Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
mr. nozik- i am not disagreeing with any other reasons to assur copying, i am just saying that if you are coming on to rental agrreements to assur , then that is not a reason. based on devorim shebilev
DY are you saying in talmudic times, if someone would sell an ox and on the horn of the ox it would say that this ox is not sold but merely rented . do you think his unspoken term will be acknowledged? Even if the buyer did read the jacket, as long as it it is not belebo uv’lev kul adam it is “devorim shebilev”, many buyers are unaware that there is a rental going on. therefor its considered “unspoken ” and is not valid.
p.s. CAN aderet demand i return the tape ? also a socher is mechuyav i on ones . am i liable for any damages to pay cash?
p.p.s dy are you bakant with the sugya of “devorim shebilev”?
DY said True; I was comparing to the theoretical heter of cholov stam assuming no issues of treifa. Besides, most poskim, according to my understanding, are meikil on that shaila (based on bittul), whereas I know of no poskim who are meikil on the rental issue.
who r the mattirim? i am told the cholov yisrol companies are makpid.
DY b’michlas kvod toruschu…..
I dont hear any chiluk bet. a stipulation prior to the transaction to friends which is void . to unspoken terms during the transaction. Fact of the matter is all terms must be out spoken b’shas mechirah. They can expect you to read jackets and shmackets but halacha requires all terms to be mentioned during a transaction.
Imagine in talmudic times if someone would sell an ox and on the horn of the ox it would say that this ox is not sold but merely rented . do you think his unspoken tem will be acknowledged? I DOUBT IT. what the music companies can do is as follows. in the first hand the merchandise is transfered, ie. when aderet sells it to its disributors. That transaction assumingly is done through a contract anyways. at that point they can add to the contract that they are leasing it to the distrb. (with rights to sublease) . then all subsequent transactions will be merely rented. because like DY said earlier you cant sell what you dont own.
dy said :The reason I “defend” them? Because I think there’s a real chance that copying might be g’neiva, which is, I think, something even more important to be makpid on than, say, cholov Yisroel.
FYI according to some’; R moshe zatzal’s kula on cholov yisroel is no longer applicable, since nowadays there are punctures which render the animal traifa , which is common in the non-cholov yisroel. the cholov yisroel farms avoid those traifa animals.
might be genaiva
also might be cholv treifa issur deoraisa ,
well to those of you who may have learned the sugya of devorim shebilev in kedushin…..
the gemorrah discusses a case where one sold his possesions with the intent of making aliyah to ey. The reshonim learn that the fellow did mention to his friends that that his intent is for aliyah, for otherwise its poshut he can not be mevatel a mechirah on such a claim. Never the less since he did not stipulate b’shas mechirah, we say words in heart are not words. so my arguement that i would like to present to the choshuver coffee drinkers is: that since it is not mentioned in tranaction but merely stating on the jacket theus the rental is buttul.
BTW dass yochid – what is your level of halacha education?
p.s. i think rabbi yahoo levin shlita from lkwd has issued a shtikel torah on this inyan years ago. if anyone knows where its printed please let me know.
i my opinon rental agreements are null and void, because devorim shebelev ainun devorim. BUT i am not a posek.
see ketzos who brings machlokes if its a his’chayvus or ne’munus