You are correct that this is the common justification.  Most of those pirating don't take the time to analyze what they are doing and what they are really getting out of it. Those of us that pirated, don't pirate just what we used, if we did it would be cheap.  It was the hording that lead to extra costs.  But, because we felt we were paying for the tech anyway, it was just another use, without realizing that the pirating generally was the justification for the tech.  And nobody considers the actual time involved. When I gave it up, I gained so much of my time back. But, to the point, the costs are not generally seen directly as they are indirect costs.

" The people doing it, normally haven't ever attempted to create anything in their lives. They are just consuming.. and the one thing I've always seen (pre and post internet) is that people want crap for free because they think they're special. "

This is actually far from true. I'm also a creator of content in my own field. So to say that the people doing it have never created is similar to making the assumption that shop lifting is only done by the poor. I knew many people that created that were in piracy.  Heck, how do you think so much content got out so quickly?

Interestingly, the shop lifting comparison is probably more accurate. From conversations, most of us never touched more that 2% of what we would steal. It was easy to get an entire series downloaded. The odds of finding the time to sit and watch something was tough.  Usually because i was on the computer looking for other files to download. And, when I would watch, I'd grab the DVD's instead. I'd justify piracy from today well into tomorrow.  Name the argument, I am sure I used it with someone. But really, that had nothing to do with it.  It was just a need to posses. 

Members of the audience are surely not confused as to what they are seeing.

Tribute bands satisfy a situation where demand outstrips supply.

More often than not they exists where the bands in question just cannot be seen anymore : eg Bowie, Beatles, Queen, ABBA.

The tribute band is not stealing revenue away from Phish, presumably. Should the real Phish turn up in town I doubt their sales would be any lower because of the tribute band.

You could argue imitating the look and sound is fair use and serves to promote the band.

Genuine question, I haven't heard of it happening. If neither a record company or band have complained about a tribute band, is it even a problem?

Does a tribute band take away from sales? There's a Pink Floyd tribute band in a very small town near where I used to live (West Midlands) in a venue that the real Pink Floyd are highly unlikely to ever visit. Are they a threat to Pink Floyd's royalties?