Specially considering how does "piracy" shows us that the content is so easy to transfer that the "3-year gap" or any kind of "time gap" the content distributors (who contractually buy the rights, but do not create the content) is completely ludicrous?
I mean... if the "pirates" can distrubite the content so easily, why the content industry can't?
Ok, they must think that providing different formats of the same content make the content different, so it's a different product.
It's a way of selling convenience out of "artificially created" inconvenience.
I actually believe that copyright should only be useful for naming you as the author of certain piece of art, and it's distribution/reshaping always points back to the author... You keep the right of authorship but not monopolistic ownership once you release "the art" for exhibition.
"COPYING = STEALING"
COPY: Means to get the item and make an exact replica. Now you have 1 and I keep mine. No loss, gain for both.
STEAL: I take the item away from you. You lose the stuff, I get the stuff.
It's the definition of the USA law that attemps to make them equal, when not even the dictionaries consider them synonyms.
The moral argument happens when you declare who is the AUTHOR or the art piece created. If you copy the stuff while saying "X person (the REAL author) did it, I'm just passing it around because I think it's cool and you should check it out" you are already making one hell of a deal there for the artist because you are making free-marketing for him without asking a single penny in return. There is no moral harm because you are not self-declaring yourself as the creator. Yet in the argument, they are trying to extend the so-called moral harm to even just copying the work without thinking what is the next thing you will do.
Morally wrong to disobey the laws? Actually, the very USA forged itself by disobeying the laws (see the Revolution and fight for Independence). But to finally disobey them with a good purpose and reason, first there is an stage called "criticism". You have to be critic of the laws in a constructive way, see which ones are useful to society (like the ones who punish rapes, murdering, child abuse and/or pornography, mass genocide) and the ones who really tax the society and it's progress (Patents, Copyright, the upcoming SOPA/PIPA, the PATRIOT Act). It's after that when you can say: "hell, how did these laws come into first place?" or "isn't there a way to improve the law to make it more benefical to society as a whole?" or "this law should disappear and other laws should support the possibility of not ever allowing something similar to it in any other wording, style or context".
I think that you /are/ actually the conformist because you take the laws you currently have in an almost religious way in your comment without even analyzing why those laws are in the first place or if they are morally coherent. I've heard people criticizing laws that are set in other countries, but do not ask themselves if their current laws are good enough or should be improved. That's actually the part of criticism that is missing a lot lately, is important in any kind of democracy, and is being recovered in the Web 2.0, which is also indirectly yet really endangered right now by SOPÄ/PIPA.