Someone who produces songs or books for a living is no less entitled to benefit from the fruits of his labor (if he can sell them) than someone who fixes cars or paints houses or weaves baskets.
I think this confuses the issue a bit. I am not disputing that if a musician or an author creates a song or a book and a buyer agrees to enter into a contractual relationship with the creator to exchange money or some other good for the creation, that this contract is valid. The question arises when a third party enters the picture who was not involved in the original contract.
And here is where the differences between intellectual property and physical property are most visible. Once the intellectual property has been created, it can be distributed to many people at no cost to any of the original owners, other than the opportunity cost of lost sales that could have occurred if any of the people receiving the intellectual property would have otherwise paid for it.
But if they would not have purchased it otherwise, than even this opportunity cost disappears, and with it the claim of moral wrong.
Again, pragmatically, I may agree that in order to encourage creative production of intellectual property, and to avoid the administrative difficulties in determining who would have paid and who wouldn't, it is a good idea to establish a legal system that protects intellectual property rights.
But if we are discussing morality, not law, as we were with the original Neuro issue, and if we understand immorality as something that causes harm to another person, by either directly hurting them or depriving them of benefit, then I don't see what Neuro did as morally wrong.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
