No, because that's a completely bloody stupid comparison. If you steal a painting you're removing the original. When you copy a song you're in no way depriving the artist of the original work. Just a couple of pence. It's not going into the studio and taking the master tapes is it? A more accurate comparison is by copying the work you are taking a photo, making a scan or a photocopy. Which harms the artist not one jot.
I wouldn't say that's a fair comparison either. When you're selling a painting (generally speaking), the original is what you sell. You don't sell a photograph of it. With music the original masters are not what is being sold, the copies are whats being sold.
Painters make money by selling originals of their work, musicians make money by selling copies of their work. Again, I'm generalising here, but you get the idea. It's not a good comparison at all.
I wouldn't say that's a fair comparison either. When you're selling a painting (generally speaking), the original is what you sell. You don't sell a photograph of it. With music the original masters are not what is being sold, the copies are whats being sold.
Painters make money by selling originals of their work, musicians make money by selling copies of their work. Again, I'm generalising here, but you get the idea. It's not a good comparison at all.