The idea of a copyright was conceived to encourage artists to create, and continue creating, according to his or her talent. It's not so much about the law inasmuch as it is about enabling artists to be -- artists. What motivation would there be to create if, once created, the work could be used for free without acknowledgment, or worse, 'acquired' and then sold with no recognition or compensation for the artist? To be certain, not every artist creates for compensatory reasons, but those making a living by doing so are more inclined to continue so long as his or her work is protected.
Stealing material that is protected by a copyright is no different than one walking into another's house and taking his or her money, jewelry, firearms, electronic equipment, computer, and so on. A corporation that conducts its business by vending intellecutal property in the form of a usage license is no different than a sidewalk artist; they are both trying to help us make our lives that much better. Arguments to the contrary are nothing more than irrelevant justifications and selfish immaturity.
Interestingly, intellectual property is only a concern in mature economies. Those economies that are behind (the so-called "third world" for instance) have more pressing concerns than who-created-what-when and do little (if anything) to curtail those grey markets. They do little, that is, until their economy matures and they realize the benefit of local artists encouraged to create.
