Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I would guess that the store owner would refuse, but he might show you a copy of the agreement or explain it to you. As I posted earlier, at least one CD (one that I own) says: “Ask your retailer for a copy of the rental agreement, also see enclosed copy”.
You bring up an interesting point though, which I alluded to earlier, which is the the fact that the rental agreement is with the producer, but you’re getting it from a store. I do wonder how this affects the validity of the rental agreement, depending on the store owner’s agreement with the distributor, and the distributor’s with the producer.
Tums,
First of all, in most cases copying for your own ipod does not violate the agreement. Secondly, although that’s the producer’s only recourse, the renter, by violating the agreement, was oiver on g’neiva (using the producer’s property in a way which he never allowed).
Your point is one of the things gained by rental vs t’nai: in a t’nai, some poskim (not all) maintained that the producer would have to refund the money (and since he has no intention to, the whole t’nai is invalid). Others hold that since the purchaser broke the t’nai, the money need not be returned.
Meanwhile, enjoy your coffee, and if you ever figure out that it was treif, you can always do teshuva.
Aries,
Whether or not the producers of Jewish music are honest in their own business dealings does not affect whether or not the rental agreement works or not. It’s really an irrelevant point. Besides, I have no reason to suspect them more than anybody else.
Shwekey can charge a thousand dollars to rent a CD for one day if he wants. He has absolutely no requirement to fit into Blockbuster’s price structure; you can choose not to rent it if you wish. If he did so, of course, he wouldn’t make any money, but that’s his problem. In fact, though, if you read the rental agreement, the terms are such that if you don’t copy it, the CD will actually remain in your possesion in perpetuity (the terms for return are structured as to make it virtually impossible to ever come to fruition).
I already made my argument that the buyer is aware that there’s a rental and that the producer is makpid on copying, and the consumer can choose to see the agreement if he wants.
There are some possible arguments to question the validity of the rental, but I haven’t yet seen them brought up here.
Daas,
Do you disagree with what I maintain is the maximum recourse available to the producer under halacha if the “renter” violates the terms of the agreement? (If so, specifically on what halachic basis?)
Yes. A rental has a return involved, the agreement is that it must be returned if copied.
??? ???? ???? ?????
If the other side had a strong minhug the other way, I highly doubt we would have seen eye to eye on other things, and I highly doubt that the shidduch would have worked out to begin with. The kids were matim to each other for a good reason.
Unfortunately, many fights, and broken marriages, have been caused by such thinking. I would hope (and expect) that your attitude is only theoretical, and that if such a situation would ever arise, you would be above it.
I’m lucky that the bracha specifies only those that refrain from talking during davening. If it also mentioned people who talk during laining, then I’d be out of luck (as I talk during laining all the time).
While you’re laining?
Small people discuss..
Welcome to the discussion… 🙂
I held the havdalah candle very high. My hubby is 5’7″.
Maybe had you not held it high, he would have been 5’2″ 🙂
What’s the contradiction? Some people are out of work while others are not and can afford vacations. What is so difficult about this?
I suppose it’s difficult for some who are out of work.
observanteen,
You can use a computerized spell-check.
i think chayav either needs attention or just thinks s/he is being cute. whatever it is – if we keep playing into this, it will just continue.
So if he needs attention, maybe we should give it to him. There are far worse things that someone could do for attention.
Chayav? You’re not exactly sticking to the rules of the game….
There are no rules.
And Daas: I don’t get it. Where does Monah Rosenblum come into the picture???
????? ??????
Among other reasons, because you just opened a new screen name.
Chayav started his post with the word “guys”. Is that girltalk? He can’t even spell “seminary” correctly!
Where did he ever spell seminary incorrectly?
I still don’t see what the issue here is. If you think I did something wrong, just come out and say it.
We all think you must have done something wrong, we’re just trying to figure out what. 🙂 Please note the smiley. I’m joking. 🙂
Where I daven, none.
Not even Av Harachamim?
Get out before it’s too late.
🙂
my divorced parents would have felt uncomfortable walking down together
I’ve heard that some people have an issue with a divorced “couple” walking the chosson or kallah to the chupah; some kind of negative segulah. I don’t know much about it, though.
As for my kids, I’m going to do whatever makes them happy. If they want me to walk them down with Eeees, I’ll happily do it. If they want me to walk them down with their future father-in-law, I’ll happily do that too. It’s their big day, not mine, and their wishes should be respected.
You have a great attitude. The problem arises when the mechutanim have a different idea than either the other set or the kids. I hope you don’t encounter that.
Well, I think we can all agree that a condition to give your firstborn is silly
As would be a condition to hand over all of your real estate holdings (or even some).
In both instances I chalked it up to making the kallah happy.
And that’s the bottom line.
if you continue like this, then one day, chas v’shalom you’ll really have a problem, and no one in the cr will believe you.
No problem, he’ll just open another screen name.
I am going to be dan chayav lecaf zechus and say that maybe the name is shared by a family.
He says he gave his other name, stamagoy, to his sister.
Aries,
I assume that you are not defending the practice of copying music which you did not purchase. I therefore don’t see the comparison to illegal software pirating.
Let them ask a shaila
You missed the point. Many, if not most, people are unaware of the terms inside the sealed package (if not being entirely unaware that it is a “rental” in the first place.)
I maintain that if it says on the cover that it’a a rental, and not to copy, then as long as you’ve seen that, you can’t claim ignorance of the terms as long as they are consistent with the idea of limiting copying. If someone didn’t notice the agreement at all (your second point) maybe that’s legitimate.
As a precauition, I use Joseph’s IP address.
😉
I just looked on the back of an Aderet release. It says:
THIS CD IS BEING RENTED NOT SOLD
Ask your retailer for a copy of the rental agreement, also see enclosed copy
???? ????? ?? ??????-???? ?????? ????? ??????? ??”? ???? ???? ??? ?????????
Apparently, if you speak English, it’s a rental; if you speak Hebrew, it’s a purchase.
YW
Oh, and I’m joking.
And many of know that he is Charles B. Hall, PH.D, Professor, Department of Epidemiology & Population Health, and Professor, The Saul R. Korey Department of Neurology. Despite our frum, sheltered backgrounds. And I would be thrilled to meet him, I’m sure he’s wonderful.
1) a. Where in halacha is there a difference between reasonable and unreasonable? b. IF there is, who is to say asking for your real estate in return is unreasonable?
a. The entire Choshen Mishpat
b. Anyone who is reasonable
2) I may know. Many many people do not. Many people bought the CD and still never realized it said anything about a rental agreement inside.
Let them ask a shaila
3) I’m not asking how either of us feel about it. I am asking what strict halacha has to say about it. In halacha, the aggrieved parties remedy for breach of contract, is to demand to reverse the original contract — return the item, get back your money.
They are not asking for a reversal of the contract; the contract stipulated that under certain conditions, the CD must be returned.
I can’t say too much, they’re still after me.
Alimony payments (JK)
???? ????????
FTR, that’s not their names…
I know; just an attempt at humor (feeble as it may be).
Hence the 🙂
Is your name really Zev? 🙂
Tums,
Regarding your other point, which, I believe, was canine’s point, if you violated the agreement, why should they have to give you your money back.
Tums,
If they demand your first born, you can say that it wasn’t reasonable to expect that condition. If they demand that you not give someone else a free copy, you can’t honestly say that you didn’t expect that condition.
And by now, you know what it says inside.
If they couldn’t run ads, all the people working for the magazine would also be out of work.
My kids call us Mom and Dad.
That makes sense, since their names are Wilma, George, and Walter.
🙂
Yes. I escaped.
It’s fiction. Whether “she chooses to accept it or not” is up to the imagination of Riva Pomerantz.
Spoil sport.
??? ???? ?????
Ratio of sechel:shreiking == 3:1.
Only one shriek?
Daas, so if after you open the package it states that you just agreed to turn over any real estate you own to the producers, its binding? If not, on what halachic basis are any of the terms binding?
You know that’s a ridiculous argument. The rental agreement only limits your use of the CD, it has no external clauses (and the most it could do anyhow would be disallow use of the CD, not obligate you to turn over your real estate).
The question is also if its right for the producer to not let you copy for yourself when he dosent have any lost, isn’t that midas sdom?
First of all, they claim you should buy another copy. Secondly, even if it was midas sdom, do you think that would invalidate the rental agreement and convert it to a sale, or otherwise remove the limitation?
I happen to agree that it’s unfair to limit in such a way, but it’s not worth being oiver on g’neiva (or even a chashash) on principle.
I dont have a video of it as evidence, but there was no question about it. Its one room with everyone able to see everyone else (absolutely no hidden corners, room dividers, beams, etc).
What pleasure might I be gaining by changing details? If I wanted to make up or embellish a sensational story, I could easily get a lot more sensational or embellish a lot more.
I wasn’t accusing you of fabricating or embellishing anything, but suggesting that they were concentrating on the laining.
Even during laining?
I just find it hard to believe that an entire shul would be so callous.
I still don’t understand how anybody can know that ofcourse was seen and ignored; maybe she was not noticed (even during haman).
Shwekey does not have the RIGHT to say you are renting a CD if he prices it the same as a purchase.
Why not?
If they try this “shtick” of rental agreement to keep you from making a copy, then I would boycott any music from this producer.
I would too (and have done so. Well, maybe not a boycott, but I didn’t make the purchase). Most rental agreements, however, exclude anything to facilitate copying for others.
Daas, it’s hard to put a “rental agreement” on the cover. “Reference” to it is insufficient. Unless the entirety of the “agreement” is visible prior to purchase, it is not binding.
They write on the back of the CD that you agree to accept the terms of the rental specified inside. If you’re afraid of their ridiculous demands, don’t “buy” it. Besides, by now we all know goos and well what it says inside.
I don’t think they have a binding method of controlling copying (for yourself) purchased downloads.
OU’s article on gelatin:
excerpted parts: (emphasis mine)
This is not the mainstream position. It has been rejected by every major kosher certifying agency. Indeed, equipment that processed gelatin products might need kosherization, depending on the nature of the contact between the equipment and the product.
… Of course, there are products that require beef gelatin, and no suitable alternative exists. The kosher consumer will be pleased to note that the OU certifies such a gelatin as well. This special gelatin is made exclusively from the skins of kosher ritually slaughtered cows. Strikingly, this variety of beef-derived gelatin is considered pareve, and may even be combined with dairy ingredients! Although kosher laws are very strict concerning the segregation of milk and meat, the processing of these hides renders them pareve. Therefore, even kosher milk chocolate delicacies can be made with kosher beef gelatin. Orthodontists of the world rejoice: every sticky gummy treat is now available to the kosher consumer.
PY,
He probably knows someone who is an expert on this issue.
It’s worse when they are
edited