What matters is the fundamental question if one can proclaim things like music, literature and images as his property.
I believe the founders of the USA had this argument exactly, and this is what they came up with:
The Congress shall have power [...] to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Sigh I wish more people read it: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.article...
In response to your question: no.
But those are boring technicalities. What matters is the fundamental question if one can proclaim things like music, literature and images as his property. Technically I can repeat one of your sentences and you can accuse me of stealing.
That's all huge bullshit in my opinion. A song or a movie by itself shouldn't be copyrightable simply because it's not fair: it takes a lot of money to enforce such laws, this is why there are only a few privileged "customers" of this system. I can copy and distribute your blog posts all I want and there is nothing you'll (likely) do about it. This "copyright club" doesn't treat outsiders nicely, this is why Google (clearly and outsider) has been bit so often by those assholes, even something as awesome as their "Street View" is facing idiotic copyright complaints.
And, personally, I believe they will all fail and technology will overtake. We will not be paying for songs and movies, we'll be paying for comfortable theaters with nice sound and live concert performances. And someone with a law degree will have to find a real job.