It's a complicated issue. So many moral issues are tied up in it. On the one hand, the right to profit from your creation. On the other hand, monopoly, censorship, centralization of power, the building of a lockdown society, surveillance (a direct outgrowth of expanding anti-piracy efforts), culture, fair use. The spreading of knowledge versus the hoarding of knowledge.
It isn't just creator versus user. It's creator, company, user, each with different interests. That company can be a record label, a publisher, an art gallery, a software firm, a manufacturer, a school, a government.
It's about the very concept of "ownership" and "intellectual property". In turn those are based on concepts of status, wealth, and power. Once upon a time the concept of ownership didn't exist. Land was not something you could buy or sell. It was just there, like the air. Land was an inalienable right, once. Once the idea of exclusive ownership of land came into being, that idea brought the condition of homelessness with it.
Homelessness is when you don't have the legal right to live in a location unmolested. Society made the collective decision that a home was no longer a right and people could be deprived of a place to call their own.
Intellectual property is an abstract concept, an invention of this civilization, and a fairly recent one. 500 years ago the concept didn't exist.
Copyright matters because in our current society money and power are very intimately tied up in it. This society judges people by the size of their wallets. Homeless people experience a degree of hatred and persecution almost unimaginable to the middle class, let alone the rich.
Homelessness is a social creation. It didn't exist in the native american societies that existed in North America before the Europeans came.
Piracy too is a social creation, and like homelessness intimately related to "ownership".
Often, in this society, creators don't even own their creations; the companies they work for or are contracted with do.
If you're an engineer who invented something at Bell Labs, you don't get to own what you invented. Bell Labs does.
You're an animator, working for a studio. The studio owns your animation work. You do not. The movie makes $500 million at the box office and the studio gets to rake in the profits off it until long after you are dead. You don't get to share in any of the profits. All you get is a paycheck and you get to be unemployed again once your part of the film is done, and you'll have to get another job.
Or you're an aspiring rock band. Your band are geniuses at music but know nothing about the music industry about corporate law and all that suit-and-tie stuff. The studio is dangling baubles in front of you and you end up signing a very one-sided contract that rips you off. Your album goes gold. Your band has to literally declare bankruptcy because you signed a bad contract that screwed you royally and you weren't even smart enough to hire a conpetent and honest lawyer to protect your interests. Or maybe your lawyer wasn't honest and he ripped you off too. And the band manager, too. You didn't want to deal with any of this legal junk--you hired people so you wouldn't have to--you just wanted to make great music and be rock stars.
Tons of stories like that in every creative field I can think of; writing, painting, sculpting, music, photography, inventions, software. A few get rich. Most stay poor. That bothers me.
Copyright law is broken.