Don't worry about it. They will get meta-moderated and in the future not get as many mod points. Eventually.
In the mean time, feel free to expound upon the most difficult aspect of the copyright dialogue: how to compensate original authors.
Certainly the moral aspect of taking someone's work for free, representing it as your own, and then profiting tremendously from it is plain as day wrong.
However, let's complicate it a bit. Take each of these as a "What if?" scenario:
The original author is dead.
The "rights" were transferred to an organization that will never die, like his family or corp.
The original work is obscure.
Other work is independently achieved.
The work is too expensive for someone to "buy".
The work is used, but not for profit.
The work is used, new work is made and the original cited.
The list goes on, though it should show some of the key inherent problems with material value and ownership. Attributing material value to an idea seems fraught with philosophical peril.
What is ownership, anyway? Just some government given attribute that allows us to take from others.
Being your usual polite Midwestern guy, I would prefer to solve to problem by getting people to willingly remove money from their wallets for my work, as opposed to some government enforced law decreeing so. The solution to copy-cats is fairly easy: keep creating. They may have taken your fish today, but you still know how to fish and they don't.
How we ought to legislate copy-rights and other such weird concepts such as intellectual property, I have no idea. So long as the government doesn't spend much money on it and it's so unenforceably broken (like now), it's fine.
In the current system, the low hanging fruit seems to be 1) spending less tax money on the problem overall, 2) decreasing the copyright lifetime, 3) protect individuals, not corporations, 3) simple policy, 4) provide swift and immediate judgments.