Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Today is the Yahrtzeit, again, of the Noam Elimelech.
Another year, and more Yeridos Hadoros. We need Moshiach now! And the return of all our Gedolim to us.
This devastating and irreplacable loss for the klal is very keenly felt by everyone.
How much would it cost to use this alternative medicine?
Rav Elyashev wrote you must first ask a shaila.
yitay: Even those sources only discuss doing it in limited particular circumstances, not anytime across the board.
I sent to major mainstream Litvish Yeshivos and never heard this before.
No, they’re not doing it “right”. Just because some academics decided they like it better, does not make it right.
How does she know you?
What did you do that may have scared her?
Apparently we’ll just have to disagree to disagree.
Absolutely not. I demonstrated with a case study that a court will rule in favor of personal non-commercial copying, when it doesn’t involve mass/internet distribution. At least acknowledge we have a disagreement, and agree to disagree.
None of them learnt Shas, yichusdik. I’m just telling you what the Gemora and SA say. You shouldn’t find that offensive. I didn’t make up the tiflus thing. The Rashi on the Mishna in Sotah 20a says they are not meant for serious Torah learning. So does the Tur on YD 246:15. But it is straight in Gemorah and SA too.
Daas: Just because the recording industry would like everyone to pay anytime they take a breath near a CD, does not make their or popa’s legal analysis anymore correct.
You are, again, mistaken. I maintain it is 100% legal. Just not on a mass, widespread, distribution basis. Which I’ve made clear in my earlier comments. Wide distribution (uploading or downloading) is akin to commercial copying, even if there is no payment or profit.
And I’ve cited both the relevant statue and cases. What you’ve cited involved mass-distribution, at least on one 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.)
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).
I heard they busted a guy for copying his friend’s MBD album and put him away for 10 years.
No, Sam. S”A makes no reference or distinction whether she is forced or not. That is your own distortion.
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).
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 law does not limit the allowance to family. It applies to any personal non-commercial copying. So you can, in fact, copy.
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.
Tiflus is more relevant to the woman than her teacher, since the implication is she will engage in lechery as a result of the tiflus.
My last comment is more pertinent than the one you quoted.
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.
Judges rule on law, not feelings.
Same4321: Some of the issurim identified by poskim would apply to all elevators.
Good attitude, tomim. The alternative wouldv’e involved tiflus.
If Shabbos elevators are assur, can you invite someone to your upper floor apartment on Shabbos if there is a real risk the guest might use the elevator? Can you trust his kashrus, if he brings home-baked goods as a gift to you (and assuming there was a kosher eruv)?
It’s long established principle in US Copyright Law that copying for personal, non-commercial, use is permissible under “Fair Use”.
It is worthwhile pointing out that giving cash payments to an ex-wife for “child support” is a concept stemming from non-Jewish legal systems. Halacha has a vastly different set of obligations for supporting ones child than does the non-Jewish courts. Most of the items and charges secular courts charge a parent to pay for child support, are not legal obligations for a parent to pay for, under halacha. Furthermore, under halacha a parents obligation to support ends when the child reaches his 13th birthday, and according to some shittos, even his 6th birthday.
Of course, the parent ought to feel a basic moral obligation to support his child. But such a moral imperitive is not necessarily legally enforceable under halacha. And such a moral imperitive certainly does not extend to supporting an upper-class lifestyle for the child or ex-spouse. And it also should not be expected to be more than the spouse can afford based on his income level. Even if a secular court orders more support payments than affordable.
So, if an ex-spouse requests or accepts such payments, against halacha, they are essentially engaged in thievery al pi din. Especially if they use any (even a small) portion of such payments for their own benefit rather than their child’s benefit.
Will 80% (or whatever percent our bad apples happen to represent at the time) be left behind during the Geula?
Weren’t all the Kings of Jerusalem the European Christian Crusaders? Like the King of England, the German Emperor, etc?
solike, do you take as much umbrage when someone zealosly upholds other mitzvos as you do on this mitzva? Or is your umbrage limited to questioning the streghnth of those upholding mitzvos that cause you to take umbrage, while some other mitzvos you are okay if someone zealosly guards?
Not even close to 150 is average.
cherryb: Can you please specificially name AND SOURCE (as you requested of others) even a single godol who called this a minhag shtus?
There is an over week old thread about this already (called something like Lakewood OTD). Its an old story. Anyways, theres a lot more OTD in mo circles than in chasidic circles, so I’m not sure why (or if?) you are specifically referencing hadisim.
The right way is to ask your regular Rov, rather than decide beforehand what answer you want, and just accept whatever he tells you.
How do salaried people work for free? Their paycheck is based on the number of days/week, not the month.
Josh, your imagination of Satmar life is far from reality.
How can they put it back in and still keep the Vilna Shas daf system – especially if it was a large piece of Gemora removed from one particular daf?
Were the Rashi’s and other meforshim on censored Gemorah’s also removed when they were censored (and later restored)?
Which horrific gezeira are you referring to that Seforim were burnt and lost forever in?
Toi – that was totally tactless. Though that doesn’t make recycling wrong. Obviously it shouldn’t be done in the face of the giver — or even in a way there’s a good chance the original giver will see it was given away.
The little I Know,
Well stated and 100% Emes.
ZeesKite: Thank You for standing up for Kovod Shmayim!