I can take materials and land, and build a house. I can live in said house.
But if someone claims that the way I cut the wood was under a patent, then they can lay claim on my property with make-believe property - that of which is in the mind.
It's also how we get absurd things like BRACA1 gene for breast cancer is "owned" by a company, meaning all those with breast cancer somehow owe this company for using any techniques to find it.
Or it's how we get idiotic things like "I'll sell you this shiny disk, but the software says you lose all first sale doctrine cause of copyright".
Or, with laws strengthening copyright (DMCA) say "You may have bought and own this hardware, but it's illegal for you to fix it without our approval, because of 'prevention techniques'. " Might I remind you, that only 30 years prior, companies would attach the schematic of the electronics in the back panel for easy repair.
'Intellectual Property' degrades property in every way.
Creative works is arguably all just "remixing" what already exists.
... In which case nobody alive truly owns anything which isn't just a derative work of what the estate of some ancient Greek's estate would already own, thus you'd owe them royalties for everything you do with "your own" works.
It is also by nature non-rivalrous, this no need for defending it to be able to use it for yourself.
It is proven over and over that sharing and collaborating results in better outcomes for everybody, and thus there's no strong argument based on "benefit of the author" in favor of it.
There's also no obvious definition of what the limit is for WHEN you've created something novel, thus nobody can ever actually really know if they truly have something they actually own or not.
Edit: Why? Property rights should be upheld in perpetuity. The author's estate should continue to benefit from his works.