"Intellectual property is a "right" only insofar as the law says it is"
Sure, even life, freedom, property are rights "insofar the law says it". There was a time when the law said some people had no right to their own lives and freedom, nor could have any property.
Now we do believe there are some basic rights that belong to all people. As society shifted from only "material" properties to "immaterial" ones, the notions of property itself had to evolve. For some people, their most valuable property is not the land, it's their intellect and skills. Why they should be at disadvantage with those who own other properties, like lands, buildings, money or gold? Intellect is a scarce resource as well.
Just like feeding a herd would be useless if everybody would be allowed to steal newborns, allowing to take advantage of someone's IPs would make people far less willingly to work on, or share them.
Before IP was protected, any new idea was jealously guarded (like Google search engine...) to avoid someone could steal it and profit from it without any effort. Many of them were lost and had to be rediscovered again, maybe centuries later. Hindering progress a lot.
The idea of IP protection stems from the idea that is far better to allow them to become public, with a level of protection that ensure the owner can have a reasonable gain from them.
Sure, the entertainment industry is not nicer than Google, and can easily overprice contents as long as it finds enough gullible people who can't live without. Just, the only difference is you pay directly - but the money Google makes from ads still comes from you, what do you believe?
Article 13 doesn't expand copyright. It closes a loophole some used to avoid to pay people's work, but at their own terms. Just like ancient kings who could tell you at what price you had to surrender your properties to them, or else.
And asking people to surrender their rights is totalitarian.