Utility Maximization

When readig Lessig's 2.0 utility for the "whole" instead of "one" seems like a big argument. Since nature is a physical property and can be owned and used by one person intellectual property cannot be held to the same standard in my opinion. If intellectual property can be divulged by more than one person at the same time then it is increasing society's utility level by that many more units. If the government gave a copyright that allowed the owners to rightly own the intellectual property then it so be short term and not permanent. If for some reason the government did give sole ownership to that person, then yes it would increase their utility level but have the opposite effect on the world. This would not increase the science and useful arts that the people strive to do each and every day. More discoveries and inventions will be discovered that will impact society in a utility increasing manner if the copyrights do not tie up the intellectual property permanently. Personally I think the commons is a great place. This allows for more creations which in turn increases utility for the entire society. After watching the videos in class about the music it put everything into perspective. People can now, from anywhere in the world, take someones creation or discovery and add their personal touch. Even though these items under copyright standards are being tampered with and rearranged, these tamperings are creating new utility bundles that maybe someone did not have before. As long as, from society's standpoint, our marginal benefits outweigh our marginal costs we should put more emphasis on the creative commons as this place seems like a haven for discoveries. Copyrights are important however in my opinion, it seems they work well within a capitalism country because the copyright allows them to be a monopoly of that particular creation/discovery.