I think you screwed up the link. The op-ed you link to attempts to argue for infinite copyright extension with a grab-bag of ontological proofs by comparison with physical property.
In other words, it's a poorly-reasoned piece of hackery that contributes nothing to the debate.
A wiki page explaining the errors in the article has been started:
Hopefully in the future the NYT will require writers wishing to discuss copyright to develop a basic grasp of the subject rather than so embarrassing themselves in print.
I think Kashif was kidding ;-)
The principle is the liberty of market access and the exception is the monopoly (like IP rights).
Because the author brings his creation to the collectivity, the law gives him an exclusive right for a limited period. In other words the collectivity GIVE you this temporary protection and of course you don’t buy it. That’s the deal.
Nothing comparable when you buy a house.
Much of the rest is snivelling.