May 16, 2012 11:51 pm at 11:51 pm #876354moishyParticipant
Are you allowed to steal from a goy (i.e. comedians)??May 17, 2012 12:42 am at 12:42 am #876355derszogerMember
hello: Can you provide a quotation or citation from a shailos uteshuvos that clearly declares that an intangible object can be owned, *and* explains the svara why an intangible item can be a property? Rav Belsky clearly says not, and that the problem is only hasagas gvul.May 17, 2012 2:01 am at 2:01 am #876356dash™Participant
Are you allowed to steal from a goy (i.e. comedians)??
No. But Hasagas Gvul doesn’t apply.May 17, 2012 4:04 am at 4:04 am #876357
derszoger: Can you provide a quotation or citation from a shailos uteshuvos that clearly declares that an intangible object canNOT be owned, *and* explains the svara why an intangible item canNOT be a property?May 17, 2012 5:11 am at 5:11 am #876358derszogerMember
See Beis Yitzchak Y.D. 2:75 about intangible items not having any status as property. Also see Pischei Choshen, Geneivah, page 287, where he is lenient about copying tapes for personal use.May 17, 2012 9:21 pm at 9:21 pm #876359
derszoger: Ok, now we are finally getting down to a serious Halachic discussion, although lacking any explanation of a svara.May 20, 2012 9:40 pm at 9:40 pm #876360
derszoger: I am still awaiting an accurate citation or quote of a Teshuva that explicitly denies ownership of IP, preferably including a Sevara.May 22, 2012 5:55 am at 5:55 am #876361
re the Beis Yitzchok: Additionally, since his Teshuva exclusively concerned children printing the father’s work, and we demonstrated on the previous page that intangible property cannot be inherited, there would be no evidence that he holds that IP is not owned by the originator himself even had he issued a blanket Heter to copy (which he did not).May 22, 2012 1:48 pm at 1:48 pm #876362
Although I am against copying, as I’ve stated here in numerous threads, I’ve never understood how there can be actual ownership and therefore actual gezel (with the exception of leasing agrements. You wrote to derszoger that he needs to provide a sevara why there would not be gezel on IP; I think that as none of the classic kinyonim are applicable to IP (and as you just wrote, neither are hilchos yerushah), a sevara needs to be provided to defend the idea of gezel of IP.
One posek I know of used to be mattir copying, because he could not fathom how there could be gezel on IP (he also rejected the t’nai on CD’s, although I don’t know what he held on leasing agreements), but he stopped being mattir when he clarified with R’ Dovid Feinstein that R’ Moshe indeed assered.
Again, I’m not challenging the psak, as it seems to be the opinion of the gedolei haposkim, I’m just trying to understand it.May 22, 2012 11:14 pm at 11:14 pm #876363May 23, 2012 5:41 pm at 5:41 pm #876364
Is it possible to be oiver on gezel without a maaseh kinyan?
Certainly, I think you would agree that no kinyan, including the ones you mentioned, is taking place when copying a CD.May 23, 2012 9:08 pm at 9:08 pm #876365
From the continuation of his words and from Siman 212 it is obvious that air is classified as an intangible asset, as the Rema continues that the seller is incapable of selling this retained air to another, as intangible assets cannot be transacted alone; neither inherited nor sold. However, in conjunction with physical property, such as the underlying land, even intangible air can be transacted.May 23, 2012 9:49 pm at 9:49 pm #876366
There are grounds to say that true Gezel requires a Kinyan and excludes intangible objects, see Rabbeinu Manoach on Rambam Shofar 1:3 that one is Yotzei hearing Tekiyos from a stolen Shofar because the intangible sound cannot be Gezel.May 24, 2012 1:32 am at 1:32 am #876367cheftzeMember
Hello99: 1. If the owner of the air rights is diferent than the owner of the property rights, if the owner of the air rights dies without transfering its ownership, who then owns those air rights? 2. How much above the property does the property owners rights end and the air rights owners begin? 3. How can an airplane trespass the airspace of all the property owners over which it flies?May 24, 2012 5:14 am at 5:14 am #876368
I never understood the Gemara in Berachos or that Rashi literally.
I hadn’t noticed your use of the term “akin”, only the term “issur gezel”.
If the point is that it is so morally deficient to copy ones IP that it can be considered “akin” to gezel and assur despite no literal gezel, I can understand that, although it’s certainly not a chiddush I would be comfortable saying on my own. (The poskim who said it, if that’s indeed what they mean, certainly do have the shoulders for that, though).May 24, 2012 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm #876369
If the Gemara in at least two places, Reb Moshe, Rav Vozner and Rav Elyashiv (among others) all refer to taking intangible items as “Gezel”, I have no hesitation doing so as well. What ever they mean by “Gezel” is what I mean too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.