The statement is couched as being about point number two, but if we say either "yes, there are music executives who understand" or "no, you're wrong, no music executives understand," either way we are forced to agree with the first point.
For the record, I agree with both points, but I also acknowledge that the matter is subject to debate.
I quote: This fallacy is often confused with begging the question, which offers a premise no more plausible than, and often just a restatement of, the conclusion.
It does become a loaded question if you ask a music industry exec: "Are you aware of the fundamental difference between copyright infringement and stealing?" But, as the wikipedia article says, that's not the same as begging the question. In any case, it's not a loaded question, since it's not a question to begin with.
The original poster did not ask us to answer the question about the record / film industry, while accepting his other statement. He was saying "I believe that there is a fundamental difference between X and Y, and am dismayed by the lack of understanding of this difference in the record / film industry". I doubt he had formal logic in mind.
EDIT: But you do make some very points, and I'm willing to concede that I may be completely wrong about what the original guy was trying to say, or how it should be interpreted. I really should spend less time on HN :)
Thanks, I learned something from your points and research.
1. Stated (as fact) that there is a fundamental difference between copyright infringement and physcal theft.
2. Expressed dismay at the apparent lack of understanding of the above fact by the music / movie industries.
Expressing dismay because someone else seems unaware of something you hold as a fact is not a logical fallacy in and of itself. It may be possible to show the fact is incorrect and the dismay therefore unnecessary, but that doesn't make it a fallacy.