https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies
To answer your second question, all ownership is a restriction on the actions of others, in some way. If you own a house, what that means is that everybody else is restricted from entering that house without permission. If you own a copyright monopoly, it means that everybody else is restricted from making copies of particular books without your permission.
Where I would draw the line between "artificial" and "natural" monopolies is in how straightforward those restrictions are to apply. It is very easy to maintain restrictions on wearing a particular hat or entering a particular house. On the other hand, it is very hard to monitor all copies of a book to ensure that nobody is making additional copies of it. For one, exclusivity is a function of it being a physical object. For the other, exclusivity is not an inherent trait of the book, and is instead bolted on through legal measures.
All that to say, maybe virtual innovation takes even less time, and should have less time to enjoy monopoly? But I'm only playing your devil's advocate.
> your monopoly over commercial exploitation
Does this article need to offer some account of how these premises are true?
Since it isn't clear either are.
ie., the law is a guarantee of any right. If you produce some physical good your "monopoly" (ie., ownership), without the law, is only so good as your safe.
It is a coincidence not some principle that physical goods require less, in-practice, deployment of the courts to enforce ownership rights. (ie., theft is rarer).
It is unclear why ownership over a non-physical good is an "artificial monopoly" where as ownership over physical goods is a "natural" one which properly implies a "commercial right to profit" etc.
Why in one area does one's efforts to produce imply a right to profit; and in the other, not?