Again, "ownership" and "rights" are human constructs, meaning that it means what we agree upon that it means.

That meaning is embedded in tradition, culture, legal systems, etc. You'll note that all of these are human constructs too.

For example, if you "own" land, what does that mean? Can you keep the public from entering? In most places, yes. For example, if someone enters your undeveloped land to go hiking, you may ask the police to force them to leave.

But in some countries, members of the public have a "freedom to roam" some types of lands for certain activities - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam . Thus, "ownership" of land clearly has cultural traditions.

> If someone else claims to be the new owner of it and now it’s his original work, then yes, we have attempt to steal ownership, but otherwise it’s a copy! What it has to do with the ownership?

There are multiple ownerships here. One is the ownership of a physical copy of a book still under copyright. In that case, at least under US law, I own that book. If someone takes it from me, then I may ask the police or court system to help in its return.

That ownership gives me an otherwise unrestricted right to re-sell that book as in the US, selling does not make a copy, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine . Indeed, I may rent the use of that book to others, and the copyright owner may not prevent that.

However, under US law, the book may contain text and images whose copyright I don't control. Should I make a copy, then the copyright holder may ask the police or court system to help.

Compare this to how most software is distributed. You don't actually "buy" a piece of software, you buy a license to use the software, and that license may be withdrawn for reasons which are otherwise not permitted under US law. Furthermore, with a few exceptions, US law prohibits the rental of software.

> How controlling what others can think or do with certain ideas can be seen as a ‘basic human right’?

How is controlling what others can do with certain property be seen as a '‘basic human right’?

That is, what is your definition of a "right", why is ownership not a right, and why can't we decide that creator may have the limited ability to control how others may make copies of a work, and describe that through the term "copyright".

All you've said so far is that you don't like it, but your arguments have been vague about why. I really think the missing steps in your understanding is that the missing "magic" is simply "because we decided it's that way", and that "culture" is intrinsically self-perpetuating propaganda. One way to perpetuate a complex idea is to make it be internally (mostly) self-consistent, and couple it with cultural and/or economic benefits that most people think are worthwhile.

> what others can think ... with certain ideas

In US legal system, ideas are different from the expression or manifestation of those ideas, and the copyright system only covers the latter. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin... .

Therefore, copyright does not control how you may think about ideas.

FWIW, patent rights give a much broader monopoly protection on "ideas".