Conclusions Based on the Theories Handled

The liberalist position can be understood in various ways, not only the way it has been understood so far. It seems that the reason for property has been forgotten along the way to property in the immaterial. Also, the current consequentialist view seems to suffer from problems, mainly from the lack of ways to understand what “as much good to as many as possible” actually means. Finally, also the deontological position seems to have been misunderstood in the favor of a few instead of in the favor of all—which in itself fails to satisfy the requirements of categorical imperatives, no matter how they are formulated.

In spite of this, it seems that the intellectual property rights in the western societies—and largely elsewhere as well—are gaining in strength rather than lessening, which, it could be argued is what is needed (Kimppa, 2004). Limited monopolies in software and DDM seem to have become unlimited, if not de jure then at least de facto. The expectations of easier and wider dissemination of knowledge through DDM in general and Internet in particular do not seem to be satisfied, not because the technology would not make it possible, but because laws that hinder it are put in place.