This argument is circular, because it assumes that a digital copy is property in the same way something physical is.
Did a monk making a copy of a manuscript "take control" of it? Not as most people use the word "control."
Did a monk making a copy of a manuscript "take control" of it? Not as most people use the word "control."
By "control" of something, I mean the ability to decide what happens to it. A monk copying a manuscript doesn't take control of the original, but he is able to then decide what happens to that information. That's what's being taken.
In the case of a monk I would guess spreading a religious text wouldn't be a problem for the person who gave it to him. But when someone copies the latest Harry Potter manuscript the author/publishers do have a problem, because they are losing something. As they can no longer control what happens to that content their ownership is diminished. And when someone's ownership is taken from them against their wishes, what else would you call that, other than "stealing"?