Maybe, but I have yet to hear a cogent argument that doesn't require the axiom that intellectual work has no value, either to society or intrinsically.
I don't think it is so much that the work has no value in their mind, but rather the whole system is held up by legal contortions, manipulation, abuse and corruption via purchased legal protection in the form of legislation. The cost of this victimization to both the artist and the consumer is then passed on to the consumer and only a fraction is shared with the artist.
To be clear people that argue for downloading non-purchased copyrighted work being morally right, are basically arguing that two wrongs make a right. I don't personally align with that view point. I do align with the view point that the work is protected by a system of victimization to both the artist and the consumer and that society as a whole would be better off without those leaches.
It seems to me that the onus to present an argument is on those who claim its immorality. Unless we assert that every action is immoral unless justified.