Ownership of physical assets derives from concepts like "scarcity" and "exclusivity". You can't have my widget because then I can't use it, and maybe, worst case, you damage it. This is more or less a universally understood risk and we have agreed as a society to build a legal system around it.
Intellectual property has no such underpinning. Once the software exists, you can't unring that bell. There's no technical reason that anyone who wants Windows XP can't have a copy; it won't wear out.
Instead of coping with a universal physical inevitability, we built copyright around a social tradeoff instead-- hacking around the natural economics of a finished product that has zero marginal cost or supply constraint. This lets rights-owners simulate scarcity and exclusivity and enables some business models-- usually the "front-loaded" model of "build the product first, the sell it later in an bulk undifferented manner". Society has accepted this tradeoff because it was considered a net positive. Hence language like the original Copyright Clause of the US Constitution-- "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts". It's not a natural right, it's a tradeoff where the rest of us expect to get something in return.
I believe this means this deal is always subject to review, alteration, or cancellation if it no longer justifies its costs. Creativity will find a way. Music will be written for as long as "I'm in the band" is a viable pick-up line, commissioned art will exist as long as someone has more fursonae than artistic talent to draw them, and software will emerge from the millions of businesses who need it to function.
Nobody's business model is sacred and guaranteed, and nobody is entitled to hold the rest of the world hostage to maintain it. Did we hold back the modern world because the steam locomotive and horse-whip manufacturers would go out of business? Why should the commercial-software industry have any more clout?