Q&A: Regarding Copyright
Regarding Copyright
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael,
I heard you say in one of the recorded lectures that there can be ownership over ideas, and you based your argument on the fact that ownership of abstract things like smell, sound, light, etc. is subordinate to ownership of the tangible thing of which the abstract thing is a property.
I recently read a Jewish law ruling in Maimonides that if a shofar was stolen, one can still fulfill his obligation with it on Rosh Hashanah, because the sound is not stolen. But sound is also something abstract that is attributed to the shofar, the tangible thing. So if we say that the abstract follows the tangible, then supposedly the sound of the shofar should also be considered stolen.
Answer
See my article in Techumin 25 that deals with this. There I also discussed the shofar and the theft of its sound. I don’t remember what I wrote there, but at first glance the relationship between the sound and the shofar is not like the relationship between a smell and an apple. The smell is a property of the apple; the sound is something produced by a person by means of the shofar. Therefore the sound should be discussed as an independent entity, whereas the smell of the apple and the appearance of the honey (in Maimonides’ wording in the laws of sale) are secondary to the objects that bear them.