- This topic has 168 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
With all the talk about the issur to copy CDs, is it ok (halachadig and mentchlichkiet) to copy a CD for yourself, e.i. to keep a copy in your car/office/computer etc?
Yes.
yes
I have a better trick. Tapes are often cheaper than CD’s. I think it is fine to buy a tape and then copy somebody else’s CD.
If the producer is specifically makpid not to even copy even for yourself, then, depending on the terms of the sale (or “rental”), and which posek you ask, it might be a problem. I won’t buy such a CD; I want a copy in my computer, and a copied CD for the car.
Most producers are not makpid.
How can the producer impose terms of sale on the purchaser, unless the customer is provided a copy of what he is agreeing to PRIOR to making the purchase? If the terms are not spelled out to the CD buyer prior to his purchase, they cant be binding on him. (Unless he can return the opened CD if he doesn’t agree to the terms specified after opening the package. But I don’t think any producer or store will take back an open CD.)
Wow, I can’t believe you CR members!!! As far as I’M concerned, it’s TOTALLY ASSUR to copy a CD without the producer’s permission. A producer invests a LOT of money in a CD, and, in MY book that’s absolutely considered stealing. It SAYS on EVERY CD copyright!! Really, where do you take the heter from???
deiyezooger, 1. If you own a book, do you have the right to duplicate the book and keep a copy for yourself in the car/office/computer?? just because its easy to copy the cd, doesnt mean one can. Can you duplicate the book a few times for yourself?
2. You used the word computer, i’m guessing you are asking if you can copy to mp3? Now that you have a copy of the cd in mp3, can you give or loan the cd to someone else?
We dont go by your book. We go by Hashem’s book.
Also, copyright law allows “fair use”. Check it out.
Wow, I can’t believe you CR members!!! As far as I’M concerned, it’s TOTALLY ASSUR to copy a CD without the producer’s permission.
We’re discussing copying a CD, which you paid for, to use, for yourself, in a different location.
if its your cd that your copying just to have it in a diff location.. then i would think its fine.. of course one should not rely on their own chachma and go ask a rav!
I put every CD I get into my iTunes library which allows me to put it on my ipod. Than I make a copy for the car and a copy for the house and put the original away so the kids don’t scratch it up. As far as I know this is fine. And by the way there are lots of heterim to copy mp3s to another persons iPod but not everybody holds of these heterim.
one\__//goalif u bought a CD, u can make another copy for urself, for example keeping one copy in ur house stereo and one copy in your car. the reason is bec no1 would ever buy 2 of the same CDs, so the producers let tht. But, u can not make a copy for someone else so u have one and he has one.
Here’s a link from YW HALACHICALLY SPEAKING all about copying CDs:
i think shwekey is makpid. i heard that ist says on all cds of his that u r not the owner u r only renting it and therefore u cant copy it. but otherwise i think its fine if u bought the cd.
what abt copying friends music and putting it on ur ipod
what abt copying friends music and putting it on ur ipod
Assur according to many (most?) poskim, and definitely (IMO) not mentchlichkeit.
I never saw a rental agreement on any CD’s in the Jewish music stores.
I think rental agreements are standard now on Aderet releases.
When is the customer given the rental agreement? Before purchase or after opening the package? The latter would be non-binding unless a return would accepted if the agreement is unacceptable to the customer.
I copy every cd I buy before the kids get their hands on it, otherwise it get scratched and useless after one use.
Daas, my question is to you.
When is the customer given the rental agreement? Before purchase or after opening the package? The latter would be non-binding unless a return would accepted if the agreement is unacceptable to the customer.
They know this, and usually, reference is made on the cover.
Shwekey does not have the RIGHT to say you are renting a CD if he prices it the same as a purchase. Does he reimburse part of your money if you choose to return it after you listen to it? NO? Then it is not a rental if it is the same price as a purchase.
This was discussed many times by many poskim. If you buy it, it belongs to you and you have the right to make another copy for yourself and use it for yourself. You don’t have a right to make a copy for your spouse and children. You can lend them your copy while you don’t use it, or they can listen to it on your computer, ipod, cd player. If you buy a copy of microsoft office, they allow you to put it on your desktop and on your laptop which are both registered to you. However, they don’t allow you to put in on YOUR computer and on someone else’s computer, that is breaking their copyright rules. Your wife can use your computer and your copy of office while using your computer and they can’t stop her nor do they have a right to stop her as long as she is using your computer.
Observanteen everything is not “phsat” some things need mephorshim.
Daas, it’s hard to put a “rental agreement” on the cover. “Reference” to it is insufficient. Unless the entirety of the “agreement” is visible prior to purchase, it is not binding.
If the customer opens the CD and the “agreement” says that in order to use this CD you just “rented” the purchaser is required to first dunk in the Arizal’s mikveh 7 times, is the customer unable to ever play his CD until then? If he doesn’t agree to that term (which he never saw until he opened the CD package) will the store take back the opened CD? If not, the “agreement” is not binding.
this is a subject that you have to ask a specific rav of yours because it seems everyone has a different opinion.
Even if the “rental” is binding, if the renter (i.e. purchaser) breaches the the terms of rental (i.e. by making a copy for his car or iPod or even for his friend), then the ONLY recourse under halacha the owner (i.e. producer) of the CD has is to declare the rental terms to have been breached and demand the CD be returned and issue a refund for the “rental”. That is the standard (and only) recourse under halacha for a breach of contract — reversing the original transaction.
If they try this “shtick” of rental agreement to keep you from making a copy, then I would boycott any music from this producer.
Shwekey does not have the RIGHT to say you are renting a CD if he prices it the same as a purchase.
Why not?
If they try this “shtick” of rental agreement to keep you from making a copy, then I would boycott any music from this producer.
I would too (and have done so. Well, maybe not a boycott, but I didn’t make the purchase). Most rental agreements, however, exclude anything to facilitate copying for others.
Daas, it’s hard to put a “rental agreement” on the cover. “Reference” to it is insufficient. Unless the entirety of the “agreement” is visible prior to purchase, it is not binding.
They write on the back of the CD that you agree to accept the terms of the rental specified inside. If you’re afraid of their ridiculous demands, don’t “buy” it. Besides, by now we all know goos and well what it says inside.
I don’t think they have a binding method of controlling copying (for yourself) purchased downloads.
Daas, so if after you open the package it states that you just agreed to turn over any real estate you own to the producers, its binding? If not, on what halachic basis are any of the terms binding?
IIRC, the rental thing happened because people were sharing music (one person purchases the cd, a few friends copy the music to their ipods). The renting changed the Halachic and/or legal status since the buyer never actually owns the music. I’ve heard its ok to make copies for your own use, but please ask your rav to clarify.
And the second pertinent point is if the renter/buyer violates the conditions of the lease (whether it is a CD or a car – i.e. he agreed to be the only driver but allowed a relative to drive the vehicle in violation of the rental agreement), what halachic recourse is the owner entitled to from the renter?
The point was made above that the only halachic recourse is to reverse the original transaction. If it is something more than that, is there a source for that?
Daas, so if after you open the package it states that you just agreed to turn over any real estate you own to the producers, its binding? If not, on what halachic basis are any of the terms binding?
You know that’s a ridiculous argument. The rental agreement only limits your use of the CD, it has no external clauses (and the most it could do anyhow would be disallow use of the CD, not obligate you to turn over your real estate).
The question is also if its right for the producer to not let you copy for yourself when he dosent have any lost, isn’t that midas sdom?
First of all, they claim you should buy another copy. Secondly, even if it was midas sdom, do you think that would invalidate the rental agreement and convert it to a sale, or otherwise remove the limitation?
I happen to agree that it’s unfair to limit in such a way, but it’s not worth being oiver on g’neiva (or even a chashash) on principle.
Daas, expound on the halachic difference, per Shulchan Aruch. Not your personal feelings of what is “a ridiculous argument.” Your argument was based on the fact “those are the conditions, you agreed to it. Simple as that.” What halachic difference is there if the clauses “agreed” to include something external or only internal?
Tums,
If they demand your first born, you can say that it wasn’t reasonable to expect that condition. If they demand that you not give someone else a free copy, you can’t honestly say that you didn’t expect that condition.
And by now, you know what it says inside.
Tums,
Regarding your other point, which, I believe, was canine’s point, if you violated the agreement, why should they have to give you your money back.
Daas Yochid,
If they demand your first born, you can say that it wasn’t reasonable to expect that condition. If they demand that you not give someone else a free copy, you can’t honestly say that you didn’t expect that condition.
1) a. Where in halacha is there a difference between reasonable and unreasonable? b. IF there is, who is to say asking for your real estate in return is unreasonable?
And by now, you know what it says inside.
2) I may know. Many many people do not. Many people bought the CD and still never realized it said anything about a rental agreement inside.
Regarding your other point, which, I believe, was canine’s point, if you violated the agreement, why should they have to give you your money back.
3) I’m not asking how either of us feel about it. I am asking what strict halacha has to say about it. In halacha, the aggrieved parties remedy for breach of contract, is to demand to reverse the original contract — return the item, get back your money.
which poskim are you talking about when you say most poskim??
did u hear them say it or is it 16 hand??
popa said hes a posek what do u say abt this popa??
1) a. Where in halacha is there a difference between reasonable and unreasonable? b. IF there is, who is to say asking for your real estate in return is unreasonable?
a. The entire Choshen Mishpat
b. Anyone who is reasonable
2) I may know. Many many people do not. Many people bought the CD and still never realized it said anything about a rental agreement inside.
Let them ask a shaila
3) I’m not asking how either of us feel about it. I am asking what strict halacha has to say about it. In halacha, the aggrieved parties remedy for breach of contract, is to demand to reverse the original contract — return the item, get back your money.
They are not asking for a reversal of the contract; the contract stipulated that under certain conditions, the CD must be returned.
b. Anyone who is reasonable
Incorrect.
Let them ask a shaila
You missed the point. Many, if not most, people are unaware of the terms inside the sealed package (if not being entirely unaware that it is a “rental” in the first place.)
They are not asking for a reversal of the contract; the contract stipulated that under certain conditions, the CD must be returned.
Who cares what they are asking for. The only remedy Halacha entitles them, if there was a breach in the terms of the original contract, is to void the original contract. (The contract stipulation about being returned under certain conditions is not relevant to this breach of contract issue.)
Deyezooger: Ooops. Sorry. I just skimmed throught your post and thought u were talking about copying CDs 4 others. Of course ur allowed to copy ’em for yourself.
I am very curious if these tzadikim who thought up this rental clause on their music cd’s have the same professional courtesy and responsibility when they purchase computer equipment and software for their professional use in recording the music itself. Do they buy a license for EACH and EVERY COMPUTER? Do they buy a separate license for their desktop AND laptop? Does it only apply to THEIR profit of to everything THEY purchase as well?
I just looked on the back of an Aderet release. It says:
THIS CD IS BEING RENTED NOT SOLD
Ask your retailer for a copy of the rental agreement, also see enclosed copy
???? ????? ?? ??????-???? ?????? ????? ??????? ??”? ???? ???? ??? ?????????
Apparently, if you speak English, it’s a rental; if you speak Hebrew, it’s a purchase.
Let them ask a shaila
You missed the point. Many, if not most, people are unaware of the terms inside the sealed package (if not being entirely unaware that it is a “rental” in the first place.)
I maintain that if it says on the cover that it’a a rental, and not to copy, then as long as you’ve seen that, you can’t claim ignorance of the terms as long as they are consistent with the idea of limiting copying. If someone didn’t notice the agreement at all (your second point) maybe that’s legitimate.
Aries,
I assume that you are not defending the practice of copying music which you did not purchase. I therefore don’t see the comparison to illegal software pirating.
If they demand your first born, you can say that it wasn’t reasonable to expect that condition. If they demand that you not give someone else a free copy, you can’t honestly say that you didn’t expect that condition.
Well, I think we can all agree that a condition to give your firstborn is silly, as it would never stand up in secular court OR in a bais din.
A more similar condition would be that if you buy the CD, you can’t listen to track 5.
The Wolf
Well, I think we can all agree that a condition to give your firstborn is silly
As would be a condition to hand over all of your real estate holdings (or even some).
Daas,
Do you disagree with what I maintain is the maximum recourse available to the producer under halacha if the “renter” violates the terms of the agreement? (If so, specifically on what halachic basis?)
DY, if you purchase a CD, according to the poskim you have the right to copy if for yourself only. The same laws of copyright applies to software as to CD and software is usually licensed by users. By agreement when you purchase your software you don’t have a right to use it on as many computers as you choose to load it to. You have purchased the right for one user or five users or for how many users you purchased.
So my curiosity is to whether the geniuses that came up with this RENTAL theory are as careful NOT to break the rule on OTHER people’s copyright and license infringement as they are when it comes to their own profit?
Furthermore I highly doubt it is legal to “say” that you are “renting” this CD according to an agreement inside the sealed package which you cannot see or read until you “purchase” this item. How can you possibly agree to something you have no access to read? So that in itself would not hold up in a court of law or under any law it is just double talk.
Anyone who “buys” into this nonsense is a fool! When you pay the same price as any other CD you purchase, then it is a purchase and not a rental. If they want to call it a rental they should lower the price! In addition, if they are doing this for some halachic reason in order that you can’t even make a copy for yourself, then you should not be able to profit from a sale, and should only be able to profit from a rental. For example, netflix or blockbuster “rents” movies and therefore does not charge the same amount as if you would go out and buy the movie to keep in your own collection.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.