Both personal autonomy and private property are social constructs we agree are valuable. Stealing a car and raping a person are things we've identified as unacceptable and codified into law.
And in stark contrast, intellectual property is something we've identified as being valuable to extend limited protections to in order to incentivize creative and technological development. It is not a sacred right, it's a gambit.
It's us saying, "We identify that if we have no IP protection whatsoever, many people will have no incentive to create, and nobody will ever have an incentive to share. Therefore, we will create some protection in these specific ways in order to spur on creativity and development."
There's no (or very little) ethics to it. We've created a system not out of respect for people's connections to their creations, but in order to entice them to create so we can ultimately expropriate it for society as a whole. And that system affords protection in particular ways. Any usage that is permitted by the system is not only not unethical, it is the system working.