I'm not very well read into economics/marx etc., but that scenario is one of the rare instances where the worker is an independent entity and not subject to some contract between her and an owner of means of production (means of production refers to real existing things like computers, offices and so on as well as abstract entities like organisations, companies, patents...). I think that, just from looking at the world, we can agree that it's not reasonable to think of every person as an independent entrepreneur in a has-his-own-business sense. Most people are part of an economic institution, and that institution has an owner. Since it has an owner, that person decides how that economic institution behaves, i.e. what to produce, how/where to produce it, what to do with the profits etc.. People can then rent themselves to that institution, on conditions that are largely set by the owner or by people he put in charge (managers/bosses). In a software example, consider a programmer hired at a software development company. He probably does not get to decide what license the fruits of his labor (code) which he produced in the economic institution get published under. And of course he doesn't decide what to actually work on. And of course he has no power in deciding what's being done with the profits of his work. The power ultimately lies with the owner of that company, that's what ownership means (economic institutions in capitalism are almost inherently dictatorships). And the owner generally is not accountable to the employees, except through some laws external to the company like minimum wage and so on.
Well, there's no law of nature that says things have to be like that. People could be free to decide things in their worklife on their own, and where there's practical reasons (if 7 people work on one program, it makes sense that they all choose the same license for their individual code) or where others are impacted by decisions (like what the wages across the whole company look like), you could decide things democratically, in a general assembly, where every participant in the company is equally entitled to a vote. Moving towards such structures ultimately means lessening the degree to which the institution is in private ownership. So as far as economic institutions go, I think individual people being able to own them is stupid. 150 years ago America decided that it should not be possible to own individual persons and got rid of slavery. And most western civilization thinks slavery is a bad thing. Perhaps in a few more hundred years people will look back at our system, where the organisations/institutions in which people spend most of their adult lifes in can be owned and controlled by individuals and react with "what the hell were they thinking".