> Abundant things can be property too. Property is about ownership.

The legally and ethically relevant concept of ownership is about dealing with mutual exclusivity of material resources and avoiding its conflicts. Abudant things, in this context, do not have mutual exclusivity and, as such, are not ownable in a natural sense.

> But they do indicate intent.

And?

> I was talking about the physical object.

Sure, but we are talking about IPs, not real property, so I fail to see how this example is relevant.