I also think it is alarming that you bring murder of a human in analogy with potential losses of money.
It's not an analogy, it's a clarifying simplification. The original argument was basically "Distributing information which enables people to do X is not wrong, because the wrongness of distributing information is independent of X." It's perfectly legitimate to substitute the most "wrong" thing imaginable for X to debate the merit of that statement. If a fundamental difference does exist between the substitution of "murder" and "copyright infringement", then the original argument has been invalidated due to the revealed dependence on X.
life>money. You may not agree, and if so, I would pity you.
life>money seems pretty substanceless for such a bold-sounding statement. Even if life is your only terminal value, money still has instrumental power to save it. So how much life is better than how much money? If you refuse to admit the existence of a conversion rate between the two, you limit your own potential to save life (and whatever else you care about enough to claim that it's ">money"), and I would pity you.