The person who has produced the (music/software etc) has a right to dictate the usage of that property.
I disagree, strongly. They don't have a right to dictate anything I do, unless I consentingly enter into a contract with them. Where did they get such a right? From the legal system of course, but it certainly isn't a moral right.
A photographers sells their prints for a living
First of all, a signed print is a signed print. A downloaded inkjet is not an original print, and is approximately worthless on any art market. I'm a photographer myself. I don't really do digital, but if someone buys one of my prints, scans it, and people download it and print out inkjets, well, then whatever. I wish they would buy one of my hand-prints, but if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. Of course, there are people that print off digital files on inkjet printers and try to sell them as signed prints. Of course, not much distinguishes the product from a pirated version. If they were selling digital files, then there's NOTHING that distinguishes it from a pirate, and they would not be able to get $200 for a digital file when an identical one would be available as a copy...kind of like people who charge for downloading mp3s...this sounds like a bad business model to me, not a reason to go crying to the government to enforce your revenue stream.
If you download a scan of their print, then print it off yourself your argument is that you haven't taken anything or hurt that person?
Hurt their revenue, maybe? Tell you what, the digital revolution has and will continue to hurt the revenues of lots of people and old business models. That's progress. The proper response is to adapt, not to buy politicians and attempt to protect your old revenue streams.
As for the theoretical photographer in question, I don't see how I have stolen from them, no. I have hurt them only in their mind, their entitlement mentality that they want me to give them money. Hey, they are allowed to want me to give them money, I want lots of people to give
me money, that doesn't make their not giving me money 'harming' me or immoral.
Back to the poor photographer. What if I
didn't print off a downloaded scan AND yet didn't buy a print from the photographer anyway? Would I then be harming them by not buying a print from them? What obligation do I have to buy a print from them? They'd better do something to make their prints desirable and unique, or they are not going to sell many. What if I had never heard about said photographer? What if I just looked at the image on a screen? At a gallery? On someone else's wall? Should I be forced to pay money every time I view a photograph?
If there was a legal system in place that said that anyone could make an image, and then "viewright" it, and charge whatever they want of anyone anywhere viewing it, dictate how they could hang it on their private walls, and it was sporadically enforced through FUD by levying massive fines on those caught viewing without paying protection money, it would be no less crazy to me than copyright.
If I was a recording artist I would sell physical media and merchandise. I don't have the moral balls to pretend that I 1. can and 2. am morally justified in using real force to extort money from a worthless product. Many bands now sell vinyl records, then give away mp3 downloads. XKCD doesn't charge to view the comic, but makes money selling merchandise.