I didn't make myself clear; I don't dispute her ownership over any single copy of the bread. What I dispute is her ownership over all possible copies of the bread - over the very intellectual concept of that bread.
As for the communal property, you're missing the point. I don't dispute her ownership because it "belongs to everyone". I dispute the concept of ownership over non-scarce things like the shape/smell/color/etc of a abstract loaf of bread.
It's not that she doesn't own it, it's that the very idea of ownership doesn't apply.
I can't understand any situation that you think ownership does apply. You mention land, but "ownership" of land is merely an application of power, intimidation and dominance. I don't see any reason why application of power, intimidation and dominance cannot or must not be applied to books or copying of books.
Ultimately what I'm saying is that it seems very, very easy to admit an actual need to encroach on land rights (precisely due to land's actual utility and scarcity), whereas the need for copying a book (particularly books of mere entertainment value) falls into "nice to have" at best. The justification for copying books for entertainment must always be much stronger than the justification for encroaching items that have actual utility (land, food).
With respect to Hen, you either admit sweat equity or you do not. If you admit sweat equity, you must admit you will have ultimately to admit the existence of intellectual property.
As for the communal property, you're missing the point. I don't dispute her ownership because it "belongs to everyone". I dispute the concept of ownership over non-scarce things like the shape/smell/color/etc of a abstract loaf of bread.
It's not that she doesn't own it, it's that the very idea of ownership doesn't apply.