I'm a moral relativist myself; both in the sense that I don't think there are any absolute rights and wrongs, but also in that I find my own interests relatively more important than others (call it an instinct for survival). Really though, I do good things for people every day while asking nothing in return, and though the world doesn't agree with me, I often think that I should receive the same. In the end, as long as everybody is taken care of (roof overhead, food on plate) and everybody is giving back to society, then where's the problem?
And that's why I tend to take an active stance against copyright. I don't agree that copyright infringement is theft, and not only because of the argument that copying something still leaves the original intact (which is strong argument against a strawman), but because copyrights demand so much while giving so little.
Take music as an example. Music is oft considered a luxury and an entertainment, but I would argue that art and entertainment are necessities and not luxuries. Music relaxes us, energizes us, helps us relieve stress, express our feelings, and even communicate big issues. Is this really a luxury?
Now consider that most music you find is of poor quality and expensive. $30 for an album with 10 songs, two of which (amounting to no more than 6 minutes) is even worth listening to? Sorry, but my "luxurious" paycheque can't afford that. The argument goes that I can do without, but I don't agree that I can -- a life without music would be a terrible life. Music has a lot to add to society, but with such ridiculous pricing, society can't afford any reasonable amount of it.
And so I copy it. I copied LPs, I copied cassette tapes, and now that technology has made copying easier, I find copies all over the great cloud. I copy it because I can and because I want to. Most times I feel no pity for the $30 that didn't get turned over to a recording studio, but every now and then I find something I actually feel thankful for, and will pitch 5 or 10 to the artist directly (incidentally, the artists I care for most often have online distribution channels that allow me to donate or purchase the stuff I like at reasonable costs). I don't pay what HMV or Warner Music might want, but then again, they don't give me the music I'd be willing to pay for. In the end, the artists still live happy lives, and so do I because I was able to listen to music without blowing my limited budget.
None of this is logical or even moral argument. In the world of cold, hard facts, it's impossible to argue that copyright infringement is a good thing. But when you look at the outcome of the world, it's hard to argue that it has caused any damage. Studios are still raking in record profits, there are still artists selling out all over the world, and everybody is happily listening to their favorite music. Sure, millions of people are perpetrating millions of crimes every day in the process, but that doesn't make the world a terrible place, it just means that the law wasn't protecting anybody from anything, and that's a pretty good reason for that law not to exist.
Just because a law exists doesn't mean it's fair. It may not be right to break a law, but if the law itself is immoral (or even just pointless), does it make sense to abide by it?
There is no clear right or wrong, so I do what makes sense to me. To me, it makes sense to pay for something worthwhile, but it also makes sense to share for the good of society, even if it means less for the creators (or more appropriately, their masters). That means I share everything and pay for the stuff I find worthwhile, and I've yet to find a compelling reason to do it any other way.
