sI4shd0rk's response cuts through the BS but you've chosen to ignore it
I chose to ignore it, because it's a bad point, made without any substantiation. I don't see why a person making a good point, making sure to carefully justify what they're saying, needs to answer to every person who asserts nonsense without evidence (hint: they don't).
So I can infer that you're more interested in semantic arguments than arguing the central point.
You may infer whatever you like, but look at this from my perspective: I have a an anonymous coward, responding multiple times to my various posts, trying to argue against me primarily by dishonest means which are (lamentably) traditionally quite effective. You've nitpicked at my argument, from a couple of angles, missing the point each time, choosing to take an ultimately irrelevant part of my comments, make it look wrong, and hope that people will also miss the central point, or believe it to be wrong by association. You've also, in I think all of your replies, tried to personally insult me, and tried to paint me as someone who is not worth replying to (but you charitably do anyway, so that others don't have to). Maybe it's deliberate, or maybe it's just for yourself, to ease your own insecurity of failing to address the point, over and over again. Either way, you and I both know that it works, and I, at least, know that it's a reprehensible tactic to take in a debate. That's why I'm replying to you. (That's just about all the summary that a "curious third party" needs for our particular debate.)
Having said that, you've now actually decided to reply to the actual point. Good work. It's about time.
Entitlement isn't just "if the law says you get it, then you're entitled to it". There is a human rights aspect to entitlement too - you can be entitled to something without it being legally protected, like the right to share information. You can be legally granted things to which other people are entitled.
I love how you link to a wikipedia page that spends the first couple of paragraphs contradicting you:
"An entitlement is a guarantee of access to something, such as to Social Security, Medicare or welfare benefits, based on established rights or by legislation."
You claim that entitlement cannot be decided purely on what's law. I'm happy enough to roll with that assumption. I would like to counter by asserting that, if the law guarantees you something, that no-one else is entitled to in any other sense, then you have entitlement to it. Would you at least agree with that? (It's difficult to make arguments for this assertion, because since we're not taking "entitlement" to mean its well-defined legal meaning, there's not much I can do other than simply make sure we're referring to the same concept.) Well, if this is indeed the case, then in order to claim that, in spite of the law saying completely the opposite, artists have no entitlement to copyright, you would need to find someone else who is entitled to copying artistic works more than the artist. So, the burden of proof currently rests on you (or sl4shd0rk). I don't believe such a person exists. Prove me wrong.