Well, as one who has copyrighted works, I would say she is right on the mark.
You would never dream of going to work if you knew you weren't going to get paid for the work you do. If you knew someone was going to steal your paycheck each and every payday. And that's what the copyright argument is all about. People are stealing other people's livelihoods.
I personally think some in the arts are way way overpaid but to me, so are those in the NFL, NBA, and the NHL. But you don't go to the games and try to get in without paying for a ticket.
But further then that. It costs millions of dollars to make a movie. If they don't take in enough money to pay for making the movies we all love to watch, then they will just stop making them. They're not going to make them for free.
Same thing for music. It costs a lot of money to produce a quality CD. If you can't make enough money to pay all the costs because people are stealing instead of buying then the music stops.
You may be making a false assumption here.
I doubt it. Music existed a long time before the Hollywood lawyers came along.
Well, I'm not going to argue against some fair protections but I think both sides have some things wrong on this. On the one hand, I don't want ANY sorry SOB making money off my work...there's no way around that in any ethic you can propose...but OTOH, if the action isn't costing me money (for instance, distributing a work of mine which is not offered for sale) and is reaping no financial reward from it, then I don't care because I crate what I do in the hopes that people will read and enjoy it.
A true musician makes music first and foremost for that music to be enjoyed - I doubt the work of a cynic who makes money for the sole purpose of inflating his bank account is much worth listening to in the first place.
Likewise, if I want a copy of a song that I can't buy individually for a reasonable price and a reasonable expenditure of effort, then I will simply not own it if I can't download it. And the artist in question will still receive no compensation. But if the selection is made available to me (as is being done now with some pay download services) then I will happily pay for it.
To stretch the analogy out into the gray one more step, let me give you an example: I am a Star Trek Fan. I like some of the series more than others but let me assume for the sake of this story that I love all of them. Each season of each series is roughly $100. Now, there is no freaking way those DVDs cost remotely that much to produce, so it's not a matter of recouping investments. Other, less popular, series sell for half that for the same hours of viewing.
now, I don't know if you are aware of this but each of three modern Trek series lasted 7 seasons, and the original lasted three, and the latest lasted 5. That's 29 seasons for a total investment of $2900.
I'm sorry, if the only way I can ever own those DVDs is to drop over 3K on them (tax and all) I will simply never own them. So as it stands right now, Paramount has made and will make exactly ZERO dollars off me buying Star Trek DVDs.
So let's say, theoretically, that a friend of mine offers to rip me a copy of his set of DVDs. He is doing an illegal thing under copyright laws, but has he cost paramount any money? not at all. Because I'd never pay their insane prices. They haven't lost any more money than if I bought these DVDs at a Yard Sale.
Now, I did not say all that to say it should be a free-for-all, or that there are not pirates out there lining their pockets with other people's creative work because both are real issue. I merely wish it to be said that not everyone who copies a copyrighted work is costing the original artist money, or making any themselves.