[botker]

Painters were copying paintings long before digital film made the practice easy. Musicians were covering other musicians long before the advent of mechanical sound recording. Copying is an inherent facet of the arts. It's our natural way of appreciating other people's work. It has nothing to do with technological ease.

[the-cakeboss]

Forgery has neer been seen as a legitimate undertaking in the world of painting. While pieces of art have always been heavily derivative, it has never been common for artists to forge. The first reason for this being the ethical implications behind it, and the second being the massive amount of effort required to accurately copy a masterpiece. Even those forgeries that have fooled experts for some time pale in comparison to the real thing.

Furthermore, whats being discussed now is not analogous to the topic of forgery. A more apt comparison would be likening the piracy of music to viewing photographs of Vermeer's work. Yet even this isn't a perfect fit, as one can argue ( and quite correctly in my opinion ) that viewing a photograph of a Vermeer is in no way is the same as seeing it in person. And almost invariably the owners of these paintings charge money for access to them. While these parties are generally not profiting off of these fees money still needs to be paid for access.

In the case of audio files, the ease at which one can copy and distribute a perfect replica of the original work certainly does contribute to its ubiquity. If one could only download a 96kbit/s CBR mp3 of a song, I'd bet far fewer people would be downloading their music.