Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What’s her name?
We don’t have a disagreement. You have not cited anything for that proposition, in a case where the music does not belong to you–which is the key difference that the courts I showed you relied on.
There aren’t even any websites which say what you say. Do a google search–everyone knows you can’t copy music.
This isn’t a disagreement. You don’t know enough to disagree.
hershe: Can you at least say that I was right, and that you aren’t interested in how a court would rule, but only what you think the “real pshat” in the statute is so that you can justify it to yourself.
Well, if you owe money al pi din and don’t pay it, you are stealing.
However, the civil law may affect what the din torah is as well. For example, I’d wonder if personal bankruptcy would be recognized by the torah, since when you lend money it is essentially al tnai that I can go bankrupt and not pay you back.
Once we go that far, we might wonder whether everything we do is essentially al tnai like that. Like if you buy a car, you might imagine it is al tnai that there is a Lemon Law. Or that if you sell shares in a public company, it is al tnai you won’t break the SEC rules.
Hmmm.
Well, invite him for a shabbos meal, and poison him. Works every time.
I posted drunk, as is apparent.
Yes, presumably they settled the case out of court once they were identified.
Ah, we’re making headway. Before you were convinced it wasn’t illegal; now you just think that you won’t get caught. You are correct though, that is very unlikely you will get caught for borrowing your friends CD and copying it.
And now, I will explain to everyone what is really going on here, to show how smart I am. Hershe is not willing to copy music if he thinks it is stealing. So, he decides that the halacha is that he is allowed to, and then decides that the law is also that he is allowed to. He is not a lawyer, and does not ask a lawyer, nor does he even do a google search for the readily available information that it is not legal. He finds out about an idea called “fair use” and decides that he is “using” it and he thinks it is “fair”.
This is why no amount of legal authority can persuade him. He isn’t interested in knowing what a court would say about it-he only wants to be able to tell himself that he is not breaking the law, and just needs to be convinced that his reading of the law is more accurate. Thus, he doesn’t care how the courts understand the law- he believes his reading is correct and that is all.
However, he is even wrong about that. In America, the courts do make law. And once they say it-that is the new law, regardless of what the statute says.
You actually wouldn’t go to jail. It is only a criminal offense if it is for commercial advantage or financial gain. 17 USC 506
The civil remedies could be up to $150,000 per work plus their attorneys fees. They don’t use cheap lawyers either. 17 USC 504-505
Think it won’t happen? Here is a case against 16 kids who were caught downloading music and identified by their school’s network. Arista Records LLC v. Does 1-16, 1:08-CV-765 GTS/RF, 2009 WL 414060 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2009) aff’d sub nom. Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010)
Sure, and if you end up in jail, there is daf yomi.
The case you cited is talking about where you own the music, as the Northern District of IL, affirmed by the 7th circuit specifically contrasted to the case where you don’t own the music.
And one of the cases I cited was talking about less than 15 songs.
Dude: I don’t know what ants you’ve got in your britches, but I’ve had my fun here.
Everyone look! I’m being trolled. But I guess I’m falling for it, since I’m responding.
Ok, these federal cases hold that copying music for personal use is illegal:
Sony BMG Music Entm’t v. Tenenbaum, 672 F. Supp. 2d 217 (D. Mass. 2009)
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 920, 125 S. Ct. 2764, 2771, 162 L. Ed. 2d 781 (2005) (Supreme Court of the United States finding potential vicarious liability for file sharing service based on users downloading copyrighted songs.
And plenty of other authorities.
Ok, very good. So you say the congressional record applies it to family members as well. And not to other poeple.
Are you just trying to prove me wrong, or are you trying to answer the question? I readily admit to not knowing copyright law–but this much I know, is that you cannot legally copy someone else’s music for your personal use. Not under the fair use doctrine, and not under section 1008.
You are confusing two issues. That statute (17 USC 1008– I would take you more seriously if you knew how to cite a statute) is talking about copying a music file which you own for your personal use. It is not talking about copying a music file which someone else bought for your personal use.
We were talking about copying the copy someone else had bought, for the purpose of sharing it.
The case you cite is a case where rio was sued for producing MR3 players since people would use them to copy music illegally. The court in the part you are referencing is saying that they have a very legitimate purpose for copying your own music.
The case they were relying on was talking about using a VCR to record TV shows for later which the court allowed since it was merely “time shifting” when you would watch what you were anyway entitled to watch. Similarly, when you copy your music, you are merely “space shifting” it from your computer to MP3 player.
Again, I have never studied this, and this is just from looking at what you posted. But you’re going to have to do a lot better than that. You should know you are incorrect when a simple google search shows that the entire internet world thinks you are incorrect.
And just to get you started, I’ll copy and paste the statute regarding fair use (statutes are allowed to be copied).
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
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.
Why don’t you just give us a brief rundown on what you think it means. With citations of course.
If you had no chiyuv limud hatorah would you never learn. Didnt they teach in the yeshiva you went to that torah helps a person get close to hashem and understand his ways? and that learning makes you a better person(in a different way than putting on tefilin or shiluach haken does)?
Why cant that be an asperation a woman as well(my question is only in a case where the woman is interested in these things. you were were that there could be a case when a woman was learning not for feminism, but indicated that it would be a total waste of time )
As I recall, my rosh yeshiva ztz”l was asked a version of this question. Chazal say that we use torah to fight the yetzer hara. So how do women fight the yetzer hara without torah?
He said–which is actually obvious–that women have a different yetzer hara, which is not properly fought with torah. This is obvious, since Hashem made the world, and created people, and created a yetzer hara, and told the men to learn torah whenever they have any spare time, and told the women not to. We can easily expect that women are created in a way that the way they reach shleimus is not through torah.
This addresses your question as well. If a woman learns torah, she will not become closer to Hashem through it. If she says she is, you know that it is not Hashem she is becoming closer to.
My friend bought a scooter and used to to commute a couple miles to yeshiva.
He paid about 800 buck for it new, and it lasted like 2 years.
It’s long established principle in US Copyright Law that copying for personal, non-commercial, use is permissible under “Fair Use”.
I am pretty certain this is not correct.
To intellectually steal something, you have to profit financially from the sale of someone else’s idea. Meaning if I pirate cd’s and sell them to others, I stole the IP (intellectual property) of the artist and profited from what the artist may or should have. However, until then, the creator is not losing anything. Having a copyright does not make it illegal to reproduce the idea.
Another example. If I wanted to keep a copy of a certain article in a magazine I purchased, I would definitely be allowed to type up the article in Word and save it in my computer. The benefit of reading and having a copy of the article is not illegal. Selling the article to some magazine to be published, yes.
I don’t think this is correct. I’m pretty certain it is illegal to reproduce it even just to look at, and even if you do it by retyping it, or whatever. You can read all about it at 17 USC 101 et seq. I’m putting a link to a free online version of the code, and we’ll see if the mods let it through (just be aware that what really matters is how the courts interpret the code, not what it says.) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1
And I just want to bash her for something else. That is, she is downright dishonest.
She goes and tells congress that it costs 3k over law school, which is almost a summer’s salary on a Public Interest fellowship. Because when you work for a non profit entity over the summer, apparently you can get people to pop you like 5k.
The point of her comparison should be that it is a relevant comparison. Like if she had said it is a large percentage of the money she has to live on for the year.
But it wasn’t a relevant comparison at all. She compared the 3 year cost to a summers earnings. She should have compared a one year cost to the student cost of living budget for the year!
The reason you make irrelevant comparisons is, that you are trying to persuade someone to your side by framing it in an inaccurate way. So why is she doing that to congress? Why doesn’t she just tell congress the actual facts and let congress frame it accurately?
Creep. I hope she gets pregnant with twins.
And these days, for women to learn those areas of halacha that apply to them would likely include everything a man learns
Everything a man learns? Maybe everything an man learns in your community.
A freilichen Pirim. I’m surprised that everyone doesn’t realize that there is no such institution, except for perhaps on Pirim!
Not sure what world you live in, but there are several such institutions.
If this is real, then this at the very least is the proper way to do such a thing. No feminist flaunting, no rubbing it in people’s faces. Just women whose husbands work and therefore take the opportunity to learn Torah because they have the time. Who can honestly say there’s something wrong with that?
I guess if that is what it is, then it is no more of a waste of time than watching movies all day. But can’t they find something productive to do?
If a divorce is recognized by some rabbonim, but other rabbonim say the divorce was invalid, if she remarries will subsequent children be sofek mamzeirim?
No. Some people will hold they are vadai mamzerim, and some people will hold they are not mamzerim at all.
As a result, nobody will marry them since they will be afraid that nobody will want to marry their kids.
PBA: You make the assumption that this is a town with numerous minyanim…
I don’t agree with it, but I could hear that someone would assert that it’s more courteous to join a minyan, and then go around collecting, as opposed to just passin’ through.
Logician. I am unclear, is your second point assuming like your first point that there is only one minyan in town?
If there are multiple minyanim, I don’t see how anyone can say it is not courteous to collect without davening there, since that is the only way to go to all the shuls. If your problem is with collecting during davening at all- say that.
The Rabbi has a right to make Takonos to enhance the quality of davening at his Shul, even though popa-bar-abba feels otherwise.
That was precisely my point. That if the rabbi thinks it disturbs davening, then he should say that is the reason.
The rabbi does not have the right to malign people by suggesting that they are not acting courteously by not davening with the minyan, when he well knows that they are collecting at all the minyonim in town that morning.
(As for your first sentence, you misread my post.)