Why nonsense? How is this different from any other intellectual property which, according to your view, has halakhic validity?

The religious court made a halakhic discovery, and use of that discovery is permitted only with the consent of the rights-holder. Of course, if a person studied the Jewish law and arrived at that position on his own, or if he went and asked another rabbi who sat and studied the halakhic decisors and reached the same conclusion, then he does not need this religious court. Because the discovery is not a patent that belongs only to the first inventor.

But a person who does not know the Jewish law—if not for the ruling of the religious court, he would not think it was permitted but would think it was forbidden—why should he be allowed to use the ruling? True, the religious court is only revealing the true law and not creating anything, and apparently there are no issues here of the local halakhic authority who has the power to issue extraordinary temporary rulings like Elijah at Mount Carmel, but discoveries too have intellectual property.

Admittedly, now the Jewish law has been clarified and the person simply acts because it is permitted to him, but he would not have known about the permit. If Mr. So-and-so discovered a world-changing scoop that you can mix water and flour and produce glue with marvelous properties, would he not be entitled to forbid individuals from using his discovery without paying him money?

Bottom line: why is there no intellectual property in halakhic discoveries?
Is there, from a halakhic standpoint, intellectual property in the discovery of a mathematical formula?

Come on, really!
There is no discovery here at all, only an opinion. Is there any new idea here? This is simply utter nonsense.
And all this even aside from my view that relying on the opinion of a halakhic decisor has no significance. You do what seems correct to you and can at most make use of his opinion. But as I said, there is no need for that.

If so, if there is a new halakhic idea, then yes, there are copyrights in it? Someone discovered a new interpretation in the Talmud, and everyone now understands that he is right and is convinced that the interpretation is correct, and therefore a new law emerges from it—does he have rights in that?

With all copyrights, I always do what seems right and known to me and only make use of the inventor’s discovery, except that the source came from someone and the rights are his.

As for the distinction between a discovery and an opinion—granted, you defined it as utter nonsense, and by rights I should restrain my tongue, but in honor of Purim, since anyone who stretches out his hand, etc.—here my tongue asks whether you can explain what the difference is and why it matters for intellectual property. Bottom line, the particular person under discussion here would not act leniently if he had not heard that the religious court permitted it; that is, there is information that the religious court revealed, and he is making use of it without permission.

Regarding halakhic ideas in general, the halakhic decisors disagree whether there are rights in them. But even if there are rights in them, here there is no new idea in any sense.

In ordinary copyright, you do nothing. You hear music or watch a film that someone created. When it comes to an idea, you can come up with the idea yourself independently, and then there are no rights involved (unless he registered a patent, but that is a legal construct and not a natural right). And here you are not even using their discovery, because there is no such discovery. At most you are making use of their opinion, and even that is not really so, as I wrote.

If I say that in my opinion this painting is beautiful, and now someone himself says that it is beautiful because he heard it from me, has he violated my copyright? And by the way, in the case at hand there is no information at all, except perhaps information about the halakhic decisor. If I know that the decisor is tall and I say that to someone, have I violated his copyright?

Even on Purim, it is proper to ask questions that have substance and not just be stubborn.

The answer simply does not answer the question, and I’m the one being stubborn? He is using information he received from me to produce benefits for himself that he would not know how to produce if he had not received the information from me, and for some reason there is no copyright on that information. And where did these arbitrary distinctions suddenly come from? It is a riddle, and it shall remain a riddle.

I would very much ask anyone who knows: is this announcement by the religious court genuine, or is it only a joke?

If it is genuine, please give me evidence for that.

The religious court?

Here it appears without the qualification that the permit is intended for those who pay membership dues:

מחלימי קורונה בחודשים האחרונים לא יצומו

And here it appears with the qualification:
https://bshch.blogspot.com/2021/02/blog-post_1703.html

Apparently some clown added it.

Does anyone have a comment / insight?

It seems that making exemption from the fast conditional on paying community taxes was a humorous way for one of the community functionaries to remind and encourage the members of the community to pay their taxes. If you benefit from the lenient rulings of the community’s rabbis, it is fitting that you also bear responsibility for supporting the salaries of those who issue halakhic rulings. A serious statement flavored with a pinch of humor.

Best regards, Shimshon Hershele Halevi of Ostropol

In the letter on repentance by the author of the Tanya, the possibility is mentioned of replacing penitential fasts with charity because of the weakness of the generation. So one who is exempt from the Fast of Esther because of weakness should at least not separate himself from the community when it comes to financial support. And as our Sages said, the half-shekel contribution of the Jewish people was what stood to nullify the effect of Haman’s 10,000 silver talents.