There is some confusion arising from the distinction between "Copyright" and "Trademark", as regards this issue of "Short Moments...".
What Candice O'Denver did was to Trademark the traditional term "Short Moments..." (and several variations)
But she did this despite the easily established fact that the exact same term and it's exact same use have been published in books by Tibetan Lamas years before. These Lamas books were surely where she took the term from of course, as she obviously also took a great many other distinctively unique and iconic perspectives, images, concepts, terms, metaphors that were virtually unique to Dzogchen texts, and presented them as her own work, from 2007 on.
The fact is that Candice O'Denver has trademarked the traditional Tibetan Dzogchen instruction "Short Moments" and "Short Moments, Many Times" (and several other variants).
On 5/April/2011 she successfully bought that right from the company 'Trademarken', before any of the Lamas thought to protect it for the tradition.
- for instance check: http://www.trademarken.com/trademark/85 ... VrBeBkkg0o
And see : The books "As It Is" by Tulku Urgyen. Vol1 publ.1999; & Vol2 publ 2000 - for the 'originals' of her 2011 trademarks)
But it's not only that she's Trademarking the parts of the tradition that she wants to own, she is also Copyrighting the ''concepts and techniques" from the tradition she wants to own for herself.
In other words she seems to be trying to Copyright all the "concepts, systems and techniques" that she has extensively derived from traditional Dzogchen sources, apparently in order, as she says, to ''limit the right'' of any other individual "now or in the future" from developing any other ''concepts or techniques'' that she considers to be "SIMILAR TO or IN COMPETITION WITH" her now copyrighted ''intellectual property''.
Consider this citation from her own Copyright statement, which also contains farcically comprehensive lists of every possible way in which everyone who attends any teaching event of hers, or even access's her web site, are, in her view, forever forbidden from utilizing anything even SIMILAR TO, or possibly COMPETING WITH, anything that is being presented by her now, or that may be presented in the future !
["….. The terms of copyright shall be construed to limit the Recipient’s right to independently develop products or services which may be similar to those discussed in the Copyright Notice. The Owner acknowledges that the Recipient may currently or in the future be developing information internally, or receiving information from other parties, that is similar to the copyrighted information. Nevertheless, this copyright notice shall prohibit the Recipient from developing products, concepts, systems or techniques that are similar to or compete with the products, concepts, systems or techniques contemplated by or embodied in the copyrighted information." -citation from her copyright statement, presently on the Balanced View website]
This seems to mean that she wants to have the right and power to limit the right of anyone, currently or in the future, from ''developing the concept or technique'' of "Short Moments Many Times", because she has now purchased it and considers it her personal intellectual property. Or for that matter, of communicating anything like "let everything be as it is", "Basic State", "Pure Space", "Natural Perfection" or any of dozens of other key terms and concepts, images and metaphors that she directly lifted from the already available traditional writings.
There seem to me to be a few ethical and spiritual problems with this approach of hers. One particular problem (for those interested in Dzogchen teachings) is that as the works that she has now Copyrighted as 'her own' ''intellectual property'' (most especially the early talks and writings of 2006/7/8 etc,), are almost all very obviously closely derived from previously published Dzogchen texts (sometimes with whole passages, phrases, images and concepts lifted from Tibetan works).
Anyone already familiar with the published writings of Longchenpa, Garab Dorje, Dilgo Khyentse, Tulku Urgyen, Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Ponlop Rinpoche, Namkhai Norbu, and others will easily recognize dozens of very distinctive phrases, images and metaphors that she has taken from those writings, with no acknowledgement as to whom she took them from. And quite apart from the many particular and unique terms ("natural perfection", "basic state" etc etc etc) she's taken directly from the traditional writings, most certainly the essential perspectives are also obviously derived from the published teachings of Tibetan lamas.
In 2008, O'Denver published claims that she has "developed a breakthrough understanding of the nature of reality" ! - which turns out to be that "there is a basic state naturally present in all phenomena" ! - obviously failing to mention the widely available books by Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche (and other Buddhists) that frequently communicate the same ancient perspective, well before she came on the scene and launched her career. Maybe she really meant it was "a breakthrough understanding" for her personally when she discovered other people's previous communications of that concept, but reading her inflated hyperbole about her own extraordinary advances in human knowledge, it would be easy to assume she intends you to believe that if she hadn't discovered this concept no-one else would ever get to know it. Which probably seems a good reason to her to have the right to own it as her very own intellectual property.
So, taking the work of others and presenting it as your own uniquely innovative discovery is one thing. (Not necessarily so bad, if others come to be exposed to those beneficial ideas who wouldn't usually come to do so from the original sources. In fact this is the principle reason advanced by her devotees in defense of her plagiarisms).
But then for her to try to gain permanent Copyright ownership of all the slightly modified ideas, concepts and methods that she has derived from traditional Dzogchen teachings, in order for her to have "the right and power to limit the right" of any individual to "develop the concepts or techniques" that she considers "are SIMILAR TO or IN COMPETITION WITH" her copyrighted material, takes the whole matter to another level, i believe.
This Copyright power she's bought will be increasingly significant if she continues to threaten to use it against other teachers, because as ''her own'' (sic) ''concepts and techniques" are necessarily so very "similar to" the many basic Dzogchen/Buddhist concepts and techniques from which she derived and modified her own, then anyone who also learns, realizes and teaches anything ''similar to'' any of the basic concepts, techniques, terms, images, metaphors or perspectives of the Dzogchen tradition, will be found by her to be ''similar to and in competition with'' her own modified version. Altho that does sound crazy, which it is, it's not as unlikely that she will not act on it, as it sounds .
If anyone feels concern about any of the implications of this issue, i urge you to contact any Lama or Dzogchen Teacher you may know, and request them to discuss the matter with Candice O'Denver in person. You might also like to write directly to her and ask her for a public explanation about this. She can be contacted at her FaceBook site or at her business, "BalancedView.com"