No, in fact is it just like myself in the IT business I create scripts, queries, and programs on a daily basis that will be used and are being used after I have left a company. Should the company pay me royalties on those or rewrite them? No way, as I said once you sell it or in my case agree to produce it for said company it is no longer mine.
In UK that's because as part of the terms and conditions of employment, you sign agreeing that all you produce during that employment (that is related to or materially assisted by the employers business) is the employers. In UK that's specifically enacted to prevent individuals using Company facilities - in their own time or not - to further their own ideas, when in fact they were materially assisted in terms of facilities, time or advice. In short, you work for them, tough, its theirs. Reasonable enough as a general proposition - provided you have signed to that effect. If you didn't, the UK Patent Office will tell the Company to go spin.
As for the builder example yes you own the land but I also own the CD Player, Computer, or whatever else device is required to use the work that I 'purchased' from said artist. I don't see how that is any different?
The difference is with the house, you are (at least you do in UK) buying all rights and claims to the house. Builders are happy, last thing they need is ownership in perpetuity and the bills that will follow. Its also a "one off" event in Law, a unique contract as the builder is specifically offering it "For Sale". The builder could offer it for Rent or Lease, "For Sale" is not mandatory if it was built on spec to a design they uniquely conceived for themselves. If it was built specially for you, you own it, you are contracting in skills.
Its similar for the CD Player and Computer, you buy it entire - the manufacturer is offering it "For Sale" - they could just as easily offer it for Rent or Lease, its their choice, they own the patent/copy write as applicable. The latter often happens in Corporate life whereby PCs are Leased not bought. Software is the same, however the overwhelming number of people/companies choose to licence the software, not sell it in perpetuity. Its their software, they can do what they want, same as the builder - but a builder would not sell many houses just licensing ....
Finally software houses need to legally keep hold of the source code, they cant if they "Sell" it, so software is "licensed", which is fine, they then hold ownership of the source code, its theirs to do with as they wish. If they were nuts enough to "Sell" it, they lose the source code after first purchase.
The right to Sell, Lease, or Rent is the same for anyone or anything as a general principle as long as you have the patent or copy write. The waters get muddy when individuals assume common practice is absolute law - it isn't eg a builder of a unique design that he owns could licence it, but he would be a candidate for the Funny Farm in the real world.
I hear the thoughts on Copy Write V Patent, and I dont know the reasons. However one thing I am sure of, this stuff gets tested so often in the Courts there will be a rationale for it, and despite popular opinion Corporates don't own the Courts of Law so rulings are absolute not biased.
UK music copy write is 50 years, and currently they are challenging that to extend it, there is a case pending in the European Court of Justice on the issue after a referral by the House of Lords.