Most of "ownership" is the right to extract rent or deny others from using something. Arguments that the original owner now has the ability to use the thing and

Most of "ownership" is the right to extract rent or deny others from using something. Arguments that the original owner now has the ability to use the thing and always did have no validity as a defence whatsoever against any sort of property crime, because modern ownership is defined by rules artificially enforcing exclusivity claims, not whether the original owner has the use of a thing. If property actually pertained to owners not being prevented from using things, property law would be a very short set of guidelines entirely approved by the author of Property is Theft. The fact that modern physical property law is - like IP - almost entirely about creating artificial restrictions on other people's use of stuff and the right to charge for its use obviously changes the concept that actually it's fundamentally different.