June 28, 2010 4:19 am at 4:19 am #591863Hello KittyMember
I recently bought a new ipod. My friend wants to fill it up for me at no charge? Is it “gneiva” if I wasnt planning on buying most of those cds anyway?
According to halacha what is the best and easiest way to fill up an ipod?June 28, 2010 1:17 pm at 1:17 pm #688034oyveykidsthesedaysMember
reb moshe writes in a teshuva that if you are 100% SURE!!! that you DEFINITELY wouldnt have bought the cds if they werent available from your friend, then its mutar. but you have to be very honest with yourself, so you don’t convince yourself that you’re doing nothing wring when you are.June 28, 2010 1:49 pm at 1:49 pm #688035
yes, it’s ganavei.
the fact that you weren’t going to buy it is not a heter.
best way is to buy what you want online, or take the Cd’s you have and use your computer.June 28, 2010 2:20 pm at 2:20 pm #688036
Whether or not it’s technically permitted according to halacha, ask yourself this question:
If you were the musician, would you be happy with people doing this?
After you determine (or rationalize) that it’s halachically permissible, use that question as your guide as to whether you should or not.
The WolfJune 28, 2010 2:52 pm at 2:52 pm #688037shimmelMember
I asked a shielah, most poskim didnt want to answer it. although finally i did get an answer from one rav. he said that anything that’s older than 5 years (n i bought many of them) is less of a shielah, .(I cant say you’re allowed to, cuz it would be ideal if everyone asks on their own) and anything that’s newer than 5 years should be bought.June 28, 2010 4:50 pm at 4:50 pm #688038HIEParticipant
I once bought an Ipod from a friend. I asked a big posek if I can keep the music that my friend had on the ipod since I’m not going to buy those CD’s anyways. He didn’t say that it’s assur, but he did say that i shouldn’t keep the music.
(HIE Brother)June 28, 2010 5:09 pm at 5:09 pm #688039
a few months ago i asked this shaila when i was thinking of getting an ipod. THe answer i received was that if you own the cd, then you can load it, otherwise you shouldn’t. He said that if the cd has a “leasing agreement” (notice many do) he said it’s more chomur but still ok if you bought it. (i know someone who buys cds, loads them onto their ipod and throws out the cds. )
i’m curious to know about the 5 year thing – if its 5 ysr or older you don’t have to buy it. i’ll check it out.June 28, 2010 6:47 pm at 6:47 pm #688040blinkyParticipant
We asked a rav and he said if you were not going to buy it its fine, and also, if someone bought it they can do whatever they want to do with it-give it out…etc.
Im just adding on- it makes sense because anytime s/o lends you a book/clothes… you can’t take it? Someone bought it and they are giving it to you, i don’t see why you have to buy it first.June 29, 2010 12:43 am at 12:43 am #688041
“If you were the musician, would you be happy with people doing this?”
What the torah says is right and proper has nothign to do with what you would want if you were the musicin.June 29, 2010 2:10 am at 2:10 am #688042d aMember
sof davar hakol nishma
He said that if the cd has a “leasing agreement” (notice many do)
This is off topic, but if you check out most of these lease agreements, they are all mixed up and make no sense.June 29, 2010 3:24 am at 3:24 am #688043lesschumrasParticipant
This may come as a shock to you, but you are subject to this country’s anti-piracy and copyright laws and What the torah says is right and proper is not a defence in courtJune 29, 2010 3:31 am at 3:31 am #688044
da – i know, i’ve tried reading them a few times, but it seems that the halacha is more chomur.
blinky – copying music onto something is VERY different than borrowing. borrowing is temparary – you’ll return it, and if it’s given as a gift you’ll keep it. What’s going on with music when you copy it – both have hanoa and both are using it but only one bought it, The producer loses money. But if your posek says it’s ok do whatever your told.June 29, 2010 3:56 am at 3:56 am #688045
where is rav moshes teshuva?June 29, 2010 5:19 am at 5:19 am #688046
This is off topic, but if you check out most of these lease agreements, they are all mixed up and make no sense.
No sense to you, perhaps, but I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that they make perfect sense to lawyers… and to the judge who will be hearing the case.
The WolfJune 29, 2010 7:26 pm at 7:26 pm #688047
(Its been several years since I am out of the business and have not checked the copywrite law in several years, but as of a few years ago) the implied copywrite law covering CDs/DVDs (music, movies and computer software) is that it is sold as a single user license. In short, this means the movie can not be watched simultaneously on 2 players, the software run simultaneously on 2 computers or the music played simultaneously on more than one player. You are allowed to make as many back up (that was the reason argued originally) copies as youd like. The copywrite holders dont care about your backup copies. It is the simultaneous uses they are concerned about. You get a big yasher koach and thank you for buying my CD, you dont get a yasher koach for then distributing it to all your friends. If I wanted your friends to have it for free, I would give it to them directly.June 29, 2010 9:08 pm at 9:08 pm #688048vitameatavegaminMember
apushatayid: what about siblings in one family? the kids are going to different camps for the summer…and they both want the new Shwekey cd on their playlists. Are they allowed to do that?
**also, what about when someone gets married? They have their ipod, mp3 player, wtvr, that is filled up with cd’s from their father’s house. are they allowed to bring that into their new life or do they have to buy any and all cd’s they would want to listen to? what does everyone think?June 29, 2010 9:22 pm at 9:22 pm #688049njs3215Member
where is that rav moshe?June 29, 2010 9:35 pm at 9:35 pm #688050charliehallParticipant
I don’t know the halachah, but it is definitely asur under secular law. And just think of the chilul HaShem if frum Jews became known as widespread willful violators.
Furthermore, most songs from most artists can be downloaded for a dollar. Are you really that poor that you can’t afford a dollar?
Besides, there is something much better with which to fill up your IPod: audio shiurim! And most of them are free.June 29, 2010 9:38 pm at 9:38 pm #688051
I’m not a copywrite lawyer. I dont know what the law is.June 29, 2010 10:57 pm at 10:57 pm #688052d aMember
No sense to you, perhaps, but I’d be willing to bet dollars to donuts that they make perfect sense to lawyers… and to the judge who will be hearing the case.
Why don’t you take a look at the lease agreement? Try reading it. It really doesn’t make sense.June 30, 2010 5:06 am at 5:06 am #688053YW Moderator-42Moderator
Hello Kitty wrote, “I wasnt planning on buying most of those cds anyway” (bold added by me)
If you weren’t planning on buying any of them, then you might have a heter (I’m not paskening, just saying that there do seem to be heterim out there). But, you said “most” implying that “some” you might actually buy. If this is the case then you have a much bigger shaila if you would have paid for a CD but instead are copying it. As oyveykidsthesedays said, you have to be very honest with yourself. This is a very hard thing when there is a strong negia to save money. Kol kula tzricha bedika!
I haven’t read the licenses recently, but the way I understand it the way apushatayid explained it, that owning a CD gives you the right to use it once at a time. You can listen to it on your CD player at home at 8:00, in the car at 9:00, and on your iPod at 10:00. But it cannot be played twice at the same time. If just one person will be using the CD then it’s no problem to make many copies as long as you are listening to one at a time. It might be a problem if a family buys a CD and one family member is listening to it in the car, while another listens on the computer. I once heard b’shaim a posek that for a family living to together they don’t have to worry about this if you can reasonably assume that most of the time it will only be listened to once, and if not, ask yourself if the family would otherwise buy a 2nd CD or not. Think of it as a book, if 2 family members want to read a book they would take turns. In some cases they may buy a 2nd copy of the book but in other cases they won’t. If you feel that you wouldn’t buy a 2nd copy of the CD then you might have a heter to have 2 family members listening at once in different places. If one gets married or goes to yeshiva the situation may be different. In the case of a book, if someone goes away to yeshiva, if he takes the book with him then his family will no longer have access to it so there is a good chance that he (or the family) would buy a 2nd copy.
Either way, I see the this as 2 shailas:
1) is it gezaila?
2) is it a violation of dina d’malchusa dina?June 30, 2010 6:44 am at 6:44 am #688054
Hello Kitty – if you weren’t planning on buying most of them – than why would you download it onto your ipod altogether? I would think because it’s a lot easier, you have them all there and save a lot of money.June 30, 2010 11:52 am at 11:52 am #688055I can only tryMember
This topic was discussed on the following thread:
Rav Belsky addressed the issue on the torah.org site.
The URL for the cut-and-paste below is here:
DOWNLOADING AND COPYING MUSIC
QUESTION 76: DOWNLOADING AND COPYING MUSIC
I argue with people about the ethics of downloaded music files from the Internet. I say that downloading songs or copying your own songs to give to someone else, without a copyright owner’s permission, or not compensating the owner, is stealing. What do you say about this?
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein ztl said that it’s not permitted to copy any item that is being sold by the creator of that item. Every time you copy it, you’re taking away sales from him. Anybody who downloads it, copies it, or does something else is really just turning someone else’s money into ashes. And that’s really the bottom line. It’s taking something from someone else.
This is one of the areas where people say, “Everyone does it, and it really should be mutar (permitted)”. People copy tapes and download from the Internet. Everything becomes “public domain”. There’s nothing private. People just download it and copy it and they’ll wipe the owner out.
But even if everyone does it, it’s wrong. You’re taking away something from someone and you’re harming him.
Sometimes people object to this argument and say, “Well, in that case, I’m probably not even allowed to copy down a shtikel (piece of) Torah that I heard.” But that’s not true – the Shach says “Ein gezel b’divrei Torah (there’s no stealing when it comes to Torah)”, that is, if you copy it down for yourself.
The guideline here involves whether or not what you’re doing is taking away a sale from the owner. One might say, if asked this question, “Oh, I would never have bought that anyway.” But in fact you shouldn’t say that. You do like it … and you would have bought it.
However, if you buy one and make a copy for yourself so that you can have, say, one in the car and one at home – that kind of copying is permitted. No one buys two of something for such a purpose, so copying the merchandise in this case doesn’t take the place of a sale. If you told a person who wanted one copy for the house and one for the car that he had to buy two, then he wouldn’t buy two. He would figure a way to carry it back and forth each time.
Since buying two copies for such a purpose is never done, then making a copy for yourself for two locations is not taking away a sale.
Is copying music a different type of stealing than any other type of stealing? Or is it just like any kind of stealing? Is there a principal that stealing is stealing and there are no distinctions? Is it just like walking over to someone with a gun? In this case we’re talking about intellectual property. So is that a lesser degree of stealing?
The concept of ‘stealing’ intellectual property has limitations because in certain cases it is permitted to copy an idea. For example, if someone comes up with some idea about how to sell something, that idea is probably not subject to being copyrighted or patented. But a song is copyrighted, and people do business by selling records or tapes with songs. This is an item that brings a livelihood to people. Therefore, if you’re taking it, you’re taking away the livelihood of a person.
That’s very important to remember. Someone sweated nights and invested money and time in order to create a certain item that the public is interested in, and then he’s ready to sell it. And then it turns out that some Napster type of enterprise gets its hands on it, and people end up paying zero for it.June 30, 2010 1:57 pm at 1:57 pm #688056oyveykidsthesedaysMember
i dont know where the teshuva is. i heard about it in a dvar torah and i can’t for the life of me remember which rav gave the shiur. but i remember he was very reliable.June 30, 2010 2:39 pm at 2:39 pm #688057
Why don’t you take a look at the lease agreement? Try reading it. It really doesn’t make sense
It doesn’t make sense to me, but then again an advanced medical journal or a doctorate’s thesis on quantum mechanics probably wouldn’t make much sense to me either. That doesn’t mean that they’re nonsense.
I have a better idea — take it to an IP lawyer and ask him/her to read it. If it’s still nonsense to a decent IP lawyer, then by all means feel free to call it such. Otherwise, don’t look to me to defend you if you get sued.
The WolfJune 30, 2010 3:35 pm at 3:35 pm #688058AinOhdMilvadoParticipant
Here’s something I was wondering about…
Why are public libraries legal?
Are all the books borrowed from there (by thousands and thousands of people) considered genaiva, since the authors are being deprived of each person buying the book themselves. Even allowing for the fact that most people probably wouldn’t (or can’t afford to) buy their own copy of the book, a certain percentage (maybe 5-10%) WOULD do so if they couldn’t borrow it for free.
So… what is the heter of borrowing a library book (or DVD, etc.)???June 30, 2010 3:56 pm at 3:56 pm #688059
The library a)purchased the book and b)it is illegal for borrower to copy any material from a book and c) you are permitted to lend your music CD to as many people as you want, they are not allowed to make a copy for themselves.June 30, 2010 3:58 pm at 3:58 pm #688060
Why are public libraries legal?
IANAL, and this is just a guess, but my gut feeling is that the law specifically allows for libraries. Lending libraries have a looooooong tradition in the US.
The WolfJune 30, 2010 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #688061R.L.Member
AinOhdMilvado – when you buy a book/cd/dvd then it becomes yours and you can do whatever you want with it BESIDES reproducing it. Nobody can stop you from lending it out – as long as you only have one copy of the thing. With a book that’s not a problem because nobody copies books, but with cds/dvds you can only lend them out if you dont have it on our ipod or you dont have a backup that you plan to use while your friend has the original.June 30, 2010 4:18 pm at 4:18 pm #688062
With a book that’s not a problem because nobody copies books
I actually spent quite some time looking for an out of print sefer by Rabbi Eliezer Berkovitz. I eventually found a copy in an out of town library. Once I managed to get the copy from the library, I emailed the publisher asking if I could copy selected portions, only to be told that they no longer had the rights to the book.
So, with the author dead and having no idea who owned the rights to the book plus considering the book was out of print and therefore there were no lost sales to consider, and considering how long it took me to find it, I was *sorely* tempted to copy the book.
In the end, I decided against it. It just didn’t “feel right” to me.
The WolfJune 30, 2010 4:36 pm at 4:36 pm #688063
coping a sefer that’s out of print is fine, all poskim agree to that.
as far as a library, you can lend what you want to who you want.
the truth is making a copy of a cd, is not 100% asur, but in reality you’re hurting yourself, because if the singers keep losing money, they’ll stop making the cd’s.June 30, 2010 4:39 pm at 4:39 pm #688064
coping a sefer that’s out of print is fine, all poskim agree to that.
Maybe, maybe not. Plus there’s the fact that the sefer IS still under copyright, even if out of print.
The WolfJune 30, 2010 4:58 pm at 4:58 pm #688065
Wolf. You may want to try http://www.hebrewbooks.org for a copy of the sefer. The site is dedicated to finding a storing online, out of print seforim of american rabbanim (although I have seen seforim of non american rabbanim as well on the site).June 30, 2010 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #688066
Wolf. You may want to try http://www.hebrewbooks.org for a copy of the sefer.
Thanks. I’m well aware of HebrewBooks.com. In fact, I often use that site when someone in the CR gives me a source and I don’t have a dead tree sefer handy.
However, R. Berkovitz’s sefer was written in English. 🙂
The WolfJune 30, 2010 7:15 pm at 7:15 pm #688067
“Maybe, maybe not.”
why maybe not? it sounded good while typing? everyone agrees if a sefer is out of print you can copy it. do you know someone that doesn’t agree to that? if not you’re maybe not’s could confuse ppl trying to know what they can and can’t do.June 30, 2010 8:37 pm at 8:37 pm #688068
I don’t know of anyone who disagrees. But then again, I’m not an expert in the area and don’t know for a fact that everyone does agree. If you’re sufficiently learned to say so, then fine.
In any event, it still didn’t feel right to me. Even if I was technically permitted to do so, I just didn’t feel right about it – and so I didn’t copy it.
The WolfJune 30, 2010 8:43 pm at 8:43 pm #688069
coping or not, is your prerogative.
but you shouldn’t say “maybe, maybe not” if you’re not sure what the poskim say on the matter. because then it looks like there is a debate too it, when there isn’t.June 30, 2010 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm #688070
Here’s a site which indicates that it’s not 100% certain that you can. The money quote:
A possible exception to the above is when a book is out of print and no plans for reprinting are underway. One can argue that in such a case the publisher or author has nothing to lose, for there is no possibility for making a sale. Indeed, some poskim advance the argument that the author is pleased when his work is studied or heard by additional people. A rav should be consulted.
Please note the following facts:
1. Rav Neustadt (the author of the article) makes it clear that permission to copy an out of print book is not universal.
2. He predicates this on a number of assumptions that I do not know to be true:
a. That the author (or the rights-holders) would be happy to have the book distributed.
The author is dead. Perhaps he might not want it further distributed. In addition, although I don’t know who owns the rights, someone does in fact own them — and they might mind.
b. No plans for reprinting.
At the time I do not know if the rights-holders had any plans for reprinting — and, in fact, I still don’t know.
So, in the end, I’ll stick by my “maybe, maybe not.” You might, after all, be correct; but I just don’t know that to be the case for sure.
The WolfJune 30, 2010 8:49 pm at 8:49 pm #688071
“everyone agrees if a sefer is out of print you can copy it. do you know someone that doesn’t agree to that?”
Who from among everyone says you may?June 30, 2010 9:31 pm at 9:31 pm #688072WIYMember
12 | HAlAchicAllY SpeAKiNg by Rabbi Moshe David Lebovits
live at home. However, once a child gets married a copy may not be made for that child. It is permitted to copy a song off the radio since the quality is not as good as it would be if one were to buy the CD or tape. Music that is offered on the internet may not be copied since it is only put there for one to listen to. 98
Some producers maintain that the forty-five second clips that are offered on the internet may be copied. Copying a CD or tape is forbidden even if one would never buy the CD or tape. 99
94. Horav Yisroel Belsky Shlita. Refer to Igros Moshe O.C. 4:40:19, Yabea Omer C.M. 7:9, Mishnas Zechuyos
95. Parshas Yisro 20:13.
96. Refer to Igros Moshe O.C. 4:40:19.
97. Refer to Rivevos Ephraim 4:248, 3:596.
99. Horav Yisroel Belsky Shlita. One is not allowed to copy even one song from many CDs or tapes to make a mix
(Horav Yisroel Belsky Shlita). If one who copied a CD or tape despite not being allowed to do so may listen to it inJuly 1, 2010 12:26 am at 12:26 am #688073
“In any event, it still didn’t feel right to me”
Halacha is not about what feels right to you. Its about what the torah says is right and if the torah says its right to copy then it is and your feelings are kneged those of the torah.July 1, 2010 1:06 am at 1:06 am #688074
mosherose – wasn’t it YOU who posted on something else that one can follow halacha and be a menuval bershus hatora? There is something known as “the spirit of the law” and somtehing that is YASHRUS even if halacha doesn’t demand it. Yes Torah doesn’t work with feelings.July 1, 2010 1:12 am at 1:12 am #688075
sof I didnt say he should copy I just said that his opinion doesnt determine what the halacha is. Noone said he hasta copy the book.July 1, 2010 1:48 am at 1:48 am #688076lesschumrasParticipant
You never answered my question.The opinion of the judge who rules against you in a copyright infringement suit is what counts; you cannot use the Torah as your defenseJuly 1, 2010 3:39 am at 3:39 am #688077
Why is mr wolf being attacked for basicly being “machmir” on himself? he had a number of valid assumptions why it would be ok to make a copy, nevertheless, it didnt sit well with him, and he didnt do it. did he violate some halacha, somewhere?
“One wonders why some people who are very stringent to keep every custom even when it may have little backing in
halacha are so lenient with this halacha which is based on the posuk in the Torah”
I assure you that if someone would propose that it is a segula not to copy CDs, nobody would do it.July 1, 2010 4:07 am at 4:07 am #688078Max WellMember
There is a few salient points being made here. The HALACHIC issue against copying a CD/DVD (or other intellectual property) is mainly the halachic prohibition of “taking business” away from someone. The secondary point being made against copying is Dina D’Malchusa Dina (DMD). Using DMD is a weak point, since poskim say DMD does NOT apply for monetary issues between Jews. And even if you say these is some posek who holds DMD does apply on Dinei Mominus between Jews, the person who is copying can say he holds from the poskim who say it does not, and a Beis Din then has to honor the defendant’s reliance on said poskim. (Additionally, even if it were a violation of DMD, copying would seem to be on the same halachic level of violation as a pedestrian crossing against the light.)
Regarding the main halachic point of “taking business” away from the producer, there are several limitations. If you use this as the basis of a halachic prohibition of copying, the same logic (of “taking business” away) should equally preclude you from taking a book or CD or DVD out of a public library (i.e. an Artscroll book from the Brooklyn Public Library) if you would otherwise purchase that book, CD, or DVD if the library didn’t have it available. For the same reason, you should be prohibited from borrowing a book or CD from a friend if you otherwise would purchase it. And it should prohibit the entire concept of a Jewish owned library.
And if the copier would not have otherwise purchased the book or CD, then he doesn’t have any halachic problem of taking business away from the producer.
As far as secular law is concerned (not considering the halachic aspects), there is the FAIR USE aspect of copyright law which allows copying music for PERSONAL non-commercial or mass use.
As far as the “leasing” terms specified on some Jewish CD’s, this is a non-standard business practice so unless the FULL terms of the “lease” were made known to the purchases PRIOR to the sale it wouldn’t be binding on the buyer. And it wouldn’t be binding on someone who came into possession of the CD through means other than purchasing it from the retailer. (i.e. he found a lost CD, or purchased just the CD [no packaging] from a friend, etc.)
Also, if someone violates the terms of the “lease”, the other party to the lease (i.e. the producer) would have the right to terminate the lease. But as far as the copy the person had already made, the producer would have no right to take away the new copy. (Even if the terms of the lease made the actual act of copying a violation of the lease.)July 1, 2010 2:14 pm at 2:14 pm #688079
Apologies to Wolf, this slipped past meJuly 1, 2010 3:00 pm at 3:00 pm #688080
I always wondered why we weren’t supposed to argue with an apikoros?
Are you actually calling me an apikorus because I didn’t want to copy a book???!!
because they distort words, lie, and always feel the need to win!
I may be mistaken, but I don’t think I’ve lied. Don’t ascribe to malice what you can ascribe to ignorance.
And, lastly, I have no desire to feel that I have to win. I’ve conceded defeat on matters on these boards and others before.
does he quote someone who says you can’t? NO
does he say some ppl say you can’t? NO
Fair enough… but he also doesn’t give a firm yes. His using the terms “one should ask a Rav” clearly says to me that there is a possibility of the answer being no.
plans for reprinting, all one has to do is call the publisher and ask are you reprinting this?
Actually, if you read my post, you’d see that I did that (well, actually I emailed them). They no longer had the rights — but that doesn’t mean that the rights holders might not have plans to republish with a different publisher.
Ah, but what the heck. If I’m an apikorus, then it’s probably better that I didn’t copy and re-learn R. Berkovitz’s sefer and besmirch his Torah, right?
The post that this post is in reply to has been deleted, If you would like this post to also be deleted please inform us.July 1, 2010 3:15 pm at 3:15 pm #688081SJSinNYCMember
LOL Wolf.July 1, 2010 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm #688084
did i call u an apikoros?
Not in so many words. But when you say “Now I see why we shouldn’t debate with an apikoros because they lie, distort…” and then you go on to say that I lied and distorted, I think the implication is clear.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.