- This topic has 83 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Does anyone know the hock? Is it really stealing? What if you wouldn’t have bought it anyway? Is i mutar if its a non-Jewish artist?
Is i mutar if its a non-Jewish artist?
Gezel Akum is just as forbidden as stealing from a Jew.
As for your other questions, ask a Rav.
Personally, I ask myself the following questions:
1. If it was me, would I like it? I get annoyed when people steal my pictures (and yes, it happens) and use them without payment and attribution. Since I don’t like it when it’s done to me, I don’t do it to others.
2. Are you so hard up for the cost of the music that you can’t do the right thing and compensate the artist whose music you obviously find pleasing enough to consume?
The Wolf
non Jewish, muttar.
(note the full stop)
Jewish, buy a share in the cd for a penny or cent etc, that avoids any possible “tenays”
Theft is theft, regardless if the artist is Jewish or not…
Its muttar if its a troll.
Stealing, hasagas gvul, and cheating Yidden out of parnosso/causing losses to Jewish businesses.
End of story (unless the album is not available anymore).
Does anyone here have an idea of the costs involved in producing a CD?
Here is a list of expenses (without the dollar figures, some can be quite high):
Purchase of a song
Musicians
Arrangements
Recording studio time
Singers, soloists, choir
Mixing
Mastering
Duplication
Graphics for cover
Graphics for advertising
Advertising (print, radio, internet, etc)
Placing and hanging of posters
Distributing and marketing
Production of a sampler for publicity
Free copies given as samples
Many popular singers invest heavily in their CD’s as a form of advertisement. If this gets them more jobs, the CD can bring in much to compensate the expense. Some singers raise their price once they have become published.
It is only proper and menchlich to purchase the music so as to help the producer recoup the costs. Today, most CD’s do not become profitable ventures unless they are marketing for additional business. There is also a flooded market of Jewish music today, making the competition strong. With a challenging economy, buying CD’s is often a luxury that is forfeited.
And stealing and hasagas gvul pertain to theft of non-Jewish music as well.
There is a shach that permits copying (obviously by hand) a Torah manuscript because it is permitted to steal Torah. The inference is that it would be forbidden to steal other information. Like Copying a CD, for instance.
Its not clear to me what material object you are stealing, and stealing an idea is not geneiva, so far as I have ascertained. Yet the Shach does seem to forbid it.
Ask you LOR!
so on that tzad copying might be available?
No more than swiping a newspaper off the truck because the newspaper makes far more money in advertising than it does through direct sales.
The Wolf
There is no equation between stealing a physical object and “stealing” an intellectual object.
LY: So the Shach allows copying the full Artscroll Shas (or any Seforim.)
Wolf,
It is not really comparable to newspapers. The analogy would be to an advertising circular. The CDs are what make the singer popular, thus making him valuable for gigs, chasunahs aor concerts, where the money is.
I am not saying copying is muttar, I am not a Rov. But I am saying that your analogy is poor.
It is not really comparable to newspapers. The analogy would be to an advertising circular. The CDs are what make the singer popular, thus making him valuable for gigs, chasunahs aor concerts, where the money is.
No, I believe you’re wrong.
An advertising circular is given out for free. A CD (like a newspaper) has an intrinsic sale value — and if you swiped either from the store, we would all agree it’s theft.
If it were a sampler CD given out for free, then it would be more comparable to an advertising circular.
The Wolf
I see a lesson to be learned and that is to make your cd as unTorahdig as possible so that its not muttar to steal it. Niiiiice.
Wolfie,
You are wrong. The question was about copying music, not taking the actual CD. And thus there is no “hard” item taken. What has been taken does not have intrinsic value.
A circular was used to emphasize, but copying the CD is not at all like taking a newspaper, perhaps it “may” be like reading a newspaper at a stand. But even less, because the singer is gaining name recognition which is a major part of making the CD.
The better shaila is if you are allowed to stream online without downloading. Meaning, is it even illegal?
It is vadai illegal for them to post it, since they are violating the provision against public displaying.
But, you are not publicly displaying, nor copying, nor anything which is illegal. So can you do it then?
So I saw somewhere that one federal court taina’ed that it is “copying” when your computer copies it in its RAM. That seems dochek, but it is possible that another court would agree that way.
But that really only answers whether you will end up being liable to pay. It doesn’t answer whether we should consider it b’etzem illegal now.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/copying-music-redux
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/copying-music
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/copying-music-mutar-or-ossur
Wolf – your sentiments are admirable. Possibly they would be included in “v’asisa hayashar v’hatov”. It is still important to know what is the halachah and what is not.
You don’t have to be hard up not to pay for something you are not obligated to (assuming that is the case), regardless of how much you enjoy it. The fact that the artist expects compensation is not relevant if he is not entitled to it.
I’m confused – why isn’t a song itself worth money? The last time I checked, iTunes was selling songs for 99 cents each.
What about Dina Dimalchusa Dina- the law of the land says it si not permitted which makes it an Halacha that cannot be violated. Copywrited stuff is not allowed to be duped or given to those who will copy it. It’s the law… the laws! Isn’t it??
Rabbaim: What about Dina Dimalchusa Dina
The law of the land would permit making a copy, as long as its not for commercial purposes.
Some people get mixed up between the the theft of physical and intellectual property. To physically steal a painting, you just pick it up and leave.
To intellectually steal a painting, you would have to copy it feature by feature, and then sell it to someone else. If you want to make your own copy theres nothing forbidding you. Just because someone arranged certain parts in a certain design to create the Ford Model T, does not mean you are stealing anything from Ford if you were to make and keep a replica.
To intellectually steal something, you have to profit financially from the sale of someone else’s idea. Meaning if I pirate cd’s and sell them to others, I stole the IP (intellectual property) of the artist and profited from what the artist may or should have. However, until then, the creator is not losing anything. Having a copyright does not make it illegal to reproduce the idea.
Another example. If I wanted to keep a copy of a certain article in a magazine I purchased, I would definitely be allowed to type up the article in Word and save it in my computer. The benefit of reading and having a copy of the article is not illegal. Selling the article to some magazine to be published, yes.
The law of the land would permit making a copy, as long as its not for commercial purposes.
AFAIK, it’s also illegal to copy to give away. Fair usage is only for the use of the one who purchased it.
To intellectually steal something, you have to profit financially from the sale of someone else’s idea. Meaning if I pirate cd’s and sell them to others, I stole the IP (intellectual property) of the artist and profited from what the artist may or should have. However, until then, the creator is not losing anything. Having a copyright does not make it illegal to reproduce the idea.
Another example. If I wanted to keep a copy of a certain article in a magazine I purchased, I would definitely be allowed to type up the article in Word and save it in my computer. The benefit of reading and having a copy of the article is not illegal. Selling the article to some magazine to be published, yes.
I don’t think this is correct. I’m pretty certain it is illegal to reproduce it even just to look at, and even if you do it by retyping it, or whatever. You can read all about it at 17 USC 101 et seq. I’m putting a link to a free online version of the code, and we’ll see if the mods let it through (just be aware that what really matters is how the courts interpret the code, not what it says.) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1
The law of the land would permit making a copy, as long as its not for commercial purposes.
I have complained to people who use my pictures without permission/attribution — even on non-commercial sites — and gotten them to remove the pictures.
The Wolf
It’s long established principle in US Copyright Law that copying for personal, non-commercial, use is permissible under “Fair Use”.
It’s long established principle in US Copyright Law that copying for personal, non-commercial, use is permissible under “Fair Use”.
I am pretty certain this is not correct.
Research the “Fair Use” doctrine, both the statue and the relevant cases on fair use as it pertains to personal non-commercial copying, and you may become convinced otherwise.
The Audio Home Recording Act establishes it is legal to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use. See USC 17.10.1008, amended by the AHRCA.
RIAA v. DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA (with SONY v. UNIVERSAL STUDIOS as a precedent) affirms a broad reading of the copyright exemptions in Section 1008, described above.
Research the “Fair Use” doctrine, both the statue and the relevant cases on fair use as it pertains to personal non-commercial copying, and you may become convinced otherwise.
Why don’t you just give us a brief rundown on what you think it means. With citations of course.
And just to get you started, I’ll copy and paste the statute regarding fair use (statutes are allowed to be copied).
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
My last comment is more pertinent than the one you quoted.
You are confusing two issues. That statute (17 USC 1008– I would take you more seriously if you knew how to cite a statute) is talking about copying a music file which you own for your personal use. It is not talking about copying a music file which someone else bought for your personal use.
We were talking about copying the copy someone else had bought, for the purpose of sharing it.
The case you cite is a case where rio was sued for producing MR3 players since people would use them to copy music illegally. The court in the part you are referencing is saying that they have a very legitimate purpose for copying your own music.
The case they were relying on was talking about using a VCR to record TV shows for later which the court allowed since it was merely “time shifting” when you would watch what you were anyway entitled to watch. Similarly, when you copy your music, you are merely “space shifting” it from your computer to MP3 player.
Again, I have never studied this, and this is just from looking at what you posted. But you’re going to have to do a lot better than that. You should know you are incorrect when a simple google search shows that the entire internet world thinks you are incorrect.
You are mistaken, popa. The Congressional record in the passage of the aforementioned statue specifically states its intention, as an example, of legalizing the copying of a family members music – i.e. music he does not own.
Ok, very good. So you say the congressional record applies it to family members as well. And not to other poeple.
Are you just trying to prove me wrong, or are you trying to answer the question? I readily admit to not knowing copyright law–but this much I know, is that you cannot legally copy someone else’s music for your personal use. Not under the fair use doctrine, and not under section 1008.
The law does not limit the allowance to family. It applies to any personal non-commercial copying. So you can, in fact, copy.
Everyone look! I’m being trolled. But I guess I’m falling for it, since I’m responding.
Ok, these federal cases hold that copying music for personal use is illegal:
Sony BMG Music Entm’t v. Tenenbaum, 672 F. Supp. 2d 217 (D. Mass. 2009)
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 920, 125 S. Ct. 2764, 2771, 162 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2005) (Supreme Court of the United States finding potential vicarious liability for file sharing service based on users downloading copyrighted songs.
And plenty of other authorities.
I’ve cited a case to the contrary. The cases you’ve cited are mostly dealing with mass copying/distribution via the internet, as opposed to direct copying from an authorized media in a private setting, as the statue and case I’ve cited allow.
The case you cited is talking about where you own the music, as the Northern District of IL, affirmed by the 7th circuit specifically contrasted to the case where you don’t own the music.
And one of the cases I cited was talking about less than 15 songs.
Dude: I don’t know what ants you’ve got in your britches, but I’ve had my fun here.
why would you even want to copy goyish music? You shouldn’t be listening to it anyway!
I love how everyone makes hetairim for this issue. Ive heard some amazing ones. Like, Well the producer is not making money off cds anymore anyway so Im not making it any worse then it is. Or Ive heard – I would not have bought it anyway so its ok to copy. And many many more out there I just cant think of this second. Its assur, its a fact, but people will not change no matter how much everyone screams and yells. Baruch Hashem you cant copy full books yet but I think well get there soon.
We’ll have to agree to disagree, popa. You and your likeminded will just continue buying music at retail cost. Me and my likeminded will just continue copying music we wouldn’t have otherwise bought.
I know I am legally and halachicly justified. You think otherwise. And considering the fair use doctrine, the law, case history, and the fact the legal system doesn’t even have on its radar those who borrow friend’s CD’s and MP3 libraries to make personal copies, we’ll all just live happily ever after on this world and on the next (even if you don’t think so).
Sure, and if you end up in jail, there is daf yomi.
I heard they busted a guy for copying his friend’s MBD album and put him away for 10 years.
You actually wouldn’t go to jail. It is only a criminal offense if it is for commercial advantage or financial gain. 17 USC 506
The civil remedies could be up to $150,000 per work plus their attorneys fees. They don’t use cheap lawyers either. 17 USC 504-505
Think it won’t happen? Here is a case against 16 kids who were caught downloading music and identified by their school’s network. Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-16, 1:08-CV-765 GTS/RF, 2009 WL 414060 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2009) aff’d sub nom. Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010)
And I did differentiate above between internet copying (that is being put online for wide distribution) vs. personal copying of original media.
No one ever paid a $150,000 civil fine for copying a Schweckey CD. Or a fine of any amount for that matter. In fact, research the court cases and you wont find penalties (or even cases being brought in the first place for that matter) where the copying was limited to copying friend’s media (CD or MP3 library) directly from a friend, as opposed to a source of mass distribution (on either end).
Btw, even in the case you just cited, it seems the company filed a lawsuit but never proceeded to sue the individuals who did the copying. They just identified the John Doe’s via the suit and subpoena to the University. (Which, again, involved widescale internet copying at least on end of the copying rather than direct copying.)
Ah, we’re making headway. Before you were convinced it wasn’t illegal; now you just think that you won’t get caught. You are correct though, that is very unlikely you will get caught for borrowing your friends CD and copying it.
And now, I will explain to everyone what is really going on here, to show how smart I am. Hershe is not willing to copy music if he thinks it is stealing. So, he decides that the halacha is that he is allowed to, and then decides that the law is also that he is allowed to. He is not a lawyer, and does not ask a lawyer, nor does he even do a google search for the readily available information that it is not legal. He finds out about an idea called “fair use” and decides that he is “using” it and he thinks it is “fair”.
This is why no amount of legal authority can persuade him. He isn’t interested in knowing what a court would say about it-he only wants to be able to tell himself that he is not breaking the law, and just needs to be convinced that his reading of the law is more accurate. Thus, he doesn’t care how the courts understand the law- he believes his reading is correct and that is all.
However, he is even wrong about that. In America, the courts do make law. And once they say it-that is the new law, regardless of what the statute says.
Yes, presumably they settled the case out of court once they were identified.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.