There is no such thing as copyright in halacha. The only copyright that exists is in dina demalchusa, so it depends on the whole issue of when DdM is dina and when it isn’t — what sort of malchus, what sort of din, to whom does it apply, etc.
Assuming that DdM does apply here, since the only purpose of copyright is to give artists an incentive to produce, any breach that doesn’t reduce their income is certainly permitted. That means that if you would have bought the album then you are hurting the artist by copying it instead; but if you would never have bought it, and your choice is only between copying it and not having it at all, then there’s no reason not to copy. You haven’t hurt the artist, because his income is no lower.
At any rate, whether copying is permitted or forbidden, one thing is for sure: those who call it “stealing” are lying. Breaking a copyright is illegal but it has no connection to stealing. The definition of theft is taking something with the intention of permanently depriving its owner of its use. When you copy something the original remains exactly as it is, and the owner can still use it. And the CD doesn’t belong to the copyright holder anyway, it belongs to whoever bought it and is letting you copy it. So what is being stolen? Borrowing the language of property and applying it to copyright (“intellectual property”) is tempting, because it makes emotional connections with people, but it’s fundamentally dishonest. And it’s kind of ironic when you use dishonesty to attack someone for being dishonest.
#3, Read it again; you seem to have misunderstood it.
First, he is not talking about copyright at all, since copyright belongs to the speaker, not to the person who made the tape. What he forbids is taking a tape belonging to someone else, without his permission, and copying it. Normally this would be permitted, since the owner doesn’t lose anything by it, so he would be required to lend it to anyone who wants to make a copy. But since he is making parnossoh by selling copies, he doesn’t have to permit free copying.
But once you’ve bought a tape it belongs to you, so what kind of gezel could there be?
Note that he makes it clear that taping a speech without the speaker’s permission is NOT gezel, even though the speaker does usually have the right to forbid taping. He discusses what kind of issur might apply, and why someone should be able to impose such a restriction, but there is no question that nothing is being stolen so gezel does not apply.
It’s interesting that he doesn’t even mention the dina demalchusa of copyright. Probably this is because in the case he’s discussing the taper has no copyright since it’s not his own content.
Milhouse
There is no such thing as copyright in halacha. The only copyright that exists is in dina demalchusa, so it depends on the whole issue of when DdM is dina and when it isn’t — what sort of malchus, what sort of din, to whom does it apply, etc.
Assuming that DdM does apply here, since the only purpose of copyright is to give artists an incentive to produce, any breach that doesn’t reduce their income is certainly permitted. That means that if you would have bought the album then you are hurting the artist by copying it instead; but if you would never have bought it, and your choice is only between copying it and not having it at all, then there’s no reason not to copy. You haven’t hurt the artist, because his income is no lower.
At any rate, whether copying is permitted or forbidden, one thing is for sure: those who call it “stealing” are lying. Breaking a copyright is illegal but it has no connection to stealing. The definition of theft is taking something with the intention of permanently depriving its owner of its use. When you copy something the original remains exactly as it is, and the owner can still use it. And the CD doesn’t belong to the copyright holder anyway, it belongs to whoever bought it and is letting you copy it. So what is being stolen? Borrowing the language of property and applying it to copyright (“intellectual property”) is tempting, because it makes emotional connections with people, but it’s fundamentally dishonest. And it’s kind of ironic when you use dishonesty to attack someone for being dishonest.
yes
amazing video, important message…
Nobody
Milhouse, Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chayim, Vol. 4, no. 40 sec. 19 disagrees.
Rivkah
Put the Cds on itunes, pls!!
Milhouse
#3, Read it again; you seem to have misunderstood it.
First, he is not talking about copyright at all, since copyright belongs to the speaker, not to the person who made the tape. What he forbids is taking a tape belonging to someone else, without his permission, and copying it. Normally this would be permitted, since the owner doesn’t lose anything by it, so he would be required to lend it to anyone who wants to make a copy. But since he is making parnossoh by selling copies, he doesn’t have to permit free copying.
But once you’ve bought a tape it belongs to you, so what kind of gezel could there be?
Note that he makes it clear that taping a speech without the speaker’s permission is NOT gezel, even though the speaker does usually have the right to forbid taping. He discusses what kind of issur might apply, and why someone should be able to impose such a restriction, but there is no question that nothing is being stolen so gezel does not apply.
It’s interesting that he doesn’t even mention the dina demalchusa of copyright. Probably this is because in the case he’s discussing the taper has no copyright since it’s not his own content.