The other side is a person who is capable of rationalizing theft because it is a minor theft.
The theft isn't of an object, it is theft of compensation due to a creator. Duplication isn't the issue.
Spinning it as purely a compensation issue is being a bit reductive, IMO. And from there it leads directly into objectively unanswerable intent questions.
Also, since DNA controls what you look like, including your silhouette, you will have to pay me every time you allow a light source to cast a shadow of yourself onto a flat surface.
Also, when you take a bath, you displace a volume of water corresponding to your shape. That is an unlicensed copy.
Your footprints in the dirt or snow, ditto, not to mention the fingerprints you leave on everything you touch.
---
Man, think about it. Millions of years of evolution (based on continuous unrestrained copying and alteration on a massive scale) lead to Man. What does man do? Put three guitar chords together with some puerile, hackneyed lyrics, and insist on compensation from everyone that hears the crap.
Based on my limited understanding of copyright law, it does in fact concern itself with actual duplication, and is rather mum about compensation.
You can infringe by, say, altering something that is freely distributed in a way that is not permitted by its license (for instance changing the copyright notice to say that you created that work, rather than the author). The author could be adamant that permission to do that is not granted at any price (so that it's not an issue of compensation, but purely about unlicensed duplicates with unauthorized alterations).