Not necessarily. what about taking an empty house, ie squatting? That's legal in some jurisdictions. On the flip side, when you infringe on someone's copyright you're depriving them of the right to the residual income from its resale (this applies more to infringement in the form of republication/mass duplication and offer of the copy for sale than making an individual copy, but there's a non-zero possibility that someone who helps themselves to a pirate copy of something for nothing because they can might otherwise have paid something to purchase it.
You expect to profit by selling copies of your work and you task the State with preventing me from doing so, thereby limiting my freedom to do whatever I want with my own physical property (my pen and my paper).
Not true at all. You can do whatever you like with your pen and paper, and it will even be copyright-protected. You don't sell with your pen and paper, you compose and/or copy with them. It's the commercial transfer of intellectual property that copyright laws regulate, not the act of creation as such.
The original analogy is flawed, but so is your counter-argument. The intangibility of authorship doesn't obviate its legal existence - otherwise whole classes of contractual relations would be impossible.
The equivalent to copying information would be building another house with equivalent materials that has the same floorplan as your house, not taking your house itself.
"right to the residual income from its resale" sounds like a very weird right to me, and doesn't really come from any sound ethical foundation. In fact, it's exactly the opposite for physical goods. If I buy a deck of cards, and then sell (or give) it to somebody else, I've technically deprived the creator of the deck of cards of residual income from resale, but they don't have a right to it from the first sale doctrine.
You expect to profit by selling copies of your work and you task the State with preventing me from doing so, thereby limiting my freedom to do whatever I want with my own physical property (my pen and my paper).
Not true at all. You can do whatever you like with your pen and paper, and it will even be copyright-protected. You don't sell with your pen and paper, you compose and/or copy with them. It's the commercial transfer of intellectual property that copyright laws regulate, not the act of creation as such.
The original analogy is flawed, but so is your counter-argument. The intangibility of authorship doesn't obviate its legal existence - otherwise whole classes of contractual relations would be impossible.