No. There is no link between people being creative and people respecting copyright law. I guess most people on DA who use Photoshop have pirated it, for example. The number of people who don't understand creative commons at all, even though they're using it, is also staggering. So there is no reason to believe that this measure would help at all.
I just realized that I hadn't read your post fully, and not replied to the second paragraph.
I am against government subsidies for creativity tools. Nobody needs the Adobe Creative Suite to be creative. It does make it easier, and I think it's worth the money (especially the comparatively cheap student edition), but people can also make art with GIMP, if they don't mind a lot of pain. Similarly, good cameras are expensive, but people can make great pictures even with iPhones.
It has never been cheaper to be creative than today. Most kinds of creativity are free today; they only cost time. So I don't really see a need here. Of course it would be nice to get CS 6 for free, but that isn't the job of the government.
Thank you. I guess most people would not need this kind of help. I still thought it would be helpful because of the premise that those who are serving time for violating copyright law can step into an intellectual property owner's shoes and see why infringement would be against the law, but it is not needed.
I think copyright law should be amended to apply to what it was originally designed for: protecting the rights of the author or creator of an original work, something which has sadly been almost forgotten today thanks to the distortions and misconceptions seen in something like SOPA which confuses the distinctly different legal concepts of property and intellectual property.