interest vs. will theory of rights

here’s a little interview from one of my fave podcasts – philosophy bites – on the distinction between individual rights having their basis in a person’s interest vs. their will:

Matthew Kramer on Legal Rights

Has clear implications for the “they have enough money” and “some bands don’t care” arguments for piracy.  This guy is against will theory in a general sense because of some of the scary conclusions it can lead to, which seems reasonable but I think it’s perfectly fine to say (re: the issue at hand) that artists have the option of giving up the right to demand payment for their work.  Of course the fact that SOME do doesn’t justify violating the rights of those who still want to be paid…  then again, the artist isn’t the only one with (legal) rights to proceeds of the work once a label is invested…

Another argument says it is in fact in the artist’s interest to allow sharing (or piracy or whatever you want to call it) because ulmately s/he will gain from the larger exposure.  This is clearly debatable and both sides claim to have proof though I’m not yet convinced in either direction… Whether or not the artist actually benefits more from one state of affairs or another, don’t we still have the duty to honor their wishes (re: their legal rights) until they willingly give them up?