> Imagine yourself in that person's shoes: you see people using everything you've spent months or years working on, yet despite your request they pay you for your work, nobody does.
A "request" is not the same as a "gun-to-your-head order", which is what copyright law is. I have paid for exactly one piece of software in the past three years, one that was and is available legally for free. Did I subvert capitalism? Barely. I liked what the project was doing and wanted to support it, and, besides, having the CD was more convenient anyway.
> You tell me what's wrong with this:
People have a moral right to share. Period. And "creators" aren't some special people with a special right that trumps that one. By all means, make narrow exceptions to the right to copy when the benefits to society outweigh the costs. With copyright, that isn't true at all. The benefits shrink and the costs rise every day.
> Finding a balance is a difficult prospect.
Finding a balance is wrong. When you have copyright you're cutting into basic freedoms. You damn well better justify that.
People shirk copyright law because when they can't make a copy of something they purchased and give it to a friend, that's retarded and totally incongruous with free society, and they know it.