Thursday, February 22, 2007
Why Aderet's new 'lease' copy protection doesn't fly
In an attempt to circumvent the absence of intellectual property rights (IPR) in Halachah and forbid the private duplication of CD's, Aderet came up with a new idea. From now on you are no longer purchasing the CD from them, but are rather leasing it from them. This way they can charge you for the CD while maintaining ownership and the rights to it, which expressly prohibit duplication.
Now here is the problem with this skewed train of thought. If Aderet still owns the CD and they are merely leasing it to be listened to, you are no longer allowed to even make yourself a backup copy, or to rip the songs to your hard drive to listen to. This is above and beyond any current copyright law.
Further, if one gets injured by the said CD, which is still the property of Aderet, Aderet can now be sued, as was the issue with car leasing.
Even further, because there is no stipulation that the lease is for less than one hundred years, rather it is stated to be a 'perpetual' lease, the term lease can no longer be used, leaving the transaction null and void.
Now, lets go one step further. Since one of the conditions of the lease is that the lessee is not to duplicate the CD, then if and when he does, he has broken the terms of the lease and therefore causes it to become null and void. The lessee should then be forced to return the CD and have his money returned, minus a penalty at most.
Aderet, and the other music producers, can try and try any way they like, the Torah does not recognize intellectual property rights and there is no way around that.
In an attempt to circumvent the absence of intellectual property rights (IPR) in Halachah and forbid the private duplication of CD's, Aderet came up with a new idea. From now on you are no longer purchasing the CD from them, but are rather leasing it from them. This way they can charge you for the CD while maintaining ownership and the rights to it, which expressly prohibit duplication.
Now here is the problem with this skewed train of thought. If Aderet still owns the CD and they are merely leasing it to be listened to, you are no longer allowed to even make yourself a backup copy, or to rip the songs to your hard drive to listen to. This is above and beyond any current copyright law.
Further, if one gets injured by the said CD, which is still the property of Aderet, Aderet can now be sued, as was the issue with car leasing.
Even further, because there is no stipulation that the lease is for less than one hundred years, rather it is stated to be a 'perpetual' lease, the term lease can no longer be used, leaving the transaction null and void.
Now, lets go one step further. Since one of the conditions of the lease is that the lessee is not to duplicate the CD, then if and when he does, he has broken the terms of the lease and therefore causes it to become null and void. The lessee should then be forced to return the CD and have his money returned, minus a penalty at most.
Aderet, and the other music producers, can try and try any way they like, the Torah does not recognize intellectual property rights and there is no way around that.
Comments:
nice posting
but you can still not give another person a copy , since you are stealing another persons parnassha
you are correct that you can make as many copies you want - but you cant start selling them
but you can still not give another person a copy , since you are stealing another persons parnassha
you are correct that you can make as many copies you want - but you cant start selling them
Comment Credit ---This article posted by 
: February 22, 2007 9:52 AM
: February 22, 2007 9:52 AM
Mr. Chaptzem, i know that you have sources close to you who may be familiar with the law on this issue, however, when i approached a leading national copyright and IP litigator and scholar with just this question, he told me that it is 100% legal and he has heard of it in the past. It is a valid and enforceable lease. So, before you write your opinion about something like this i would advise you to consult with legal experts on this matter instead of someone who might be familiar with copyright law. This issue requires special expertise, and i am sure that Aderet consulted with one before publicizing it.
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 22, 2007 10:13 AM
: February 22, 2007 10:13 AM
Actually, from aderet's wording on the back of the CD, it seems that their intent is only to prevent one from copying for 'OTHERS'. It seems that to make a backup copy for ones personal use is not their intent.
Read it carefully.
Another point, it seems odd that that you can even lease intillectual property. I think licensing would be more appropriate.
Read it carefully.
Another point, it seems odd that that you can even lease intillectual property. I think licensing would be more appropriate.
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 22, 2007 11:10 AM
: February 22, 2007 11:10 AM
Hey dope.. All that Aderet is doing is utilizing the same legally recognized tactics that all the major software producers have been using to protect their intellectual creations. Your questions have no legal basis whatsoever. If you'd like to understand this legal scheme - you should call Microsoft's lawyers which might possibly know more than you think you know.
As far as the Torah's view.. Before you purport any claims on behalf of Daas Torah - you should do the research. As a reference you can start with the sefer 'Mishnas Zechuyos Hayotzer' wherein the author qoutes sources from the Gedolei Haposkim discussing whether the theft of intellectual property is Mi'Deorraisa or Mi'Drabbanan, etc.. You may also want to check further in the sefer ‘Zechuyos Hayotzrim’ which is the fourth volume of the ‘Emek Hamishpat’ series. When you’ve completed your homework and you have real sources to cite, please make sure to provide us with further enlightment.
p.s. maybe aderet should print a disclaimer for creeps like you that you should avoid swallowing the CD and they accept no liability if you do.
As far as the Torah's view.. Before you purport any claims on behalf of Daas Torah - you should do the research. As a reference you can start with the sefer 'Mishnas Zechuyos Hayotzer' wherein the author qoutes sources from the Gedolei Haposkim discussing whether the theft of intellectual property is Mi'Deorraisa or Mi'Drabbanan, etc.. You may also want to check further in the sefer ‘Zechuyos Hayotzrim’ which is the fourth volume of the ‘Emek Hamishpat’ series. When you’ve completed your homework and you have real sources to cite, please make sure to provide us with further enlightment.
p.s. maybe aderet should print a disclaimer for creeps like you that you should avoid swallowing the CD and they accept no liability if you do.
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 22, 2007 12:47 PM
: February 22, 2007 12:47 PM
chaptzem there is nothing like a website like this
you guys are funny
you guys are funny
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 22, 2007 12:48 PM
: February 22, 2007 12:48 PM
The leasing agrement states " Aderet Music Inc. permits full useage of the CD except actions that facilitate copying it for others".
I read this as do what you want with the CD as long as what you do is not going to be done for the purpose of giving it to some one else.
They could have been more specific and said , " one may not make any copy for any reason for anyone on any media ( i.e. hard drive, mp3 etc.)
Guess it revolves around the intent and their meaning of the word facilitate.
Just my 2 cents.
I read this as do what you want with the CD as long as what you do is not going to be done for the purpose of giving it to some one else.
They could have been more specific and said , " one may not make any copy for any reason for anyone on any media ( i.e. hard drive, mp3 etc.)
Guess it revolves around the intent and their meaning of the word facilitate.
Just my 2 cents.
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 22, 2007 1:32 PM
: February 22, 2007 1:32 PM
I think its a machlokes achronim if the torah recognizes intelctuial property or not. Its not so simple either way.
I never though these conditions had any legs since every year they change the terms.
I also should not have to pay sales tax for the item - since sales tax is only for purchased items - not leases (is that correct?)
I never though these conditions had any legs since every year they change the terms.
I also should not have to pay sales tax for the item - since sales tax is only for purchased items - not leases (is that correct?)
this violates the Rule against Perpituities
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 22, 2007 9:46 PM
: February 22, 2007 9:46 PM
Rov poskim hold that misuse of a copywritten CD etc. Is assur they may differ only on why...
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 22, 2007 11:37 PM
: February 22, 2007 11:37 PM
rabbi e. falk of gateshead sem, in the uk, paskened that one may copy a cd or tape as long as one doesnt do so in its entirety...eg one may copy as long as one omits one song or a part thereof.
he can be contacted at JTTC, 50 Bewick Road, Gateshead, NE8 4DQ, UK.
he can be contacted at JTTC, 50 Bewick Road, Gateshead, NE8 4DQ, UK.
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 24, 2007 9:00 PM
: February 24, 2007 9:00 PM
Rav Shlomo Zalmen Auerbach ZATZAL, Paskened, that one may copy tape recorded music and even give a recording to someone else, As long as you do not sell it. It only becomes Hasagas Gevul, if you sell it.
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 25, 2007 10:41 AM
: February 25, 2007 10:41 AM
I guess MBD didn't steal this tune.
Just borrowed it.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6226554649563441516&q=mbd+khan
Just borrowed it.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6226554649563441516&q=mbd+khan
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 25, 2007 11:17 AM
: February 25, 2007 11:17 AM
It's incredible that most people let MBD off the hook. In a recent article in Mishpacha, MBD and Fried claim that their music is authentic "chasidishe" music. MBD is a fraud. We let these guys steal secular music and pass it off as "frum". I don't know why anyone would want to copy his stuff. It's unbearable to listen to.
From Blog in DM:
"Close Every Door" by Andrew Lloyd Webber --from the musical "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" was taken by MBD and recorded as a Yiddish tune about Shabbos. I can't remember the song/album name, but it included the Yiddish lyric "Vi voil is ehr, der Shabbos hiter..."
http://blogindm.blogspot.com/2003/07/more-on-plagiarism.html
From Blog in DM:
"Close Every Door" by Andrew Lloyd Webber --from the musical "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" was taken by MBD and recorded as a Yiddish tune about Shabbos. I can't remember the song/album name, but it included the Yiddish lyric "Vi voil is ehr, der Shabbos hiter..."
http://blogindm.blogspot.com/2003/07/more-on-plagiarism.html
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 25, 2007 3:56 PM
: February 25, 2007 3:56 PM
If you would break the terms of such a lease it would not make a "mekach ta'us" and anull the sale. That argument is only valid for the old "This is being sold on condition that you don not duplicate" attempt. If you would violate the terms of a lease you would still be the lessee, just you'd also be a "gazlan".
As to the fact that the term of the lease is not a stated finite time - so what? I understand that in secular law that may lose the term "lease" but what we care about here is Halacha - are you a socher or a lokayach?
As to the liability issue -maybe they are liable. What does that have to do with the question.
In short, while I have my own issues with the scheme (not the least what was the arrangement with the stores) before you comment, you should at least be familiar with simple Bava Metzia with Rashi. Or ask a COMPETENT Halachic authority, something which you did not seem to do.
As to the fact that the term of the lease is not a stated finite time - so what? I understand that in secular law that may lose the term "lease" but what we care about here is Halacha - are you a socher or a lokayach?
As to the liability issue -maybe they are liable. What does that have to do with the question.
In short, while I have my own issues with the scheme (not the least what was the arrangement with the stores) before you comment, you should at least be familiar with simple Bava Metzia with Rashi. Or ask a COMPETENT Halachic authority, something which you did not seem to do.
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 25, 2007 6:44 PM
: February 25, 2007 6:44 PM
2 Things. First you don`t pay sales tax on a lease, I DID so i guess it was a sale. Second show me a signature on that lease until then i purchased it and can do what i want with it.
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 26, 2007 3:11 PM
: February 26, 2007 3:11 PM
I lately saw a better idea on one of the torah tapes, it says that it was only sold bi'tnay that you don't copy it, and if you did, the sale is a mekach ta'aus and it is automatically rented to you for the price of one dollar per day.
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : February 28, 2007 12:51 AM
: February 28, 2007 12:51 AM
Question: If I have the Leshem Shomayim CD and my friend also has the Leshem Shomayim CD, can I make a copy for my friend from my CD if he does not know how to make the copy himself?
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : March 13, 2007 1:17 AM
: March 13, 2007 1:17 AM
does anyone know where i can find the exact simple law and the exact halachos regarding copying cd?
Post a Comment
Comment Credit ---This article posted by : May 08, 2007 11:39 PM
: May 08, 2007 11:39 PM
