> Imagine building a house, but not having control over who enters it. Same idea. It's not quite the same idea. When you build a house for yourself, the implic

> Imagine building a house, but not having control over who enters it. Same idea. It's not quite the same idea. When you build a house for yourself, the implicit assumption is that you can't use it the same way if there's someone else in there. Put in a crowd and it's unuseable. On the other hand, multiple people can use a creative work simultaneously without noticing each other. If anything, it can make the experience richer. Your simile holds if you're not creating something with the goal of extracting value from using it, but with the goal of extracting money from others for using it. Which leads me to the conclusion that abolishing copyright would stop people creating things for sale (second scenario), but would not influence those who create for its own sake (first sccenario).