Patents and copyright are a government granted right to a limited term monopoly, which is unique in that it is a right that had to be explicitly granted, because it was not assumed to be an unenumerated right, and the authors of the US constitution were generally opposed to government granted monopolies.
It is also unique in that mere legislation could reduce the term of this right to an arbitrarily short duration. That's not how any other right works. Also unique is that other rights can't expire in your lifetime, and that the right is assignable.
Ownership of a work and monopoly are not the same thing. Monopoly implies control of an industry or a class of goods. Owning the rights to one book doesn't mean I own all books (which would be a monopoly on books), any more than owning a house gives me a monopoly on housing.
Copyright empowers Congress to make a law giving you a limited term monopoly on your words or other creations. Patents do a similar for an invention. Both expire. Until they expire you can buy and sell or rent (license) these rights, and you can bring a civil case to enforce them.
Neither are like, say, a monopoly on a commodity like milk, which can be illegal or against regulations. Search for "patent" and "monopoly" and you will find innumerable actual lawyers explaining the monopoly nature of patents better than I can.
Could you find a good example, as I don't know what I'm looking for. On "copyright" and "monopoly", presumably, not "patent". Patents could legitimately create a monopoly on a good, if there's no other way to make that good.
Copyright is a monopoly on material expressions of ideas, based on the firm belief that there is a spirit world and spiritual labour and the owning of spirit stuff. That's a lot of pretending.
