Isn't the argument against copyrights very similar, if not the same, to the argument for the state to own historic artifacts?

I'd argue that the state should own historic artifacts so that they can be held in common. That way no one individual can claim ownership, retain the right to destroy it if they wish, and prevent others from viewing/studying it.

Of course the state isn't going to let me or you handle it, but they'll obviously give access to research institutions and whatnot who will publish their findings. Hobby Lobby dude might not do the same and as a private owner, he retains the right not to.