- This topic has 168 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
DY are you saying in talmudic times, if someone would sell an ox and on the horn of the ox it would say that this ox is not sold but merely rented . do you think his unspoken term will be acknowledged?
If it was noticed by the “buyer”, yes.
p.s. CAN aderet demand i return the tape ?
No, similar to the way a leasing company cannot demand the car back before the term is up.
also a socher is mechuyav i on ones . am i liable for any damages to pay cash?
You would be, except that they specifically exempt you. (See below.)
p.p.s dy are you bakant with the sugya of “devorim shebilev”?
There are several reasons that “einom d’vorim” doesn’t apply here.
1) It’s not b’lev, as I explained earlier, and I don’t think you responded.
2) That sugya is dealing with retracting the sale; this case is dealing with a different transaction structure than normal i.e. rental vs. sale.
3)In that case, the possibility of applying a change has its upside and downside i.e. regaining property vs. loss of money. In this case, keeping the status quo (as originaly printed on the jacket) is completely to the benefit of Aderet.
4) The reason we assume that “einom d’vorim” is because the seller may have changed his mind for the sake of the money. The The R’ma (207 4) brings a “yesh omrim” (I don’t know who, if anyone, argues) that the rule of “d’vorim sheb’lev einom d’vorim” doesn’t apply to a matana (because there is no money involved – S”ma). In our case, the money remains the same; as was noted several times in this thread, they don’t charge any less for this long term rental than if it were a sale.
You could have argued that even an express stipulation has no bearing by “m’talt’lin” (R”ma 207 3), in which case argument 1) would not be valid, but 2), 3), and 4) would.
I think the question is not whats writen on the cover but whats written on the sales receipt, thats where a rentel agreement should be and there it says “sales receipt”.
Why? I would think that the prevailing agreement would be 1) what is stipulated before, not after the transaction, and 2) What is to the benefit of the one defining the transaction (in this case, Aderet, who prefers a rental.
FYI:
This is the English “nusach” used on many CDs:
Niazik and Professional,
I agree with both of your posts, except that (Niazik) some poskim do seem to assume that it is actual g’neiva, although I don’t understand why.
how about downloading music and making a cd and then making copies of that cd to give out..
OK, the conversation here was mostly about those CDs with a rentel agreement, but the majarity of CDs dont have that rentel agreement it just says do not copy, what about those CDs? can I copy those for myself? If according to halacha I can is it still unmentchlich to do so?
In my opinion, no problem of mentchlichkeit. Whether it would still be a problem of g’neiva would depend on whether or not there is a t’nai, what the intent of the t’nai is, and whether the t’nai itself works (machlokes haposkim). Obviously, if it were to be technical g’neiva, it wouldn’t be mentchlichkeit either! One could then argue whether it’s mentchlichkeit on the part of the producer. To be dan them l’caf z’chus, I would point out that they have lost many sales to illegal copying and are therefore quite frustrated, and that some people have availed themselves of the loophole pointed out by Niazik to obtain huge hard drives full of hundreds of albums of music without paying for them.
This is the English “nusach” used on many CDs:
That seems to state it is forbidden to put it on your 10 year old son’s MP3 player, since the son isn’t the “renter” and thus he is “others”. IOW, only the original renter can use it on his iPod. Very restrictive indeed.
Furthermore, I’m not sure they are correct about “civil law”‘s view of this “rental”.
dy- What i am trying to respond to you is that…..
even if both parties were aware of a certain clause or stipulation the fact that it was not “outspoken” during the transaction it is not valid. Meaning that even if i happened to be an old aderet customer and are aware of what it says on the shmacket, still the fact is that i may not have known . therefor it was not “outspoken” during the transaction and is butol.
dy-said That sugya is dealing with retracting the sale; this case is dealing with a different transaction structure than normal i.e. rental vs. sale.
the sugya discusses many different cases in all different scenarios i. i seeno reason why this case is any different
nt.
3)In that case, the possibility of applying a change has its upside and downside i.e. regaining property vs. loss of money. In this case, keeping the status quo (as originaly printed on the jacket) is completely to the benefit of Aderet.
devorim sheblev is void and does not need any retraction. there is absolutely no chalos.
see birchas shmuel 1st siman in kidushin
also a rental means that after a certain time period,it must be returned. can aderet demand return?>
That seems to state it is forbidden to put it on your 10 year old son’s MP3 player, since the son isn’t the “renter” and thus he is “others”. IOW, only the original renter can use it on his iPod. Very restrictive indeed.
Since he is “someich al shulchan aviv”, it’s actually the father’s mp3 player.
Furthermore, I’m not sure they are correct about “civil law”‘s view of this “rental”.
Nor am I. But to the best of my knowledge, civil law prohibits copying even for personal use, so it is consistent with fair use, and I don’t know if civil law cares about the lomdus behind a transaction, since the effect is the same as a sale.
also a rental means that after a certain time period,it must be returned. can aderet demand return?>
Yes, in theory. The longer version of the agreement (although I’m not sure if they are all the same) says that they can demand a return of the original CD after a 20 year extension (total of 40 years) but only if they personally demand it. So it definitely won’t happen.
Regarding your other post, I will bl”n look up the Birchas Shmuel. I didn’t notice your post because it was put in before my response to Tums so my name showed up as “last response”.
You still haven’t responded to my point that it’s not b’lev because it’s on the CD jacket at the time of the transaction, nor to my proof from the S”ma.
Would it also be g’neiva to take someone’s tune without permission and use it as your own, and then put out a violation order if it’s copied?
Would it also be g’neiva to take someone’s tune without permission and use it as your own, and then put out a violation order if it’s copied?
Interesting (and relevant) question.
Would it also be g’neiva to take someone’s tune without permission and use it as your own, and then put out a violation order if it’s copied?
Interesting (and relevant) question.
You’re now discussing g’neiva of “intellectual property”. As I mentioned earlier, there is discussion in the poskim about such a concept, although the mekor is unclear.
Assuming that there is g’neiva of “intellectual property”, the fact that a CD producer “stole” someone’s tune, and then produced a CD with an order not to copy it, might make him a hypocrite, but I don’t think it would make it mutar to copy it. The producer, by having it sung, and the music arranged and performed, made a significant change to the original tune, and has added “intellectual value” to the property (and possibly avoided hasogas g’vul in the process).
By secular law, I’m told, one can use a previously recorded tune in a new production (it’s referred to as a “cover”) but must pay royalties.
That sugya is dealing with retracting the sale; this case is dealing with a different transaction structure than normal i.e. rental vs. sale.
the sugya discusses many different cases in all different scenarios i. i seeno reason why this case is any different
See ?”? ?????? ??. ???? ???”? ??”? ??? ??? ???? ?????.
This would be ???? ?????, not ???? ?????.
devorim sheblev is void and does not need any retraction. there is absolutely no chalos.
I’m not sure what you mean. What I’m trying to say is that it’s an ???? ????? ????? which makes it not considered ????? ????. See earlier in that same ?”?.
Regardless of ?’ ???? ???’s ????? that it’s not a ?????, that’s only ???? when we consider it ????? ????.
I have a feeling that this thread is getting too close and too hot and may close down soon.
Anyway, there may be some technical halachic loopholes as Daas Yochid indicated, but how can one take the warning seriously when what is good for the goose is not good for the gander?
I have a feeling that this thread is getting too close and too hot and may close down soon.
Why?
Anyway, there may be some technical halachic loopholes as Daas Yochid indicated, but how can one take the warning seriously when what is good for the goose is not good for the gander?
First of all, no hypocrisy has been proven; who says they don’t get permission from the composers? Secondly, I would hope that the issur of g’neiva should be enough to take it seriously.
Who says they don’t get permission from the composers?
The composers.
I heard that this was a problem years ago, but not any more. I’m not on the inside, maybe you’re right. Is this an issue with regular, full length song types of albums, or just with kuzitz and chasunah type compilation albums?
I know that R’ Shlomo used to voice his displeasure all the time, and there are others. Kol hamaivin, yavin.
my point was that its not ????? ????? . since the buyer may not be aware. therefor, even if he punkt is aware, its not ????? ????? and it does not matter that he punkt is aware.
reason being — that not everyone reads the shmacket b4 purchasing. so even if i happened to read it, it does not count .
and the ????? ???? of rental is void . no action is needed to void it. the ????? ???? has no power to be soser the spoken words. there is absolutely no chalos rental.
I know that R’ Shlomo used to voice his displeasure all the time
That would be years ago.
marbehshalom:
If Aderet manufacturers the CD, thus owning it, and then they go to Eichler’s and tell them that we are NOT selling these CD’s to you (Eichler’s), we are merely letting you hold unto OUR (Aderet’s) CD’s as an agent to rent the CD to whoever would like it…
Now that Eichler’s doesn’t own the CD’s (since Aderet does), if you walk into Eichler’s to buy the CD, EVEN IF Eichler’s tells you they are SELLING it to you, THEY CAN’T SELL IT to you since they do not own it! So at most you will have a taaina against Eichler’s (or whichever CD retailer it is) that they “sold” you a CD that wasn’t theirs and therefore they could not sell it. So you may be able to halachicly force Eichler’s to undo the transaction and refund your money (and take back Aderet’s CD), but since Aderet owned the CD all the time the store could never sell it you.
marbehshalom, (I like the screen name, BTW)
As evident in the ?”? (and others as well), the reason something would not be ???? ????? ????? is if there would seem to be a reason to assume that the transaction was being conducted despite the earlier limitation beind present, the specific reason being the receipt of money. That is irrelevant here.
Regarding your point about most people being unaware of the rental on the jacket, that’s debatable, but nevertheless irrelevant.
If someone made a verbal condition in a barely audible voice, but the buyer punkt heard it, would it be ???
Does this rental hocus pocus hold up in an American courtroom? If not, why not? And does dina d’malchusa apply?
Daas Yochid – “That would be years ago.”
He still denies it…and there are others.
Does this rental hocus pocus hold up in an American courtroom? If not, why not?
I don’t know, but I believe software is licensed, not purchased, so I don’t see why it can’t work for music (but I’m not a legal expert).
And does dina d’malchusa apply?
I wonder the same thing (I’m not a halacha expert). If so, then it should also be okay to use someone else’s tune (the royalties are pennies per copy sold which is usually insignificant in the Jewish music market; they would be chayav, but the amount would be small).
When halacha and secular law conflict in dinei momonus, halacha is controlling.
Tums,
When halacha and secular law conflict in dinei momonus, halacha is controlling.
Of course, but it doesn’t have to be a conflict. My thinking is as follows (and I really don’t know if there’s any validity to this at all):
If fair usage laws do not allow someone the right to sell a CD without the ability to use it “fairly”, such as copying for personal use, then maybe halacha will therefore invalidate that part of the “sale”.
“When halacha and secular law conflict in dinei momonus, halacha is controlling.”
Then why the proliferation of secular law suits amongst the very frum; individuals as well as mosdos.
Then why the proliferation of secular law suits amongst the very frum; individuals as well as mosdos.
A big avla.
How does the famous story in the gemorah of Hillel fit in here? When Hillel couldn’t afford the admission price to the shiur he usually attended, he went on the roof to listen in — without paying and without permission (that time).
If “intellectual property” has any basis in halacha, wouldn’t Hillel have been “stealing”?
TO TUMS yes i agree eith you and a i mentioned it earlier as well.
IF ADERET WILL EXPILICITY TELL EICHLERS AT THE TIME OF SALE ITS A RENTAL, Then it would not be relevant what the buyers deal with eichkers was. it was not eichlers to sell. HOWEVER if adret simply sold eichlers 1000 cd’s with no verbal or contract mention of rental it would still be ????? ????
Now to my good friend RABBI DASS YACHID- CAN you be modeh to me atleast this much? If a particular buyer had no idea what it says on the jacket and had no idea of a rental , he cant be bound to a rental. will you agree this much to me?
dassY- are u in klei kodesh/REBBI OR KOLLEL?
aries2756: if u boycott them, u will b left with no more jewish music as they will have no money 2 put out more cd’s. you would just be hurting yourself. (if your boycott actually worked)
marbehshalom:
You wrote that you agree with me that if “IF ADERET WILL EXPILICITY TELL EICHLERS AT THE TIME OF SALE ITS A RENTAL, Then it would not be relevant what the buyers deal with eichkers was. it was not eichlers to sell.”
But then you tell Daas Yochid (in the very same comment) that “If a particular buyer had no idea what it says on the jacket and had no idea of a rental , he cant be bound to a rental.”
Once we assume Aderet made the rental agreement with the retailer properly, even if the buyer had no idea that it is a rental, it is true that “he can’t be bound to a rental”, but that point is meaningless since the CD is still Aderet’s property and therefore the buyer cannot do with the CD anything against what Aderet (the CD owner) allows, since Aderet owns the CD that the buyer “bought”. So therefore the buyer couldn’t do anything that Aderet’s rental terms do not allow even if he never knew it is a rental.
I just read the notice on a torah mp3;
“???? ????? ??? ??????? ???’ ?????
??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?”? ?? ??????? ??????, ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??? $100 ? ???, ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????
“
is such a tnei valid according to halacha?
It seems to me to be (at least partially if not wholly) halachicly unenforceable. Especially the part reading “??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?”? ?? ??????? ??????, ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??? $100 ? ???, ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????”, since the new digital copy (regardless of how it came into existence) isn’t theirs to charge you rent for.
HEY tums u forgot to take your tums, i said that if indeed they told eichlers then youre bound like u said. BUT ITS DEPENDENT IF IT WAS SAID TO EICHLERS BY ADERET c’mon
marbehshalom,
To answer your question about the buyer not seeing it on the cover, I would say that it might depend on where you bought it and the arrangement with Aderet. If it was bought at Eichler’s (just using the example you used) and, in fact, Eichler’s actually rented it, it probably could not be subsequently sold. If it was bought at Mostly Music which is owned by Aderet, then it’s an interesting shaila, which I think would require the shikul hadaas of a dayan to determine if it’s reasonable to expect the buyer to either see it on the jacket, or know that it’s common for CDs to be rented.
If it’s determined that the buyer was not expected to know, then, back to Eichler’s, it would be the store’s fault for not explaining to the customer that it’s a rental. Then another determination might have to be made if the difference is significant enough to render the transaction a mekach taos, allowing the customer to return it for a refund if he so desires.
If they are serious about this trick, why are the conditions not written in English; the language people in America read, speak and understand?
Interesting also that copyright law prevents you from copying and selling for profit, otherwise it is permitted:
The Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use. (See USC 17.10.1008, amended by the Audio Home Recording Act.)
I just read the notice on a torah mp3;
“???? ????? ??? ??????? ???’ ?????
??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?”? ?? ??????? ??????, ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??? $100 ? ???, ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????
“
I was fine with the Hebrew, but when it switched to Yiddish on line 2, I got lost. Can someone please translate the Yiddish for me?
Thanks,
The Wolf
guy-ocho, Why is Aderet the only producer? At this moment I am in aveilus so I can’t listen to music for the full year and I am surviving. So I think that when my year is up, I can choose NOT to buy from Aderet under these circumstances and still be OK. I think if MOST jews told the store owner that they refuse to buy from ADERET under these conditions, ADERET would review their position and realize that their attitude stinks and that they can’t tell someone that after they purchase a CD for $15 and up, they can’t put it on their IPOD or their computer which is ridiculous. Once it is mine, I can choose to listen to it any which way I choose. The purpose of buying it, is for me to enjoy it any way I choose to.
In addition, if most Jews were to write to the artist and say “I love your music but I can’t buy your album because of Aderet’s foolish attitude about “renting” instead of buying, maybe the artist will look for a different producer. As long as the public keeps quiet and says nothing, nothing will change and Aderet will believe what they are doing is acceptable. Then other producers will follow their lead.
Aries,
When I called Aderet, they told me that most artists do allow one copy for your own use. Most lease agreements only prohibit anything which facilitates copying for others. Only some specific artists do not allow even a copy for oneself. i don’t think you have to assume it’s a problem unless it specifically states it (but of course ask your rov).
Most of this discussion, in which I opined that even copying for yourself would be proscribed by the rental agreement, is only relevant in those exceptional cases.
I wouldn’t blame Aderet, it’s up to the individual artist, Aderet is just going along with their wishes.
I will repeat that I am not at all involved in the music industry (except as a consumer), but I would hate for my comments to infringe on anyone’s enjoyment or cause a loss to Aderet.
Wolf,
??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?”? ?? ??????? ??????, ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??? $100 ? ???, ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??????
My understanding of that text is as follows (anyone whose Yiddish is better than mine please correct me):
And if someone did, chas v’shalom, copy, which is theft, then it’s (retroactively – DY) a rental at the rate of $100 a day, on condition not to copy.
The whole rental business is foolish. Most purchasers of music will copy it to a computer for themselves regardless of the producers wishes as this normal for all music purchases, and permitted under federal copyright law.
People don’t read the small clause and when they do they assume it’s that they may copy it as long as they don’t share it.
Aderet knows that putting it written apparent manner (like in big letters in front) will reduce sales from honest people.
Once it’s off the cd (permissible or not) and in a computer or mp3 player then the original rental agreement loophole does not apply to a dishonest person who copies it for themselves.
Therefore the music industry must rely on people being honest and paying to benefit from someone else’s labor, rather than trying create ways to force people to limit rights in purchases.
HERE is my closing arguements , since my wife is getting nervous from me spending to much time posting.and not being avail for her.
dy said I think would require the shikul hadaas of a dayan to determine if it’s reasonable to expect the buyer to either see it on the jacket, or know that it’s common for CDs to be rented.
if the dayan’s shikul hadass says that he did not have to know it was a rental.(which i think a dayan would certainly say) Then even if the buyer was aware of the terms . the inyan is not ????? ????? which makes it considered ????? ???? and its void.
good bye and noce meeting you all because a coerced get ????? ???? is void.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.