However, if you grant that she has a right to control the disposition and use of her property, then your act in a small way is violating her right. So even granting that you have "perfect knowledge" in this argument, and no one downloads her songs other than people who would have bought them anyway, the downloading still causes harm.
I don't understand your argument. Even if we grant that she has the right to control the use of her property, where does the element of harm come in when someone violates that right?
What if you drove 90 miles an hour through a crowded parking lot and manage not hit anyone or anything? You haven't harmed anyone, but that doesn't mean your act wasn't morally wrong, because of its potential to cause harm.
I think I addressed this issue in a response to Weac. I am not arguing for consequentialism, where actions are judged by their consequences. Certainly risky and reckless actions that don't end up causing harm could still be considered wrong because of the intent of the actor to ignore the harm that could very well be caused.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
