...be it established that:
any copyright law which does not lead to the final result of the majority of remuneration being directly applied to the creator(s) is invalid due to the stated purpose of copyright law.
There are two violations of copyright which are significantly different but which are generally lumped together.
The first, most obvious, and most harmful is when someone else gets paid for your work. This is simply inexcusable unless you get paid as well. Under current circumstances it's very hard to tell whether the people who Should be getting paid (the people who actually create the work) are in fact getting paid if you get a product in the supposedly appropriate way. If people felt that the actual artists were the ones not getting their fair share, this version of piracy would be much less rampant.
The second version is when noone gets paid. This can be seen by the artist as theft, or by the consumer as fair play depending on circumstances. After all, the friends of the producers, people who own the media plants, etc etc, get free copies, why should they be any different than the rest of us?
In general, copyright violations are wrong. Under current policies it is practically impossible to say whether a particular creator worthy of reimbursement is getting their share. The rules need to be vastly reworked and simplified for this subject to be viable. Under no circumstances should a creators worth in this matter be even approached by the worth of any other interested party except in the case of commission work, and that should not apply if the creator feels in any way compelled to do the work as in the case of big business.
Simply put, if you create something, you must derive the greatest benefit. This is the entire point of copyright. Any variation on this is simply wrong.