Is “piracy” theft?

It crosses my mind again. What is theft according to the seven laws, meaning the laws that bring the liability of death? I wrote about this before. But it crossed my mind again. I know the core prohibition to be commanding a person not to take someone else’s moveable property or just someone’s property.

I know there is some question about the word “moveable” and whether theft can include land.

The issue I brought up was the idea of copying something with your own materials. Now it should be plain that according to the Gentile Torah definition of theft, copying is not included.

I was on Facebook then. I don’t know if I’m going back yet. But when I posted the article there, I received a response that did make me ponder. The person there brought up Jewish law (not part of the seven laws) that it was also wrong to copy something in such a way as to cause financial loss to someone else. It seemed to be a form of the modern copyright law, but it was part of Jewish law, not part of the seven laws.

It did cause me to pause. The point that was brought up again is not a core law amongst the seven, I believe a person striving to do good, to be a decent person, would not want to cause loss to someone else. So if someone else made something to sell, and then I copy it and sell it in competition to him around the places where he is selling, then that doesn’t sound like a good act.

But is it wrong for me to see his wares, realise that I don’t need to buy it because I can make or do it myself, is that the same? So I’m not trying to sell it for profit or use it in a way to directly cause the original seller loss. But why waste my money when I can make or do it myself?

One of the people that would help me learn Maimonides’ take on the seven laws would call the second example an instance where the seller simply had a poor business model and the fault is with the original seller for offering something that can be so easily replicated. I miss learning from him. I look back and regret not having the chance to be his student. Of course it could have turned out like all the other failed relationships I’ve had, but I’m sure I would have learnt a lot from him. He gave me incentive to keep learning. I hope he’s teaching. His initials are J.S. and he has a wonderful wife who has similarities to my wife. But I don’t want to give him a bad name by associating by blemished name with his good one.

Anyway, got distracted reminiscing.

The fact is that it’s not a core law.

But, as usual, I’m aware of what others may say. Rabbi Weiner, in the Divine Code, Part VII, Chapter 5, topic 26, teaches the following.

A valid copyright is a true right, and it is forbidden to steal it, or to copy the item that is copyrighted without the copyright-owner’s permission, subject to the legal limitations on copyrights that the courts of the land have established.

But there are problems with this wording and teaching, for me anyway. Yes, I have to add “for me” because I know some of those who are nice enough to read my mental outflowings can take issue with me, an uneducated Gentile, disagreeing with a rabbi, one well-established. It’s ok. That just means what I say next will automatically be vacuous to some. Such is life.

So, as I was saying, for me, there are problems with this teaching. Let me show you the topic rabbi Weiner put directly before this teaching and what he said directly after.

So Part VII, Chapter 5, topic 25 teaches the following.

It is forbidden to cheat on a test (or buy the correct answers) in order to receive a reward or good grades in school, since this is deception and fraud. Even if this does not affect one’s grade, the deception alone is forbidden.

The people who know the core laws, especially those who respect Maimonides, should, I believe, notice what I notice: this could never be part of the seven laws which the Talmud, Nachmanides and Maimonides teaches come with the death penalty. To be more blunt, this rabbinic teaching against cheating on a test is not part of the seven laws.

As my faithful reader would know (yes, I said “reader” in the singular … I’m not gonna be proud and pretend there are more), my position is that once a Jewish rabbi steps out of simply explicating the “core” seven laws, he is not in the place to authoritatively tell Gentiles what we can or can’t do. He’s, at best, an advisor. So if he starts using words like “forbidden,” a Gentile doesn’t have to automatically take it as some divine law. It’s not divine law upon Gentiles nor is it an attempt to explain it. A Gentile should be more able to test the claim, investigate it and challenge it.

The fact that these topics aren’t part of the seven laws may be seen by what he says after topic 26. Take note of the list of caveats, caveats that would have less place with a divine law. I’ll highlight them as well as one other thing. So let’s see part VII, chapter 5, topic 27 of the Divine Code.

Part of the prohibition of deceiving is also the prohibition of lying, and although this is not part of the prohibitions that were commanded to Gentiles , it is logical that one should be forbidden to do so ( unless it is necessary for saving a person’s property or well-being, or to avoid embarrassment or insult to another person ). This can be seen from what Jacob told Laban, “Why have you deceived me?” (emphasis mine)

So I don’t have to be treated as if I’m making up stuff or coming up with my own interpretation, right? Take note with me that the topic 25 was about a form of cheating or deception. And then topic 27 clearly says that this subject of deception is not a divine law upon Gentiles, only what the rabbi thinks is logical for Gentiles and thus should be a form of universal obligation. Excuse me if I question that and don’t afford it any authority. For example, I think one has to be wise when dealing with the crooked and deceitful. A person has to choose whether it’s best to tell the truth, to remain silent, or to be deceitful. When a system is corrupt, a shrewd person may have to choose whether to play “the game” according to their rules or to play them at their own game, using deception if suitable, even in exams . So this notion of “forbidden” is as best questionable for me.

Anyway, let me focus again. If topic 25 is not divine law, and topic 27 is not divine law. Contextually, it should be safe to conclude that topic 26, about copyright, also is not divine law.

In fact, let me quote topic 26 again, because I believe its own wording shows we aren’t dealing with divine law.

A valid copyright is a true right, and it is forbidden to steal it, or to copy the item that is copyrighted without the copyright-owner’s permission, subject to the legal limitations on copyrights that the courts of the land have established .

As you should see, we’re not dealing with the law of God but, rather, the law of man. This is not God commanding copyright. It’s the rabbi’s edict that “the law of the [territorial mafia] is law.” Even though the rabbi (or the translators of his Hebrew work) uses the word “steal” he is not using it according to the core law of theft that he stated before in part VII, chapter 1, topic 1.

An adult Gentile is warned about the prohibition of theft, and can be subject to capital punishment in a court of law for this transgression. This applies whether one forcefully robs or secretly steals money or any movable property, or kidnaps a person, or withholds the wages of his employee or other similar acts, or even an employed harvester who eats from his employer’s produce without permission. For all such acts, a Gentile is liable for a capital sin, and one who commits any of these types of transgressions is considered a robber [or thief -DD].

And footnote 1 of this chapter states,

The reason for this, it seems, is that within the Noahide prohibition, only outright theft brings liability to capital punishment.

Copyright is not outright theft, so it’s not one of the seven laws, only something logical the rabbi thinks is either attached to the divine prohibition of theft, to the rabbi’s view of the divine law of courts (that the principle of “the law of the territorial mafia is law” is linked to it or part of it), or both.

Now, in case someone brings it up, I know that in part VII, chapter 8, topic 13, rabbi Weiner brings up copyright again and equates it to stealing land. But someone who reads/studies the Divine Code with its footnotes will know that stealing land is a questionable topic with rabbi Weiner and rabbi Zalman having a difference of opinion on it. So the later mention of copyright by rabbi Weiner is also a questionable assertion as well.

Anyway, after all that, … you know what, I enjoyed the chance to write about this topic, to read about it again, to think about it again. I have few joys in life. God and his law, pondering them, is one of them. So whatever people think, whether people read this, I enjoyed writing it.