International Journal of Law And Criminology
7
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue02 2025
PAGE NO.
7-15
10.37547/ijlc/Volume05Issue02-02
Legal Nature of Smart Applications
Dr. Rasim Ayed Hassan
Lect., Head of Health Administration Department, Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University, Najaf Technology Institute, Iraq
Received:
05 December 2024;
Accepted:
04 January 2025;
Published:
07 February 2025
Abstract:
Technologies involving smart applications are progressively assuming a more pivotal role in modern
human life. The robust advancements of the internet, mobile technologies, and artificial intelligence have
rendered a burgeoning development of smart applications imbued with such emerging technologies. A smart
application denotes a program or application that can operate independently, without human intervention;
perceive environmental variables, information, and data; and then render an intelligent response consistent with
human applications. Similar to a traditional application, a smart application is interpreted as a sequence of
programmed instructions that perform particular tasks. However, the instructions in a smart application not only
command but also empower it to think and learn like a human through AI algorithms, thus cogitating, conceiving,
decision making, and self-evolving.
Keywords:
Technologies, Modern Human Life, Artificial Intelligence, Conceiving, Self-evolving.
Introduction:
The world has become smarter at
present if it has begun to use smart applications in
many matters and fields, which it has accelerated in
light of technological progress, which has produced
smart applications, which are a group of programs that
are designed to provide many services to their users
that they can use at any time and in any field.
Due to their widespread spread in many fields, we must
know their legal nature. Can these applications be
considered copyrights or invention programs for their
producers? Is it possible to make their user the owner
of them, or are they the property of the producer in the
absence of a special legal regulation for them? This
requires us to refer to jurisprudence.
The importance of the research comes from the desire
to know the truth about the topic (the legal nature of
smart applications, the legal regulation of virtual
ownership), which was the reason behind continuing
the research to reach the most just solution.
We relied on an analytical approach that aims to
analyze the legal texts and opinions of jurists regarding
general rules and then adapt these writings to suit
smart applications.
The First Section
The Concept of Smart Applications
We will divide this section into two requirements to
understand the precise concept of smart applications.
In the first requirement, we will address the parties
involved in using smart applications. As for the second
requirement, we will discuss the extent to which the
characteristic of money applies to smart applications as
follows:
The first requirement
The parties involved in using smart applications
For smart applications to appear, many people must
participate. There must be a user who buys or uses
them and a product that brings them into existence.
Accordingly, within the framework of this requirement,
we will address those parties, trying to understand the
concept of the user of smart applications and the
concept of the product as follows:
First: The user of smart applications
The intended user is the person who uses smart
applications, purchases the smart application service,
or is the person for whom the smart application is
designed. He is the person who uses the smart
application and the things inside it. (1)
Some may wonder if it is possible to describe the
consumer to the user of smart applications; the
consumer has many concepts. In the Iraqi Consumer
Protection Law No. (1) of 2010, the consumer was
International Journal of Law And Criminology
8
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
defined in its first article as (any natural or legal person
who is provided with a commodity or service to benefit
from it) (2 ). With this definition, we see that the Iraqi
legislator has adopted the broad concept of the
consumer. The researcher sees through the above that
this definition includes all persons, whether their status
is natural or legal, and also includes services and
movable funds. At the same time, another direction
narrowed the concept of the consumer, defined as any
person who buys a commodity or uses a commodity for
non-professional purposes to satisfy his daily personal
and family needs. (3)
First: The producer of smart applications
The producer of smart applications is the person who
produces the application and provides the user with all
the necessary tools and means to deal with these smart
applications, which are most of the time electronic
codes. (4)
Second requirement
The extent to which the description of money applies
to smart applications
Money, in legal terminology, is everything that is useful
to a person and can be monopolized by one person
without others (5 ); article (65) of the Iraqi Civil Code
defines money by saying: ((Money is every right that
has a material value)), although money in traditional
jurisprudence includes two important elements that
crystallize the conventional concept of money when
combined: the first is the material element in money,
and the second is the element of value. If one is
available without the other, the description of money
does not agree with the thing according to the
traditional concept. For example, non-material things
with value, such as ideas and innovations, are subject
to another legal system, such as copyright, industrial
application rights, and other laws. The same is the case
when the material element is not available in the thing
without the value aspect being available; it becomes
outside the scope of money protection. It takes the
ruling of abandoned or permissible money, meaning
that the traditional view of money was limited to things
that can be possessed, owned and dealt with, and thus
they defined money as everything Beneficial to man; it
is right to monopolize it and not others and be the
subject of the right(6).
Dean Carbonnier sees in his book on money that
(money is the things considered or viewed as such by
the law, and this means that possession is a basic
condition for money to become a thing, but he
emphasized at the same time that all money is not a
thing; because many rights are intangible money such
as literary applications and others), meaning that
traditional jurisprudence relied on determining the
quality of money on the material quality of things to
consider their money. Therefore, tangible material
things are what the description of money applies to, so
the quality of money was not recognized as a moral
thing (7).
This matter was adopted by jurisprudence, as it went to
deny considering smart applications as money in the
legal sense since these applications exist only in virtual
space, cannot be possessed in actual possession, and
are not considered things in the legal sense, as they are
intangible goods and cannot be applications, because it
is impossible to possess them physically, because they
exist only in a form represented in smart applications
(8). Also, the proponents of this opinion relied on
another argument: that these applications have no
value in the real world to be considered money, as they
are limited to the scope of the transaction concluded
between them. Accordingly, they are of value and
benefit to them only, as they do not have any
significant value and can easily disappear (9).
The researcher believes that maintaining the
traditional concept of money will lead to the exclusion
of all new things that result from industrial and
technological progress in the modern era from the
scope of money. Suppose the traditional idea of
dividing money has withstood the violent shocks it has
been exposed to. In that case, it is not denied that a
modern concept of money has emerged that the
traditional idea could not absorb and subject to its
procedures. This money category has emerged due to
scientific, technical, and technological developments,
which have forced legislators to recognize it in special
laws. This is due to the economic value it represents
that exceeds the financial value of real estate and
movables, and jurisprudence has called this new
category intangible money (10). Accordingly, the
modern concept of money includes, in addition to
material things, non-material things, and some of them
call within this expanded framework of the idea of
money to adopt the value concept of money,
considering that economic and commercial value is in
line with the values that the information revolution has
produced from new values represented in smart
applications and that jurisprudence has adopted this
opinion not based on its material entity, but based on
its economic value. Hence, the law that refuses to add
the attribute of money to something that has monetary
value is undoubtedly a law that is completely separate
from reality (12). Based on this perception, it is
acceptable for money to be an intangible thing
whenever it has an economic value, such as smart
applications, that must be treated as things in the legal
sense. The argument for that is that the rights of smart
applications need protection, Saying otherwise makes
International Journal of Law And Criminology
9
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
people who illegally access the user's account or access
his smart assets and steal them not punished by law (13
). The third requirement
The location of smart applications within the division of
money
A thing is defined as anything with an entity
independent of a person (14 ), and some believe it is
any being that a person can use to meet his needs (15
).
The law views money or things as the subject of various
rights that result from or are related to them. For
example, material things that have a material entity
perceived by the senses are the subject of property
rights, and non-material things that do not have a
tangible material entity and are perceived by thought
are the subject of moral or moral rights (16).
In an attempt to bring smart things closer to traditional
things, jurisprudence did not agree on their legal
nature. Some consider them material things, although
they do not have a tangible physical entity. Still, they
are considered a digital image of a material thing that
can be seen with the naked eye. Others considered
them moral things due to human effort and thought.
Others considered them to have a dual nature. This
matter raised controversy over whether smart
applications are material things, considered moral
things, or have a dual nature (17 ). Through this section,
we will shed light on these opinions as follows:
First: The possibility of counting smart applications as
material money
Material money means tangible money from real
estate and material movables. Material money is
tangible with a financial value and an existence
independent of human existence and can be
possessed, owned and used. A part of jurisprudence
believes that smart applications can be considered
material movables. This opinion is supported by many
arguments, the most prominent of which are:
1-Smart applications are, in their final form, electronic
pulses. They are intended to address the machine, not
the human mind, so they are similar to the electrical
energy that is included in the category of material
money. Therefore, smart applications should be viewed
as material things by analogy (18 ).
2-Smart applications can only be used after being
transferred to a material support, whether a disk or a
cylinder, in a way that the computer can read or deal
with (19 ).
3- Smart applications can be possessed, but this does
not mean they are material possessions. Still, they
serve the same purpose of possession, which is that the
existence of the thing is limited to the hand of one
person without other people, as the user is unique in
possessing the smart things that are within his smart
worlds and enjoys their advantages without competing
with other users as if the user possesses those things,
no one else can use them except with his authorization,
as the owner of these things enjoys the freedom to use
them and monopolizes them alone, and this is what
happens most in material money, as its owner enjoys
its possession and disposal alone, so he has complete
freedom. 4- The property of relative permanence
characterizes material money; it remains as long as its
material remains, and not using it and staying away
from it does not lead to its disappearance. This happens
in smart applications; one of its advantages is that
when the user leaves the application and returns to it
again, he does not start a new beginning, but rather, he
keeps all the smart things he obtained and can be used
by entering the game at any time. 5- Finally, the
proponents of this trend believe that there is a
justification produced by reality in counting smart
applications as material money, which is that material
money can be transferred and possessed from one
person to another in the real world and that smart
things can also be transferred and possessed from one
person to another in the virtual world. It is in exchange
for real money or virtual money or virtual money that
exists within smart applications only (20 ), and based on
the above and despite the similarities and arguments
presented by the supporters of this trend in counting
smart applications as material money, another
jurisprudential trend believes that it is closer to non-
material money and has the same intellectual rights as
applications, which we will discuss below.
Second: The possibility of considering smart
applications as intangible money
This type of money was not known before; rather, it is
a recent birth and emergence imposed by the
developments of life at all levels and organized by
contemporary laws. In the past, it did not have a high
value that deserved to be stolen by someone other
than its owner and attributed to himself. Scientific,
artistic, and literary creativity in ancient times had no
material impact, but it was limited to merely attributing
it to its creator by copying, writing, recording, or quick
advertising. The goal behind this organization and
approval of these rights by all countries is to encourage
human beings to innovate and invent (21 ), and they
have given them many terms. Some have called them
the rights of artistic, literary or industrial applications,
and they are also called moral or literary rights. They
have been divided into two main sections: industrial
applications and intellectual rights (22). The Iraqi
legislator stipulated it in the first paragraph of Article
(70) of the Iraqi Civil Code, saying: ((Intangible assets
International Journal of Law And Criminology
10
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
are those that relate to something intangible, such as
the rights of the author, inventor, and artist)) (23). With
this text, we see that intangible things relate to
intangible things created by the mind and the product
of human thought, such as the right of the inventor,
artist, and author to the production of their mind.
It can be concluded from the above that intangible
assets are those that relate to something intangible.
They are not related to something material in itself but
rather to intangible things that have a financial value
that enables their owner to exploit them economically
and obtain the right to use, exploit, and dispose of
them so they can be delivered to everyone (24).
Based on the above, some jurists have concluded that
smart applications are intangible transfers. This is due
to the special nature of these applications as an original
mental work that the senses cannot perceive, so it
cannot be given a material characteristic (25), as the
smart application and the applications inside it are the
creation of the human mind or intellect. Still, they take
a material form represented in a digital image or
electronic symbols, and therefore, they are suitable to
be the subject of moral rights (25). The proponents of
this trend justified their opinion by saying: Although
smart things exist continuously, this continuity is
relative and is linked to as long as the computer
symbols exist. If the producer cancels or modifies them,
they do not exist. In addition, their existence is within
the world of smart applications, and they do not exist
outside of them; thus, they limit their benefits and
usefulness in a specific environment.
The researcher believes the absence of tangible
material entities in smart things is due to their nature
as moral movables. Thus, the provisions that apply to
the moral movable apply to them.
The division of applications into material and non-
material funds is important in determining the legal
nature of smart ownership. If the thing is intangible, it
is possible to separate the right to use and exploit.
Consequently, if the producer licenses the application
to others, he can give the same application to other
users, which is not conceivable for the material thing.
In addition, if the thing is intangible, it is possible to
distinguish between the duration of its existence and
the duration of the right to it. For example, the
inventor’s right to applications expires after a certain
period despite the original remaining. In addition to all
of that, the rule of possession in the movable, the
document of applications, can only be applied in the
field of material movables, and therefore, the non-
possessor of the virtual thing cannot claim ownership
of the thing even if this claim is in good faith; on the
contrary, he is considered an aggressor and is subject
to civil and criminal penalties (26). Third: Smart
applications have a dual characteristic
Contrary to the above, a jurisprudential trend has
considered smart applications to combine the two, as
each trend has overlooked one aspect of smart
applications. Those who see applications as mental
work have not paid attention to the specific physical
existence, such as electronic vibrations and
electromagnetic waves. However, smart applications
have no existence or value except by appearing on
calculators or mobile phones in this form. As for the
supporters of the second trend who called for the
physical existence of smart ownership, they did not pay
attention to it as a mental work in which the producer
made a huge effort, and without this effort, it would
not have appeared (27). Based on the above, smart
applications have a dual characteristic, as they are a
mental classification that is created to obtain a set of
results; after using it, the cognitive effort that the
producer made in preparing that application and the
state in which it appeared, and this is considered a
moral aspect. In contrast, the material aspect is the
state in which smart applications appear on the
computer or smartphones. Therefore, we cannot
consider smart applications as material entities
because they are invisible to humans.
On the other hand, smart applications are similar in
their characteristics to some electronic elements that
have become widespread due to technological
progress, such as credit cards, as the latter work by
emitting electronic vibrations fixed on magnetic
substrates and operate through an ATM. Accordingly,
these cards are similar in their work to smart
applications in that they combine the characteristics of
material and non-material things. Therefore, the
traditional division of things into material and non-
material cannot accommodate new technological
innovations in which the attributes of material things
are mixed with non-material things (28).
The Second Topic
Smart Applications are Protected Works
The third millennium produced a new era, the era of
information technology. This era had its social,
economic, political and legal effects. This development
resulted in a noticeable increase in the use of
technology based on computer programs and
operational and application programs available for use
by all individuals at the level of developed and some
developing countries. This great progress will not
continue unless legal protection is provided to preserve
the financial and intellectual effort expended in
preparing and producing these smart applications to
benefit from their fruits and protect their rights. It has
International Journal of Law And Criminology
11
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
become likely at present that smart applications are
considered works in their digital form, and specifically
a form of computer programs as protected works,
which requires us to stand on adapting these
applications as the most prominent and important
example at present of smart applications, as they are
protected works, and then we turn to the most
important conditions that must be met to protect them
and the rights of their authors, in the form of two
branches: The first branch to the extent of the
application of the nature of the works Software
protection on smart applications, as for the second
branch of the conditions for protecting smart
applications as software protected works.
First requirement
The extent to which the nature of software-protected
works applies to smart applications
Information technology has had a great impact in
highlighting new forms of innovations that played an
important role in the exchange of information through
multiple means, which is considered the cornerstone in
building the structure of this technology, as digital
works had the most influential role in economic and
intellectual life alike, some believe that smart
applications should be subject to patent rules; because
the origin is a group of devices and machines that are
used in computers and mobile devices to manage and
direct them, to perform specific work or provide a
particular service to the user.
This also requires applying the patent to smart
applications, which are part of your device, as long as
the applications are closely linked (29 ).
Smart applications are inventions that include new
intellectual creativity according to this trend. A new
industrial method enables computers and mobile
phones to perform specific services. They perform new
purposes suitable for their exploitation. Accordingly,
smart applications are new inventions that can be
applied industrially (30). Some have suggested that
smart applications can be accepted as indirect
inventions due to the difficulty of recognizing them as
direct inventions and protecting them in this way. If
these applications are presented as part of the
invention or an element thereof, they cannot be
deprived of patents (31). Granting a patent requires the
availability of all the conditions mentioned above. Are
these conditions available in smart applications so they
can be protected by patent law? The special conditions
for granting a patent may not all be available in smart
applications. The novelty condition cannot be available,
as it is difficult to prove that these applications are
known or used by another person. As for industrial
exploitability, it is usually not available in smart
applications. The purpose of preparing these
applications is not necessarily related to a field of
industry. For example, the purpose may be
entertainment (32). This leads to the exclusion of smart
applications from being covered by patent protection
because they do not have any industrial character,
which is a necessary condition to say that there is an
invention and to obtain a patent (33). As for the
condition of innovation, it may be available for most
smart applications. This is represented by simply
placing any subject in the form of virtual assets or by
adding and modifying a specific asset (34). From the
above, we see that if the conditions mentioned above
are met in smart applications, then it is certain that
these applications will be protected through the
provisions of the Patent Law. However, this means
there is a limited and small opportunity to protect
smart applications according to the Patent Law due to
the strict conditions for granting a patent. Therefore,
this law is not considered the best or most appropriate
for protecting smart applications (35). The second
requirement
Conditions for protecting smart applications as
protected software works
Given that many subscribers pay a lot of money to
invest in smart applications and have a strong interest
in protecting those investments by protecting their
copyrights, many elements in smart applications may
protect copyrights. These elements relate to the texts,
images and sound required to create a three-
dimensional user environment. To explore this, it is
necessary to refer to the conditions that must be met
in copyright to know how much they apply to smart
applications. These conditions relate to innovation and
its embodiment in a tangible material form. Whenever
these conditions are met, it is possible to apply the
copyright law, which gives producers great control over
their smart worlds, and this is what we will discuss in
this section:
The first section: The element of innovation
The Iraqi legislator in the Copyright Protection Law did
not define innovation (36), so the legal protection,
according to it, included all works that come out into
the material world through means of expression,
whether audio, written, drawing, or photography. It is
even possible to be through movement only, as long as
the author has originality in the method of expression
(37). Innovation means the distinctive character of the
author’s personality that appears in the work or the
author’s fingerprint on his work. Innovation is also
creative expression, and creativity does not mean new
production. Rather, it is sufficient for the work to be
distinguished from the works that precede it for it to
International Journal of Law And Criminology
12
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
have originality. Originality is also available about a
previously known idea that the author addresses in a
new style, presents in a distinctive style, rearranges
coordinates and classifies it in a new way that makes it
easy to refer to. Thus, any mental effort in which the
author’s personality appears is considered an
innovation that deserves protection (38 ). To protect a
work, regardless of its form, it must be innovative, such
that it is clear that the author has added his personality
to the idea, even if it is old, and that it is distinguished
by his character so that there is an innovation
protected by law, and the ruling on whether the work
is innovative or not is up to the judiciary (39).
It is inferred from the above that smart applications
have an element of innovation in the symbolic images
that appear on the screen due to their design, the
drawings in them, or the music that accompanies them
to attract the attention of their users (40 ), and the
researcher supports this opinion by saying that the
condition of innovation is available in smart assets,
whether the assets formed a new idea, for example, or
the user invented a new method for an already existing
idea. The element of innovation in smart applications
required by copyright is audiovisual works. Courts have
held that smart applications are defined as audiovisual
works as long as the video game includes a repetitive
sequence of scenes and sounds, which qualifies the
application as an original copyrighted work - including
non-playable characters, geographical obstacles,
parades, sound effects, musical score and architecture
created by the developer, which also meets the
innovation requirements of copyright. The second
section: The emergence of smart applications in a
tangible form
Creative ideas can only be protected when formulated
in a tangible physical form. Legal protection includes
works that appear in the tangible physical world of
existence, regardless of their type, method of
expression, importance, or purpose (41). Intangible
physical existence is consistent with and has been
established at the international level when determining
and defining the work, which the World Intellectual
Property Organization defined as (the method that
allows any tangible or mental work to be perceived,
including representation, performance, recitation,
physical fixation, or any other appropriate method).
The basis for the work taking this form is its ability to
be transferred to the public and the public’s perception
of the work through the human sense of the five
senses. Thus, the public can perceive and sense it with
any sense, whether looking at drawings, touching
sculptures, or hearing speeches. Therefore, any mental
creativity must take a specific form for its appearance
in the world of existence (41). It is not enough for a
person to develop an innovative idea for the law to
protect it; it is only necessary for these ideas to be
formulated in a tangible material form. It is worth
noting in this regard that tangible existence is what a
person senses by hearing, sight, or even touch (42). By
comparing this to smart applications, we find that their
basis is that they work on innovation and that the
material appearance is in material and electronic
support. The condition of the tangible material
appearance applies to them in that they are an
application that is created based on inputs from
algorithms and the diversity of outputs in that they are
tangible and observed by the audience through the
senses, whether by looking at the symbolic images and
characters within smart applications or by listening to
the sounds of music or the sounds of those smart
characters within them, as they interact as if they were
in the real world.
The Third Section: Legitimacy
Suppose special conditions are imposed by the nature
of the work protected according to copyright laws. In
that case, the general conditions of the protected right
must be met in this protected place, and foremost
among these conditions is that the thing subject to the
right be legitimate and determined by the law, public
order, or morals . For example, legal protection
cannot be granted to smart applications that deal with
encouraging vice or that promote charlatanism,
sorcery, and magic because they are contrary to the
principles of Islamic law (43 ). Accordingly, if legitimacy
is important in the field of intellectual applications in
general, this importance increases in the context of
smart applications. They are among the most
widespread means at present, which negatively affects
the ethics of the generation that was raised on them,
as they are among the most important works that are
rapidly spreading due to the Internet, meaning that
they pose a danger to society in terms of spreading
culture positively or negatively because they are
offered to all classes of society regardless of age and
culture (43). In terms of the legal measures that were
put in place to prevent the spread of smart applications
that violate public order or are immoral, the Berne
Convention granted all countries the freedom to
impose these restrictions without obligation (44).
As for the national level, the Iraqi Constitution in force
for the year 2005 stipulated in Article (38) that ((the
state is the one that guarantees what does not violate
public order, morals, freedom of expression by all
means, freedom of the press, printing, advertising,
media and publishing)) but by referring to the laws
related to the protection of intellectual property rights,
International Journal of Law And Criminology
13
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
as far as we have seen, we did not find a law that
imposed this condition as one of the requirements for
legal protection of works, and accordingly, any work
that violates public order and morals can be excluded
by using the general rules in civil law.
Given the importance of this condition, especially in
societies that have not reached the required level of
cultural awareness, we see it stipulated in the
Copyright Protection Law as one of the requirements
for granting protection to the work, noting that most
laws related to patents do not grant patents to
inventions that violate public order and morals (45).
Rather, granting legal protection to literary and artistic
works is no less important than the patent granted to a
new invention in terms of its impact on the social
environment. Similar to patent protection laws, we see
that intellectual application laws stipulate that
protection is not granted to any work if it violates public
order and morals.
CONCLUSION
First: Results
1.
The absence of the tangible physical entity of
smart things is due to their nature as a moral transfer;
thus, the provisions that apply to the moral transfer
apply to them.
2.
Technological development has led to the
emergence of virtual communities and increased
dealing with them.
3.
The basis of smart applications is electronic
support, as they are inputs from algorithms, and the
diversity of outputs is tangible.
Second: Recommendations
1.
The necessity of stipulating the legal means to
provide the necessary legal protection for smart
applications.
2.
The necessity of stipulating the following text
in the Copyright Protection Law (providing legal
protection for smart applications created ina the
electronic environment, whether written in machine or
any other language.
3.
We see the necessity of the Iraqi legislator
issuing special legislation regulating smart applications
and transactions between its parties.
REFERENCES
Dubai Virtualization Regulation Law No. (4) of 2022.
Iraqi Consumer Protection Law No. (1) of 2010, and
Syrian Consumer Protection Law No. 2 of 2008 adopted
this concept. It indicated that every natural or legal
person who purchases consumer goods of various
types, agricultural and industrial, for nutrition, or for
use for personal or household purposes, or who
benefits from any service, whether provided by an
individual or a group of individuals or a legal person and
in the various fields stipulated in the law.
Dr Fayez Naeem Radwan, Consumer Protection in the
Field of Electronic Payment Cards, research published
in the Security and Law Magazine, Issue 9, no year of
publication, p. 11.
Dobah Carré, The law applicable to trade in virtual
goods.p. 106.
Dr. Ahmed Fathy Zaghloul, Explanation of Civil Law, Al-
Amiriya Press, Cairo, 1913, p. 47.
Dr. Mustafa Al-Zarqa, General Jurisprudential
Introduction, Vol. 1, Dar Al-Fikr, 1946, p. 114.
Saleh Shanin, Criminal Protection of Computer
Programs, Master's Thesis submitted to the Faculty of
Law, University of Mohamed Khedir, Biskra, 2006, p.
30.
Qian Zhan, Study on Legal Attribute of the Network
Virtual Property, Advances in Social Science, Education
and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 300, 2018,
p. 477.
Dobah Carré, La law applicable to transfers of biens
virtually.p. 106.
Hussein Abdullah Abdul Redha Al-Kalabi, Mortgage of
Intangible Movables, a research published in the Legal
Journal, Volume (30), Issue (2), 2015, p. 4.
Dr. Ali Falah Al-Sabry, The Legal System of Electronic
Applications in Kuwaiti Comparative Law, 1st ed.,
Kuwait, 2021, p. 106.
John William Nelson, Virtual Property Problem: What
Property Rights in Virtual Resources Might Look like,
How They Might Work, and Why They Are a Bad Idea,
The, p. 293.
Dr. Mustafa Magdy Harjah, Persons and Property in
Civil Law, 1st ed., Dar Mahmoud for Publishing and
Distribution, Cairo, without publication date, p. 209.
Dr. Ramadan Abu Al-Saud, The General Theory of Right,
Dar Al-Jamia Al-Jadida, Cairo, 2005, p. 309.
Dr. Abdul Baqi Al-Bakri, Zuhair Al-Basheer, Introduction
to the Study of Law, no publisher, no place to publish,
no year of publication, p. 235.
The term money is common and familiar in
jurisprudence, so we will use the term money to refer
to things that can be valued with money.
Dr. Ahmed Al-Samdan, The Legal System for Protecting
Computer Programs, a research published in the
Kuwaiti Law Journal, Issue 4, Year 11, 1995, p. 52.
Dr. Muhammad Fawaz Matalqa, The Legal System for
Computer Program Preparation Contracts, Amman,
2004, pp. 30-36.
International Journal of Law And Criminology
14
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
Dr. Ahmed Al-Samdan, The Legal System for Protecting
Computer Programs, a research published in the
Kuwaiti Law Journal, Issue 4, Year 11, 1995, p. 52.
Dr. Gamal Muhaib, Ijtihad in the Jurisprudence of Moral
Rights, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, 1971, p. 46.
For more on these things and their divisions, see Dr.
Muhammad Hussein Mansour, Law and Right,
Alexandria, no year of publication, p. 71, Dr. Jalal
Muhammad Ibrahim, Theory of Right, no publisher, no
place of publication, 1998, p. 288. Dr. Yahya Ali Qasim,
Introduction to the Study of Legal Sciences, Theory of
Right, 1st ed., S. Komin Publishing, Cairo, 1997, p. 183.
Alaa Yaqoub Youssef, Virtual Money (A Legal Vision of
Its Concept and the Right Holder), research published
in the Journal of the University of Sharjah for Sharia and
Legal Sciences, previous source, p. 269.
Dr. Saed Ahmed Al-Khawali, Industrial Property in
Contemporary Jurisprudence and Law, 1st ed., Dar Al-
Fajr for Publishing and Distribution, Cairo, 202, p. 21.
Dr. Ahmed Al-Samdan, Legal System for Protecting
Computer Programs, previous source, p. 52.
Dr. Muhammad Saad Khalifa, Mortgage of Computer
Programs, Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya, Cairo, 2004, p. 45.
Dr. Raeda Muhammad Mahmoud, Computer Mortgage
Contract, a research published in Al-Rafidain Journal of
Law, Volume 18, Issue 63, Year 20, 2014, pp. 131 and
132.
Dr. Ihab Abdel Moneim Radwan, Legal Protection of
Computer Software, previous source, p. 56.
Dr. Abdul Wahid Battikh, Legal Regulation of Smart
Applications, Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya, 1st ed., Cairo,
2022, p. 67.
Muhammad Wasil, Legal Protection of Computer
Programs (Electronic Works), research published in
Damascus University Journal of Economic and Legal
Sciences, Volume 26, Issue 3, 2011, Syria, p. 11.
Frederique youbol, Software: Judicial Analysis, feducl,
lgdj, paria, p: 54-55
Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Zaher Hussein, Modern Trends in
Protecting Computer Software, Dar Al-Nahda Al-
Arabiya, Cairo, 2001, p. 27.
Dr. Samija Al-Qalyubi, Industrial Property, Dar Al-Nahda
Al-Arabiya, Cairo, no year of publication, p. 59.
Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Zaher Hussein, Modern Trends in
Protecting Computer Software, previous source, p. 27.
Dr. Fayez Abdullah Al-Kindi, Civil Protection of
Computer Software in Kuwaiti Law, a research
published in the Journal of the United Arab Emirates
University, 2000, pp. 5 and 6.
Dr. Salah Zein El-Din, Industrial and Commercial
Property, 1st ed., Dar Al-Thaqafa for Publishing and
Distribution, Amman, 2000, pp. 36 and 41.
Within the framework of Arab legislation, we mention
that the Egyptian Law for the Protection of Intellectual
Property Rights No. (82) of 2002 defines innovation in
Article (138) (the creative character that confers
originality on the work), while the Jordanian legislator
did not mention a definition of innovation, and the first
paragraph of Article Three of the Jordanian Copyright
Law No. (22) of 1992 stipulated that (innovative works
in literature, arts and sciences, regardless of the type of
these works, their importance or the purpose of their
production, enjoy protection under this law.
Ammar Ghaleb Abdul-Kazem Al-Issawi, Objectivity and
Subjectivity in Explaining and Interpreting Legal
Copyrights via the Internet, research published in the
Journal of the University of Babylon, Volume (27), Issue
(3), (2019), p. 270.
Hanan Brahmi, Copyrights in Domestic Legislation,
research published in the Legal Forum Journal, Issue
(5), p. 278.
Hossam El-Din Kamel Al-Ahwani, The Internet As a
means of exploiting works and copyright, a study
published in the Arab Journal of Culture, Issue 44,
Volume 22, 2003, p. 65. The Egyptian judiciary expands
the meaning of innovation. It is sufficient for the work
of its author to be new and characterized by a special
personal character (it is considered an innovation in
arrangement and coordination or any other effort
characterized by a personal character, as it is
considered the indexing of one of the books of the
Prophet's hadiths to be an innovative work), Civil
Cassation on July 7, 1964, Egyptian Cassation Group, p.
920.
Dr Hossam El-Din Kamel El-Ahwani, The Internet as a
Means of Exploiting Works and Copyright, previous
source, p. 66. ( ) Dr Abdul Rashid Mamoun and
Muhammad Sami Abdul Sadiq, Copyright and
Neighboring Rights, no publisher, no place of
publication, 2002, p. 561
Dr Ashwaq Abdul Rasoul Al-Khafaji, Legal Protection of
Works and Their Authors, a Comparative Study,
research published in Ahl Al-Bayt Magazine, Issue (6),
p. 196.
Aisha Yahya Shafqa, Legal Protection of Works Arising
from Artificial Intelligence Programs, Master's Thesis
submitted to the United Arab Emirates University,
College of Law, 2021, p. 44.
Dr. Muhammad Amin Al-Rumi, Copyright and
Neighboring Rights, 1st ed., Dar Al-Fikr Al-Jami'i,
Alexandria, 2009, p. 560.
Dr. Muhammad Suleiman Al-Ahmad, Safaa Shukor
International Journal of Law And Criminology
15
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
Abbas, Creative Embodiment of Multimedia, a research
published in the Journal of the College of Law for Legal
and Political Sciences, Volume (11), Issue (40), 2022, p.
501.
Many virtual worlds rely on an internet connection to
connect players to each other through visual and audio
communication or communication via instant
messages through the game. Among the currently
widespread worlds are those that focus on murder,
bloodshed, drugs, indecent and pornographic
materials, and training to commit crimes such as theft
or illegal collection of money.
