Perhaps I thought you were asking if the book itself was "intellectual property".
Let's approach this using the Socratic method. How does the hard drive on my computer become the fruit of someone else's labor if I use it to copy information that doesn't deprive them of the physical media on which the pattern is originally stored? How does my accumulated capital become the fruit of someone else's labor? Doesn't the act of copying require one to expend accumulated capital/do work? How is a non-scarce resource the product of labor? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the fruits of their labor were whichever media they originally imprinted the pattern on? How could a pattern exist absent a physical media? How could someone own something that doesn't tangibly exist in the physical world?
Because they didn't create the physical media, they created the IP
That's irrelevant to the issue at hand. The copies are not valuable because of the medium they're in, the copies are valuable because of the original IP.
It doesn't have to.
It's called intellectual property. That's how. All ownership is an abstract construction, so your physicalist argument is irrelevant.