How is the rule for illegal copying in categories such books(or text book in college) and other related things for studying? (copyrights and intellectual property)

The Issue of Copyright%0D%0A%0D%0AThe following are frequently encountered issues for authors and software%0D%0Adevelopers:%0D%0A%0D%0ACan we register a book under the Copyright Act which bars the people from%0D%0Apublishing that book vithout the permission of the copyright holder?%0D%0A%0D%0AIf something is registered under the law of copyright, should we abide by%0D%0Athe restrictions imposed by that law?%0D%0A%0D%0ACan a copyright holder sell his right of publishing to another person, for a%0D%0Amonetary gain?%0D%0A%0D%0AMufti Taqi Uthmani, a learned scholar and Justice of the Supreme Court of%0D%0APakistan answers:%0D%0AThe question of 'copyright' is related to a wider concept, generally known%0D%0Aas the concept of 'intellectual property'. In previous times, the concept of%0D%0Aownership was confined to only tangible objects. The theory of 'intellectual%0D%0Aproperty' contemplates that whoever applies his mental labour to invent%0D%0Asomething is the owner of the fruits of his labour. If a person has invented%0D%0Aa certain instrument, he does not own that instrument only, but he also owns%0D%0Athe formula he has used for the first time to invent it. Therefore, nobody%0D%0Acan use that formula without his permission. Similarly, if a person has%0D%0Awritten a book, he is the exclusive owner of the right to publish it, and%0D%0Anobody has any right to publish that book without his permission. This right%0D%0Aof an author or an inventor is termed as his 'intellectual property'. It is%0D%0Aonly implied in this theory that the owner of such rights can sell them to%0D%0Aothers like any other tangible objects. The law of 'copyright' has come into%0D%0Aexistence in order to secure such rights and to give legal protection to%0D%0Athis kind of property.%0D%0A%0D%0AIt is obvious that the concept of intellectual property on which the law of%0D%0Acopyright is based is a new phenomenon created by the rapid progress of%0D%0Aindustry and the means of communication. Therefore, this concept is not%0D%0Aexpressly mentioned in the holy Qur'%E2n or in the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet%0D%0ASallall%E2hu alayhi wasallam. The acceptability or otherwise of such new%0D%0Aconcepts which are not clearly mentioned in the original sources of Isl%E2mic%0D%0Ajurisprudence can only be inferred from the general principles laid down by%0D%0Athe Shar%EE'ah. As the views of the jurists may differ while applying these%0D%0Aprinciples to the new situations, there is always a wide scope of difference%0D%0Aof opinion in such case. The question of 'intellectual property' has also%0D%0Abeen a subject of discussion among the contemporary Muslim scholars of%0D%0AShar%EE'ah whose opinions differ about its acceptability in Shar%EE'ah.%0D%0A%0D%0AFirst view%0D%0AA group of contemporary scholars do not approve of 'intellectual property'.%0D%0AAccording to them the concept of ownership in Shar%EE'ah is confined to%0D%0Atangible objects only. They contend that there is no precedent in the Holy%0D%0AQur'%E2n, in the Sunnah or in the juristic views of the earlier Muslim jurists%0D%0Awhere an intangible object has been subjected to private ownership or to%0D%0Asale and purchase. They further argue that 'knowledge' in Isl%E2m is not the a%0D%0Aproperty of an individual, nor can he prevent others form acquiring%0D%0Aknowledge, whereas the concept of 'intellectual property' leads to the%0D%0Amonopoly of some individuals' knowledge, which can never be accepted by%0D%0AIsl%E2m.%0D%0A%0D%0ASecond view%0D%0AOn the other hand, some contempo-rary scholars take the concept of%0D%0A'intellectual property' as acceptable in Shar%EE'%E2h. They say that there is no%0D%0Aexpress provision in the Holy Qur'%E2n or in the Sunnah which restricts the%0D%0Aownership to the tangible objects only. There are several intangible rights%0D%0Aaccepted and maintained by the Shar%EE'%E2h, and there are several instances%0D%0Awhere such intangible rights have been transferred to others for some%0D%0Amonetary considerations.%0D%0A%0D%0AThey contend that the concept of 'intellectual property' does in no way%0D%0Arestrict the scope of knowledge, because the law of 'copyright' does not%0D%0Aprevent a person from reading a book or from averting of a new invention for%0D%0Ahis individual benefit. On the contrary, the law of 'copyright' prevents a%0D%0Aperson from the wide commercial use of an object on the ground that the%0D%0Aperson who invented it by his mental labour is more entitled to its%0D%0Acommercial benefits, and any other person should not be allowed to reap the%0D%0Amonetary fruits of the former's labour without his permission. The author of%0D%0Aa book who has worked day and night to write a book is obviously the best%0D%0Aperson who deserves its publication for commercial purposes. If every other%0D%0Aperson is allowed to publish the book without the author's permission, it%0D%0Awill certainly violate the rights of the author, and the law of copyright%0D%0Aprotects him from such violation of his rights.%0D%0A%0D%0AThe author's view%0D%0ABoth of these Views have their own arguments. I have analysed the arguments%0D%0Aof both sides in my Arabic treatise 'Bay-ul-Huq%FBq' and have preferred the,%0D%0Asecond view over the first, meaning, thereby that a book can be registered%0D%0Aunder the Copyright Act and the right of its publication can also be%0D%0Atransferred to some other person for a monetary consideration.%0D%0A%0D%0AComing to the question of restrictions imposed by the law, I would like to%0D%0Aadd that if the law of copyright in a country prevents its citizens from%0D%0Apublishing a book without the permission of the copyright holder, all the%0D%0Acitizens must abide by this legal restriction. The reasons are manifold:%0D%0A%0D%0AFirstly, it violates the right of the copyright, holder which is affirmed by%0D%0Athe Shar%EE'%E2h principles also according to the preferable view, as mentioned%0D%0Aearlier.%0D%0A%0D%0ASecondly, I have mentioned that the views of the contemporary scholars are%0D%0Adifferent on the concept of 'intellectual property' and none of them is in%0D%0Aclear contravention of the injunctions of Isl%E2m as laid down in the Holy%0D%0AQur'%E2n and Sunnah. In such situations, an Isl%E2mic state can prefer one view%0D%0Aover the other, and if it does so by a specific legislation, its decision is%0D%0Abinding even on those scholars who have an opposite view. It is an accepted%0D%0Aposition in the Isl%E2mic jurisprudence that the legislation of an Isl%E2mic%0D%0Astate resolves the juristic dispute in a manner not expressly mentioned in%0D%0Athe Holy Qur'%E2n or in the Sunnah. Therefore, if an Isl%E2mic state promulgates%0D%0Aa law in favour of the concept of 'intellectual property' without violating%0D%0Aany pro-vision of the Holy Qur'%E2n and Sunnah, the same will be binding on%0D%0Aall its citizens. Those who have an opposite view can express their%0D%0Astandpoint as an academic discussion, but they cannot violate the law in%0D%0Atheir practice.%0D%0A%0D%0AThirdly, even if the government is not a pure Isl%E2mic government, every%0D%0Acitizen enters into an express or a tacit agreement with it to the effect%0D%0Athat he will abide by its laws insofar as they do not compel him to anything%0D%0Awhich is not permissible in Shar%EE'%E2h. Therefore if the law requires a%0D%0Acitizen to refrain from an act which was otherwise permissible (not%0D%0Amandatory) in Shar%EE'%E2h he must refrain from it.%0D%0A%0D%0AEven the scholars who do not accept the concept of 'intellectual property',%0D%0Ado not hold the view that it, is a mandatory requirement of Shar%EE'%E2h to%0D%0Aviolate the rights recognised by this concept. Their view is that it is%0D%0Apermissible for a person to publish a book without its author's permission.%0D%0A%0D%0ATherefore, if the law prevents them from this 'permissible' act, they should%0D%0Arefrain from it as their agreement of citizenship requires them to do so.%0D%0ATherefore, it is necessary for every citizen to abide by the law, of%0D%0Acopyright unless it compels a person to do an impermissible act or it%0D%0Arestrains him from a mandatory act under the Shar%EE'%E2h.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A