That's a definition you accept, which is not a useful definition to me.
There are rights that are not inherent and sometimes the legal and moral mix. eg I don't have the right to take an organ from a human who has not yet suffered systemic death, unless they have gone through a process that includes giving consent to that process that may allow the organ to end up under my purview AND I accept it.
There are rights which are fundamental. Saying "definition", as if it is a flexible description does not satisfy the reality. These rights are defined by the fact that they are inherent.
Your example is a perfectly described granted right. You have been granted the right to something which is not yours and you have no other right to take.
The distinction is important. There is no moral hazard nor wrong committed in preventing someone from harvesting organs without permission. There is a wrong perpetrated when someone has been restricted in their speech or movement.
The usefulness, as you say, lies in the treatment of these things as distinctly different in nature