If you are in the market of selling pictures of cars and you take a rare (in fact, entirely unique) photograph of a car, then someone else takes a picture of your picture and sets up shop next door to give them away for free, they have deprived you of your ability to earn money from distributing that which you invested in the creation of. Just like diluting your equity in a company, they have not taken your physical property (or shares) but they have taken value from you regardless.

Or let's say that I am the brother of El Presidente, and I run the state monopoly on cigars, and farmers grow tobacco and sell cigars directly to tourists, they re depriving me of the value of my mnopoly.

But they aren't depriving me of my tobacco. The two are different, which is why the morality of the two are different. Nobody denies that being able to get the police to enforce a monopoly has value, but it's not the same kind of value as the ability to enjoy smething for its intrnsic value to the owner.

Different kinds of value, therefore different kinds of morality. I'd say that the right to monopolize bits has nothing to do with the bits and everything to do with taxation or rent-seeking.

You're comparing someone selling a similar product that they had to grow on their own land using their own resources to someone taking a product that is completely unique and cannot be found in nature, and diluting your value from it down significantly without any financial repercussions to themselves. Apples and oranges.