If I own a huge piece of land, it is also true that many people may use that property; but that does not make my right to that property expire at some point. There might be an argument in the limit as the marginal cost of reproduction drops to zero, or even that the cost of reproduction is borne entirely by the consumer.

The purpose of "intellectual property" protection is a valid point, though. I think that the greatest victory of the pro-"intellectual property" is simply calling it "intellectual property", thereby tainting it with thousands of years of philosophy of what "property" is.