Rice farmers have a monopoly on the rice they grow—if someone else takes it without permission and sells it they are considered thieves. But it doesn't really make sense to compare physical goods and creative goods like that. You can't "copy" rice in the same way you can copy a novel; rice doesn't need copyright.
The reason copyright was invented in the first place was to encourage creative work by allowing the creator to profit from it for a period. It aims to balance potential benefits—the one that accrues to the creator and the one that accrues to the general population once copyright expires. You might think that the creator does not deserve any benefit from their creation, but most creators would disagree with you.
Code is a possible exception. The benefits of open source development may greatly outweight the benefits that would accrue to an individual developer if the code couldn't be copied, but I'm not sure that the balance is the same for novels and movies. I suspect many valuable creative works would simply not be created if the creator had no way to benefit.
Perhaps we need a more nuanced discussion that considers the actual benefits/harms of copyright periods on particular artforms and creative endeavours.
Ironically in some jurisdictions, you can patent crops. Patent != copyright of course, but it is related as in this case it would partly be used to prevent sale of the same type of rice.
Farming is not like copying a book. I just wasted a fair bit of time commenting about how farming is not like copying a fucking book and the implications that arise from that. But apparently you didn't bother to read it, are too thick to understand it, or simply prefer to respond with cretinous sarcasm, so I won't waste my time any further.
