Jewifying someone's iPod

Home Forums Music Jewifying someone's iPod

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 80 total)
  • Author
  • #607788

    Is it ok to Jewify someone’s ipod? How about adding your music to someone else’s iPod? I paid for the songs, and I am not asking them to pay me to put the songs on their iPod. What if they already have Jewish music on their iPod? The reason that I am asking is because I frequently hear non-Jewish music on speakers when some of my friends use their speakers for their iPods, and some of them don’t want to pay for more music, and ask me if I can add some of my (small collection) of songs to their iPod. What do you think?

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕


    Mostly Music has many free downloads. Those should be fine.


    We’ve been through this many times, but let’s go again! How about let’s debate this properly without any links.

    What should be the problem? You have bought the songs; they now belong to you. You have free rights to place them wherever you like.

    The problem is that the agreement (Terms and Conditions apply) state that you cannot copy the CD. So we have to go through a few points:

    1) The Ketzos Hachoshen writes that Ganeiva needs a Maiseh (like closing the door when an animal walks in, or doing ????? to the animal you steal). Is clicking something on the computer called a ????? (This question only starts if it is considered stealing.)

    2) Is copying considered doing anything? Is this not equivalent to you buying a lit candle off somebody selling candles and then lighting somebody elses for free? There is no ????? whatsoever. [Consider: You are by a shop, and you see a guy about to go buy a coat. You have a spare one and say “Take mine for free”. Is there any problem? And is it different that you only brought one and you are keeping it?]

    3) If there is a ???? in the sale, we run into problems. If you have a halachically binding ???? (As in ???? ????, ?? ???? ????, ???? ????? ???? ???, ???? ???? ?????), then if you do copy the music, the sale is halachically nullified.

    According to that, you can buy a CD, copy it to your computer and post it on 25 websites, and then go back to the shop and say “I brought this on condition i do not copy it. I did copy it. So give me my money back and here is your CD.” You will NOT get your money back. You see that the whole ???? is a joke.

    (As for giving back the copy – in the candle case, would you have to put out the other candle if you lit it? I don’t think so)

    The problem, however, is a ???? ?????? of the ???? ??????? in the name of the ?????? ???? who holds that if you make an agreement and then make a ????, even without the laws of ???? you are obligated to keep to the agreement. (????? ???? ????). According to that, you cannot copy if you agreed to terms and conditions.

    But if you purchased online, we enter a new ???? about whether online sales are considered ?????? or not. (T.B.C.)

    YW Moderator-42

    If you are basically “sharing” their ipod then I don’t see a problem. The same way you can copy onto your own ipod, you can copy onto theirs if it is for your own listening. This should be no different than putting your CD into your friend’s car when you are driving together.

    Think of the music lomdishly as a physical CD and act accordingly. If you lend a physical CD to a friend you obviously can’t listen to it on your own CD player while he has it so if you put music on your friend’s ipod you shouldn’t listen to the CD on your own away from that friend.

    I had a friend who didn’t have a computer but had CDs and an ipod. He put his CDs on my computer in order to sync his ipod. I kept his music separate from my own and only listened to it when he was there.


    Why don’t you just get your own iPod to use whenever the music you don’t like comes on the speakers? Putting Jewish music on their iPods isn’t a perfect solution, because anyhow, most of the time the music that will go on will be the stuff you don’t like.


    that is somewhat true…


    I see no difference between copying music and the following case:

    An artist paints a picture, and charges entrance fee to come in to view it. He places a sign on the door saying “NO PHOTOS ALLOWED”.

    You pay the entrance fee, and go in with your camera, and snap a photo of the painting. If the ???? was created properly, they can maybe force you to leave before the end of the display, but they cannot force you to delete the photograph you took.

    The CD case is similar, but with one difference: Here you are copying your own version, not the original belonging to the producer (which should also be ????).

    (The ???? ??????? I quoted before is in ?? ?”? ??”?. The ?????? in ???? ??”?, the ???? ???? and many other ??????? argue with this ????.)

    Summary: Most CDs are ???? to copy. If the guy SPECIFIED during the ???? then you will have a ?????? between the ???? ??????? and ??????.

    And for you to COPY somebody ELSES music is definitely permitted.


    About ???? ??????? ???? – the ?”? holds that law just dictates that the king has rights to place more laws than the ???? gives, and if you don’t keep to them, the king has the rights to punish you – but NOT that you have to keep the law.

    The ???? ???? on the ???”? ?????? ??? ?”? ??’ ? explains that ???? ??????? ???? is only about tax purposes which are in the interests of the economy, not for laws between man and his friend.

    Therefore, the copyright protetion laws will not stop you from copying music.


    This is from the ??? ??? ????? ????? by ? ???? ?????? ??????:

    (Page ?”?; footnote (?) at beginning of chapter ???? ???????.

    ????? ?? ??? ??. ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???

    ??????. ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???. ???? ??? ??? ??? ? ?? ?????? ?????

    ?????? ???? ??? ? ???????. ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?????

    ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???. ???? ????? ??? ???? ???

    ???. ????. ??????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????

    ?? ?? ???? ????? ??????, ???? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???

    ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ? ? ???? ?????. ???????? ??????? ?????

    ?? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??, ?????? ?? ??? ?????. ????

    ??????? ??? ???? ??? ? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ? ???, ????

    ???? ???? ? ? ? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ? ? ? ? ?? ????. ????????

    ????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??.

    ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????. ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ????? (?? ???) ?????? ????? ????

    ????(????? ??, ?) ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????(????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???

    ? ????? ???? ??).


    ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???????

    ????? ???????? ??????? ??? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ????

    ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??????

    ????????(??), ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ???

    ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????(??).

    ?. ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ??????

    ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????, ?? ????? ????? ???

    ??? (??), ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??????


    ☕ DaasYochid ☕


    Who’s to say they won’t listen to them when she’s away?


    You are neglecting to mention the opinion of the poskim that there’s geneivah of “intellectual property”.


    For those of us who aren’t familiar with lashon hakodesh could you please translate the Hebrew…



    Who’s to say they won’t listen to them when she’s away?

    How is it any different than if I loan you my CD (which I may do) and you take it home and listen to it?


    You are neglecting to mention the opinion of the poskim that there’s geneivah of “intellectual property”.

    That isn’t a universal view.


    DaasYochid – I don’t profess to know much about stealing intellectual property, but isn’t that when I take your song and present it as my own, or if I copy a money-making idea of yours? Surely if the name of the singer and producer is on the music it doesn’t suffer from this problem?


    I’ll try translate the block quotes I placed on before; if you don’t understand what I wrote before then I’ll try explain it again.

    The reasons for this law that one must listen to the government laws are

    a) because the whole population accept upon themselves to cooperate with the government (and therefore if one keeps money that doesn’t neccesarily belong to him but is still in accordance with the countries law, he will not transgress the prohibition of stealing because it is lawfully his).

    b) this law isn’t necessarily saying that one must listen, but rather that the King has the rights to make laws and punish/expell you from the country if you do not cooperate.

    c) There is a way of acquiring an object called “Kibbush Milchomoh”, which means that through war one can acquire the booty and spoils. It sounds like the king automatically owns everything using this Kinyan, and therefore can tell you what to do with your money.

    There are those who say that this law only applies to things that early kings decreed on their countries, but a king has no rights to just make up his own decrees. Others hold that the king has rights to make his own decrees.

    Others hold that this only applies to the sort of decrees that will profit the king such as tax and the likes, but not laws that get involved between you and our fellow countryman.

    (if anything is not clear, please tell me)

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕

    KH, the difference is there’s only one CD. The view that there’s intellectual property may not be universal, but it seems to be the majority. I don’t want to take chances against R’ Moshe and R’ Elyashiv Zt’l.


    Not going to rehash the whole discussion but according to the ran there is no more dina dmalchusa in the USA because you would need a melech. Another issue is that most shitos (outside of Rav Pam) hold that if the government does not enforce the law – and they do not in this type of situation dina dmalchusa does not apply (similar example is HUD which a lot of people take advantage of). And I still havent seen a good mkor for intellectual property outside of seforim (which for obvious reasons does not count).

    @YW Moderator-42 I am quite curious to know what Rav Belsky would say to your scenario as he clearly seems to hold the problem is maasig gvul.


    I don’t want to take chances against R’ Moshe and R’ Elyashiv Zt’l.

    Even if we are to assume that is a faithful understanding of their position, one isn’t “taking chances” if they are following another shitta. Much as you aren’t taking a chance of chillul Shabbos when you set your air conditioner to go on during Shabbos, not in accordance with Rav Moshe’s psak but following others.

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕


    Maybe I’m not using the term “intellectual property” correctly. The point is that the gedolei haposkim hold it’s considered theft, seemingly because the music, or program, in the case of software, belong to the producer.



    For a self-described sixteen-year-old-kid to bring his own svoros to be matir what Rav Belsky and Rav Moshe asser’d and encourage others to engage in what they call g’naiva (g’zaila, actually) is the height of chutzpa.

    His posts encouraging software and music piracy are disgusting and (to me, at least) a chilul H-shem. We can imagine the impression being conveyed to non-observant Jews and non-Jews.







    I have heard from Poskim over a decade ago, that since it’s not enforceable, one has the

    heter of “zuto shel yam”.


    What is the difference between borrowing CD and borrowing a book? If I borrow a book from someone and read it, I will probably not go and buy the book the same way that I wouldnt be buying the CD. So in both cases, the author/publisher/singer will be loosing money, so according to this is it also assur to borrow a book?



    I apologize for my overly harsh personal criticism.

    Let me try to rephrase what I’m trying to say.

    There’s nothing wrong with looking up various meforshim and poskim to try to support a svoro of yours.

    What is wrong is deriving your own heter based on that for action(s) that many (if not most) rabonim and poskim hold are problematic / assur for various reasons. At the very least, one is obligated to ask a shailo to their rov about the action in question.

    Once that’s done, even if you’ve gotten the OK you must still be careful not to publicly announce that “it’s OK and completely mutar” – you must be very careful to explain that, although your posek may be matir it, there are many who aren’t, and one must be very cautious about the issue (needless to say, gnaiva is serious and Rav Belsky and [lbclc] Rav Moshe aren’t to be trifled with).

    A less contentious example of this is that one who follows Rav Belsky’s psak that drinking water in NYC needn’t be filtered shouldn’t state in a public forum that “it’s no problem”, rather “per my posek, it isn’t a problem, but you should ask your rov”.

    There are also certain issues/halochos that should not be discussed on a public forum for obvious reasons (v’hamavin yovin).

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕

    since it’s not enforceable, one has the heter of “zuto shel yam”.

    That makes no sense to me, and I’ve never heard of such an opinion.

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕

    In addition to the halachic objections to copying music, it’s worth linking to this post:

    just my hapence

    I think it’s very difficult to outright say always muttar or always assur with these issues. It seems to depend not just on who you ask but what, why, how or even who’s music and from what medium to what medium etc. I know two people who asked r’ moshe sternbuch about this, one was told that the specific copying he wanted to do was muttar the other was told assur. The differences in situation were very slight yet apparently significant enough to make one alright and one not.

    I have wondered for a long time though, if one did copy in a way that was deemed to be assur, how would one be mekayem ‘v’heishiv es hagezeila’? Simply deleting the music isn’t returning it back to its original state as that exists on a computer or cd or ipod somewhere.

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕

    how would one be mekayem ‘v’heishiv es hagezeila’?

    Possibly by purchasing the song/album which was copied. Although, I don’t think one can actually be m’kayem the mitzvas aseh unless he returns the actual item.

    If I stole a steak (from Seasons, for example) and then ate it (with salt and pepper, maybe), I don’t think I can actually be m’kayem the aseh, although I am obligated to pay for it.


    I Can: You are being inconsistent. You are telling someone he cannot publicly state that some rabbonim hold copying is muttar, but on the other hand you are outright saying it is assur. If you can quote rabbonim that hold it is assur (and you weren’t qualifying your comments as being per some rabbonim), others can on the same token cite rabbonim that hold it is muttar.


    Rene Descartes

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕

    What is the difference between borrowing CD and borrowing a book?

    Nothing. Both are muttar. Nor is there a difference between copying a book or a cd. Both are assur.


    just my hapence-


    A couple of things:

    1) Not everyone who assurs copying holds that it’s explicit g’zaila (or g’naiva). As a side point, I don’t understand why anyone calls it g’zaila since it seems to be more like g’naiva (to me).

    Some interesting points re: v’haishiv es ha’g’zaila, what it entails, and how to be mekayim it, as well as taking ownership of stolen property, can be seen in the following two links:

    (moderator – please allow the links as they are related to a halocha discussion.)

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕


    Wow, do you think he ran out of pre-registered names?

    I don’t find your position to be inconsistent for three reasons:

    1) Most gedolei haposkim asser. Stating the majority opinion as halacha is more justifiable than stating a minority opinion as halacha. Especially since even the minority opinion, AFAIK, still doesn’t consider it ethical.

    2) We are dealing with a serious shailah of gezeila d’Oraisa. It is more prudent to take the more stringent position than the more lenient one. This is true for any issur, and especially so when dealing in monetary issues.

    3) (v’hamavin yovin)


    @DY @Icanonlytry Rav Rottenberg from Baltimore who is a talmid muvhak of Rav Moshe held that it was muttar if you did not intend to buy it. (Although I have heard from another talmid Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen that it is absolutely assur although he declined to explain why.) Rav Belsky does not hold it is gneiva or gzeilah. This is evident from the various heteirim that he has in this area – A) Rav Belsky holds that if a newer version of the software is out u can copy the older one B) you can make multiple copies for use at home or in the car even though the moicher wants you to buy 2 C) When asked what he holds of the svara of not intending to buy it he answered that if you enjoyed listening to it you would have bought it. These are all consistent with maasig gvul and NOT genaivah.

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕


    IIRC, R’ Belsky holds that they don’t expect you to buy two copies.

    Software copying was assered by R’ Elyashiv, no matter who the producer was. This seems to indicate that it’s not a hasagas g’vul issue.


    What if, for example, you ordered yourself microsoft office, and your computer crashes, and you have to reinstall it? Is that assur? That is also like software copying, or better yet, you install microsoft office on multiple computers in your house, using one cd instead of spending hundreds of dollars on as many packages as you have computers and laptops in your house.


    @DY Actually after looking at the old thread it seems even clearer that Rav Belsky holds its maasig gvul (and possibly Rav Moshe too from the way he was quoted there). this is the link that was cited there although i am not sure if it will be posted I am not familiar with the specific language of what Rav Elyashiv said and I never had the privilege to speak with him so I can’t disagree with you on that. If you have a direct quote from him I would love to see it. Also from the famous “Aderet Rental Clause” it would appear that they do intend for you to buy 2 copies. I am aware that it is not the best proof which is why I brought the other 2.


    @snowbunny3318 with microsoft office you are purchasing licenses not the cd – so you would be allowed to reinstall it. As far as installing it on multiple computers it depends – if you are the only user of all of those computers microsoft officially wants u to buy more licenses but i am unsure of whether that would stand up in court. Most businesses (including mine) purchase multiple licenses. If you hold its Gzeila then you would have to buy multiple licenses. If its massig gvul then because microsft is not a jewish owned company you would be allowed to copy it (cue the corporation and stock holder arguments).

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕

    J22, from a diffeent site:

    Someone who repairs computers must at time erase the entire drive and reload the programs one by one. What happens when the customer did not legally purchase these programs. Is it permissible to restore what the customer had originally?

    Rav Elyashiv: It is absolutely forbidden and even if he will lose his customers he must search for a new manner in which to make a living.

    (Adapted from Ashrei HaIsh OC Vol. III Chapter 19)

    I asked the author of that article if there was any distinction made by R’ Elyashiv as to the producer of the software, and he told me there definitely was not.

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕

    Here is R’ Moshe’s teshuvah. He is referring to Torah tapes. I don’t see why music tapes should be better.

    This is in O.C. 4, 40-19.

    The relevant, final sentence:

    ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???

    It is clearly gezel, not (just?) masig g’vul, according to R’ Moshe.


    DaasYochid: How does the author know R. Elyashev isn’t only referring to Jewish producers, which would be the default meaning unless otherwise specified?



    I gave my reason for not responding just so nobody would think I was unable to respond.



    What if, for example, you ordered yourself microsoft office, and your computer crashes, and you have to reinstall it? Is that assur?

    I’ve done so myself multiple times.

    That is also like software copying, or better yet, you install microsoft office on multiple computers in your house, using one cd instead of spending hundreds of dollars on as many packages as you have computers and laptops in your house.

    Not at all. Reinstalling software on a crashed computer in what everyone does, with the vendors’ OK. Nobody would buy from a vendor who refused to allow a reinstall.

    Here are some issues and potential issues that I see with copying:

    Hasogas gvul

    Chilul H-shem

    BTW, I recommend “Open Office” instead of Microsoft Office.

    It works great, and it’s free.

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕

    IIRC, the author of that article told me that when the psak was originally issues it was a big topic of discussion and it was well known what his intentions were. It’s actually hard to imagine that he was discussing only software created by those who are “bichlal amisecha”, which is a very small minority of software.

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕


    Who is Mediziner?

    Which is better, OpenOffice, or LibreOffice?


    Microsoft office is used in most work places and most people have it installed around the world, so clearly one should get that.

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕


    With OpenOffice, you can read Microsoft Word files, as well as create documents which can be read with Word.


    got it, i mean, I already have microsoft word… but I will keep that in mind if I need to get a new computer. Speaking of new computers, my current computer (macbook) has dead pixels that appear- disappear- and then reappear again, what am I supposed to do about it?


    I didn’t find OpenOffice to be that stable.


    ICOT, it can’t be Geneiva and Gezeila. It’s either or. Probably, the reason you hear of Gezeila as opposed to Geneiva is because it is not done in a sneaky manner. Also, Dina D’malchusa is not an Aveira. It can create an ownership status that would cause something to be considered Geneiva.

    We do find non-physical monetary discussions in Chazal. A Mitzva is worth Asara Zehuvim, Hezek She’eino Nikkar is Chayav — when the act of damaging (as opposed to the invisible damage) is visible — as is seen by Kla’im, Yaakov’s Bechora, the selling of any Chov, and probably many more.

    ☕ DaasYochid ☕


    Even since Apache took it over?

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 80 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.