Control of streams of income from selling reproductions of something is clearly also zero-sum, and much physical property is non-rival. If I don't pay a toll on your bridge, you still have a bridge (of course you may not build the bridge if you are unable to extract tolls from it, but the same arguments justified intellectual property laws). If I stay in your apartment when you're on holiday, you still have uninterrupted enjoyment of your apartment on your return: the only thing you have lost is a possible income stream from selling it to others. A freeholder isn't even allowed to enter apartments whose freehold he owns without permission of the leaseholder; and yet he has the property right to extract ground rent and maintenance fees from leaseholders.

Modern world physical property rights - centred around permanent or fixed term tradable exclusive rights of economic exploitation - bear more resemblance to intellectual property rights than the relatively universal notion that people shouldn't have the stuff they're using taken away from them, as do the practical and moral arguments about people deserving fruits of their labour and being more productive when given exclusivity over them.