On 08/13/2015 03:36 PM, in a message that Gmail, for some reason,
decided was spam, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined
> that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed
> specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some
> animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule.
This isn't true.
> The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral
> obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment,
> it is impossible that the Torah is less moral.
This assumes its own conclusion. The exact same reasoning could have
been used during the Jim Crow era to "prove" that the Torah requires
racial segregation of shuls and yeshivos, or during Prohibition to
"prove" that the Torah requires teetotalism.
> Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a
> tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to
> someone who would otherwise earn money. Even if not quantifiably assur,
> I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on this one.
Why should he earn that money? You could invoke the same idea against
giving anything away to someone who might otherwise have bought it.
Every wedding takes parnassah away from wherever the guests might have
bought their dinner that night. Sellers do not own their customers,
and have no rights to them.
> Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would
> each steal less than a shaveh perutah. [...] From here he argued
> that there is an issur to do something, which while not formally theft,
Stop right there. Stealing less than a shaveh pruta *is* formally
theft. The thief is over on lo sigzol. It's not *returnable*,
which is an entirely different matter.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
zev at sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams