Copyright is meant to serve the public. This is done by incentivizing artists and corporations but the goal is to promote creation so that the populace ultimate

Copyright is meant to serve the public. This is done by incentivizing artists and corporations but the goal is to promote creation so that the populace ultimately benefits. If this isn't assumed, then you assume government should not work for the people. By doing something that's technically illegal but antithetical to the spirit of public good, IA is highlighting how perverted copyright law has become. You want people to refrain from criticizing record companies greed but there's a clear argument that highlights this as the main motivation. Artists who own their own copyrighted works sometimes buy up old media of themselves and refuse to license it for fear of impacting the image they've created for themselves (or just because they're embarrassed). Very much different from this scenario, record companies are preventing use in a way that looks like extortion. In my view, it's not that there isn't an argument to made that this is an illegal act, it's that there's a deeper question of whether it should be. Sometimes new laws are changed by breaking them.