Okay, I will try this one more time in as basic of terms as I can manage. This is a teensy bit of an oversimplification, but anything more complex seems to get somehow misinterpreted:
1. Morality consists of doing right or doing wrong.
2. The action of doing right or wrong takes an object.
3. This object can only be another sentient (and that is sentient as opposed to sapient) being.
4. Books are not sentient.
5. Therefore, books cannot be done right by, nor be wronged.
6. Ownership consists in exclusive rights over a property.
7. Therefore, only the owner can be done right by or wrong by re: property they own.
Regarding circumstances previously mentioned:
-Cannibalism is not immoral. The dead are not sentient. The non-sentient cannot be wronged. Cultural and emotional promptings lead us to show the dead consideration, but it is a choice without moral quality.
-Counterfeiting is immoral. It defrauds, thus wrongs other people.
-Stealing is immoral. It deprives, thus wrongs other people.
-Setting up dogfights is immoral. It harms, and thus wrongs the dogs (sentient albeit not sapient creatures).
-Flipping people off is not immoral. It harms nobody. It wrongs nobody. Just because it is an assholish thing to do, doesn't mean the action has a moral character.
It is really very simple. Morality is concerned with the freedoms, suffering, and interaction of sentient creatures. You can not wrong inanimate objects. Protests, of any kind, are not wrong if they do not harm anyone. If these people were stealing the books they burned, that would be wrong as they would be wronging other people. You can not wrong paper. If they were binding Muslims to chairs and forcing them to watch, they would be causing psychological harm and wronging other people. If people are free to ignore you, you cannot cause them harm merely by doing something in bad taste.
To forcibly stop them would deprive these other people of their freedom. Thus it would be wrong.
Morality is a characteristic of an action and its consequences. Intent does not play into it. You can intend weal or woe all you want, but that doesn't determine the moral character of your actions. The best intentions in the world can still lead to great wrongs. The action and its consequence are what matter here, and if there is no harm or restriction of freedom, there is no wrong.
Things can still be good or bad ideas. We can still have opinions. We can still be repulsed by things or emotionally moved. But those things alone do not grant a moral character to an action.
EDIT: Tacking this on here. There is no inherent connection between legality and morality. Law derives from principles laid down in the interest of a society which are not always within the purview or interest of morality. When they do line up we can call a society moral. When they do not, we can call it immoral. It is also possible for their to be laws with no moral character. The existence of the law does not change the nature of the inherent morality or immorality of actions and consequences.