You're reversing the burden of proof. One must prove something is immoral, not the reverse.

"theft" is not a moral concept. It's a legal one.

If Johnny takes possession of rights-managed content legally owned by Jane without according Jane the redress legally accorded her for dispersal of her content, Johnny has committed a crime.

Morality has nothing to do with it. All sorts of laws are immoral. Legally Johnny is in the wrong.

But no, I don't believe you or I have the moral right to the information we produce.

Let's pretend you live in Colorado. You own a growhouse and are a pot entrepreneur. Because of this, the NSA has all your phones tapped and all your email monitored. You go on a roadtrip to Utah and are arrested in a joint operation involving the DEA, the Utah State Patrol and the FBI.

Do you have a problem with this? Because, as you say, "I don't believe you or I have the moral right to the information we produce."

I dunno, man. I value protection from unlawful search and seizure and the right to privacy a bit higher than the right to read or watch whatever I want.

A bank account is not information.

I would really like to see you elaborate on this one. My uncle used to run payroll for Laemmle Theaters back in the late '60s. That's why he knows COBOL. Thermodynamically speaking, by the way, "information" is any signal that isn't pure noise. I'm curious to see how financial data doesn't fit this definition.