Ignoring for a moment the objections of value (which a bunch of other commenters have already pointed out), your two scenarios don't line up at all:
Piracy: A has bits X. A wants to give B copy of X. B wants copy of X. Third party C (record label) objects. [A pirates a copy to/with B]
Bitcoin: A has bits X. A does not want to give B copy of X. B makes one anyway. A objects. Third party C (person who mined coins originally and willingly transferred to A) does not care. [B steals coins from A]
The two scenarios do not line up at all. In fact, if you made a bitcoin scenario that did line up:
Bitcoin': A has wallet X. A wants to give copy of wallet X to B. B wants copy of wallet X. Third party C (original miner of coins) objects. [A wants B to be able to spend his coins for whatever reason]
well, in the Bitcoin' scenario, I think almost everyone would agree that C has no moral authority to object.
Piracy: A has bits X. A wants to give B copy of X. B wants copy of X. Third party C (record label) objects. [A pirates a copy to/with B]
Bitcoin: A has bits X. A does not want to give B copy of X. B makes one anyway. A objects. Third party C (person who mined coins originally and willingly transferred to A) does not care. [B steals coins from A]
The two scenarios do not line up at all. In fact, if you made a bitcoin scenario that did line up:
Bitcoin': A has wallet X. A wants to give copy of wallet X to B. B wants copy of wallet X. Third party C (original miner of coins) objects. [A wants B to be able to spend his coins for whatever reason]
well, in the Bitcoin' scenario, I think almost everyone would agree that C has no moral authority to object.