There is a very important difference between "owning" information - which is
impossible and any attempt to do so is morally reprehensible - and the
"creator's right" of being named as said creator - which is perfectly fine.
All your examples are more or less instances of the latter - it's not okay, for
example, to plagiarize because you are violating everyone's right to truth.
"We have always felt entitled to do what we please with the fruit of our labors,
and we feel no differently when that fruit is information."
Except that fruit of your labor is not "information", it's a "copy of
information".
And of course you are entitled to do whatever you want with it.
As am I, if I have gained access to it by any means that did not violate your
privacy (eg., breaking into your house or hacking into your computer) or other
fundamental rights (copy"right" is not a right, it's a privilege - very, very
important difference, as rights cannot be granted by law).
In other words, I cannot force you to share something with me.
But neither can you forbid me from sharing things I have - including pieces of
information - unless they violate one of your fundamental rights (for example,
your dignity).
"We have always felt entitled to do what we please with the fruit of our labors, and we feel no differently when that fruit is information."
Except that fruit of your labor is not "information", it's a "copy of information". And of course you are entitled to do whatever you want with it. As am I, if I have gained access to it by any means that did not violate your privacy (eg., breaking into your house or hacking into your computer) or other fundamental rights (copy"right" is not a right, it's a privilege - very, very important difference, as rights cannot be granted by law). In other words, I cannot force you to share something with me. But neither can you forbid me from sharing things I have - including pieces of information - unless they violate one of your fundamental rights (for example, your dignity).