It has no ethical influence. As we know, the legal system only protects those able to pay for its services. At the same time, use of this system requires knowledge of the law and trust in its just execution. So, while a survey of recent copyright cases may throw up a number of examples in the Madonna Inc. versus Michael Jackson Pty. Ltd. vein, cases where individuals sue large companies are rare.
Success is even more elusive.
Only in the Bible does David kill Goliath. On top of this, the way that present legislation is drafted does not take into consideration the needs of many indigenous cultures which utilise oral or performance media. In many cases works do not exist in material form, only in their enactment through story, dance or other impermanent forms. The copyright rationale also ignores group or tribal contributions to the work and its protective period of 50 years is unsuited to longstanding cultural artefacts. Indigenous cultures are particularly susceptible to artistic exploitation by commercial interests as they are often outside mainstream society and its benefits, such as financial security or knowledge of welfare and legal services.