Similarity has nothing to do with it. By definition ownership is the legal right to use or possess some "thing". Clearly, abolition of employment at will grants the job holder ownership of a salary and provides a method for revoking that ownership. The US courts, for example, have held that academic tenure of the sort so prized by Neo-liberal economists is a property right. One cannot consider freedom of speech to be a property right.

The intellectual objection I have to the argument you and others make on this subject is inconsistency. If you accept the modern world economy in which one can buy and sell bets on the gradients of price changes of options to purchase shares of companies that exist only to trade similar rights as "property" and where the economic value of such unfair and arbitrary "things" as holding an EU passport or a collective bargaining agreement are as solid as gold coins, then it is inconsistent to find rights to performance or inventions unethical.

The political objection is that your program essentially makes writers, musicians, inventors, and others into wage employees of publishers and distributors. I think that Merck should have to pay royalties to Amazonian indian tribes who discover medical herbs and Siemens should have to pay royalties to Serbian inventors who figure out how to make motors run on alternating current and that Yo Yo Ma should be able to live on royalties instead of following the tradition of begging royalty.