I was impressed by the TED video too. Have you considered that your position is self contradictory?
People do have the right to defend themselves with the minimum force needed to repel the attack, and only as a last resort.
Is threatening someone with the use of physical violence as a response to their disregard of your supposed right to intellectual property the "minimum force needed to repel the attack", and "only as a last resort"?
Owning someone isn't morally right. So no rightful claim.
Using actual or threatened force to prevent an individual from making use of their property on the basis that you own an idea isn't morally right. So not rightful claim.
If you break the law armed men will come to your house and threaten you with imprisonment. That's not agression, thats defence on behalf of the community.
The definition of aggression is "
initiation of the use of force". Theft is an act of aggression because it deprives the owner use of the property. Unauthorized copying does not deprive the original owner of the original, nor the ability to create additional copies; without further justification it cannot be considered an act of aggression.
If you don't like the law you try to get it changed, or use civil disobedience, but civil disobedience means that you are willing to accept the punishment.
"Disobey civilly or we'll have to kill you!"