level people who work in the industry who are suffering because of piracy.
The argument seems to be that file-sharing is bad because "potential" jobs are destroyed. This doesn't seem like an argument formed in principle because the internet has destroyed many "potential" jobs (see blockbuster, b&n). Innovation kills jobs (and creates them) and I'm okay with this. But I'm not okay with killing innovation by means of legislation.
For that argument to make sense, you have to assume that an artist has a right to make a living selling music. If you believe that then the status quo ante was failing miserably (because almost all artists were never signed by a label with the marketing power to make them economically viable).