I don't want to get into a detailed argument here, but there are popular, consistent moral philosophies which hold that (1) physical property rights exist a priori to the state (Locke-style) and so are immoral to violate at all times, and (2) intellectual property rights are a social construction which only have moral import when defined by a legal framework and enforced by a reasonably just government.

In other words, many philosophers do draw a morally relevant distinction between these categories of rights.