* Divrei Benayahu 4:289 quotes that Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank held that there was no problem to publish the Brisker Rav’s tapes without his permission because he doesn’t own the Torah he taught.
* [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=619&pgnum=423 Bet Yitzchak YD 2:75] disagrees with the Shoel Umeishiv since there is no source that says that someone can own intellectual property. Similar approaches are adopted by Mishpatei Shmuel 35 and Shurat Hadin v. 16 p. 290 n. 12.
* Shevet Halevi 4:202 allows copying some pages for students. He reasons that it isn’t considered ''yored lumanut chavero'' by copying a few pages for educational purposes where the students were not going to buy all the sefarim anyway. Tzitz Eliezer 18:80, Minchat Tzvi 1:164, Rav Sheinberg (4:287), Rav Ben Zion Bar Shalom (Practical Laws of Money p. 122), and Mishna Halachot agree.</ref> Within the approach that permits copying for personal use the poskim qualify that it is only permitted to copy small portion such that a person wouldn't have anyway bought the book for that portion. But if copying portions prevents a person from buying the book it is forbidden.<ref>
* [https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/halachah-and-copyright-laws-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter Rabbi Jachter] cites Rav Shlomo Zalman (Nishmat Avraham 4:204-206) held that copying small portions of a book is permitted if one wouldn't have bought the book anyway.
* Similarly, Rabbi Hershel Schachter in a [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/788264/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Copyright_Law shiur on yutorah.org, titled Copyright Law] explained that since intellectual property isn't tangible there's the inventor or author doesn't own it Biblically. However, there is a rabbinic ownership on it since he did create it similar to someone who plants an ownerless tree is considered an owner rabbinically. If the owner is selling the product then the rabbinic ownership of the intellectual property allows the author the rights to his product and taking them without paying is stealing. However, if the rabbinic ownership doesn't give him exclusive rights to the intellectual property. That is, if he has no intention to sell them then there is no right just to hold onto them. Therefore, if a person is a potential buyer it is forbidden to violate a copyright. However, if the author doesn't have any copies to sell or the person isn't a potential customer the author has no right to restrict him copying the intellectual property for personal use.</ref>
# Some poskim write that a person may not violate a copyright because of [[chilul Hashem]], desecration of God's name.<ref> Shoel Umeishiv 1:44 writes that it is obvious that one may not violate a copyright. Heaven forbid, our Torah shouldn’t be seen as inferior to another field of knowledge. Mishnat Yehoshua p. 129 suggests that the Shoel Umeishiv forbids violating a copyright because doing so would be a chilul Hashem. If non-Jews agree that is wrong to steal intellectual property, how could the Torah, a book of divine morals, permit it?! See Hitorerut Teshuva 232 for similar approach.</ref> Otherwise disagree.<ref>Mishna Yehoshua p. 130 isn’t ready to accept the argument of the Shoel Umeishiv since it has no source. Bet Yitzchak 2:75 disagrees with the Shoel Umeishiv.</ref>
# Some poskim write that a person must pay for the right to copy copyrighted material otherwise it is considered benefiting from someone else’s property.<Ref>Mishnat Yehoshua p. 145 cites Rav Zalman Nechemya Goldberg as holding that one is obligated to pay for the right to copy a book otherwise it is considered benefiting from someone else’s property for which one would have to pay for (Bava Kama 20b). Divrei Malkiel 3:157 and Amudei Esh 12 agree that benefiting from intellectual property of someone else is benefiting from their property. </ref> But others disagree since once one bought the book it is completely his.<ref>Mishnat Yehoshua p. 149 argues that you only pay for benefiting from someone else's property if it is still theirs but once one buys it there's no issue of benefiting from it. Even though the Nodeh Beyehuda CM 24 implies that there's an obligation to pay for benefiting from a layout of someone else even though the actual material belongs to him that is only because the layout is still his friends and therefore the whole thing is still connected to being someone else's property. However, in our case one already bought the item completely. Also some disagree with the Nodeh Beyehuda including Yehoshua Malko CM 22.</ref>