But in all of these examples, damage and destruction is being done to the original 'master' version of the work. Not to any reproduction or reprint.
If someone damaged the original Picasso work or the Jane Austen manuscript, they're destroying something that is broadly considered to have a historical value. Criticism of its destruction would be centred around destroying the original work created by an artist deemed to be great. In your comparison, this would be like destroying a historical version of the Quran, like the fragments of the 7th century parchments (Birmingham Quran) or similar very old versions.
If someone bought a Picasso print or a Jane Austen paperback and damaged that, nobody would care. If you want to buy a Picasso print and cut it up, nobody will stop you. People would not be offended if you caused minor damage to a random edition of Pride and Prejudice. They might find this an objectionable way to behave and think that you shouldn't damage books in this fashion, but no outrage would be merited on the reason of it being a work by Jane Austen rather than any random paperback novel.
If someone cut up their Beatles CD, again, no problem. What you own, you can destroy. This applies to all normal belongings: the works you name are typically part of historical collections. It would be objectionable if a museum holding Austen's manuscript destroyed it, because we consider museums to be custodians. If someone privately had an Old Master and destroyed that, it might cause criticism on the basis of destruction of something considered to have a historical value, but there could be no legal or disciplinary consequences.