The question isn't why should society have any rights to an artistic creation, but why should a producer of non-material products have the right to inflict gove

The question isn't why should society have any rights to an artistic creation, but why should a producer of non-material products have the right to inflict government violence on a third party who is using that product. The answer for material property is that the use of material goods is usually exclusionary: one person using it means another person not using it, and creating a protocol to govern use and enforced by a third party leads to less violence over it. The same isn't true of intellectual property: as productivity growth took off in early modern societies, those societies that provided for intellectual property outcompeted those that didn't, as it provided an incentive to create a newly valuable good. But it's not trivial to say that "intellectual property forever!" is utility maximizing--there's a balance to be had between the public interest to incentivize the creation of new goods, and the public interest in lowering the cost of those goods.