The EU isn't big on natural rights, though. They talk a good game, but once you get beyond the vaguest platitudes, the people in power at the moment are the ones who get to define what "rights" mean. As usual it comes down to whoever has the most lawyers, guns, and/or money.

The concept is problematic enough here in the US, where our founding documents assume that rights are granted by a deity who rarely bothers to put in an appearance when said rights are being violated. It's best to find more rational bases than "natural rights" for arguments like copyright reform, if at all possible.

Is there any reason to think the EU endorses any "natural rights" idea, other than the ones they say they do? Is there any reason to think that the EU has enshrined or attempted to enshrine the NAP into law? In fact, I can only ever identify the NAP being spoken about by right-libertarians, who are a very, very small minority in European politics as far as I can tell. There are ways to criticise copyright as unjust without relying on the fact that it violates a fairly recent libertarian concept.

I'd also question whether ownership of one's body is something a society should aim for. It seems to lead to various repugnant conclusions, including but not limited to the potential to sell oneself into slavery and to sell one's organs. Even in libertarianism this is a radical point of view. The default in today's society is that you don't own your body - so a criticism of copyright on the presumption that it is inconsistent with the rest of the law has very little force. You would be better off arguing on property rights, but even then you'll run into trouble (e.g many would say that the prohibition against possessing child pornography is justifiable even on J.S. Mill's harm principle).