Who owns the Dharma?

Anything goes (almost).

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby yegyal » Thu May 23, 2013 2:00 pm

Though I thoroughly agree with your sentiment Khedrup, I should point out that most translation groups that I know of do rely heavily on patronage both for the process of translation and the publication of the completed works. In other words, we wouldn't even be able to buy these books for the prices that publishers offer them if it weren't the fact that entire process is funded, and or subsidized, by the generous support of Dharma patrons.
yegyal
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:02 am

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby LastLegend » Thu May 23, 2013 2:51 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
LastLegend wrote:When it comes to Dharma, I am not buying this intellectual property bs. Hey it's just me, and I like breaking peoples windows and stomping on little birds.


I know you didn't say that.
I reinterpreted what you said, and distorted it by adding something you didn't say.
But if you think intellectual property is BS then that shouldn't bother you,
because you don't own the words you posted. Totally open-source!

This is like getting a crappy translation.
When you pay for a good translation, you are paying for years of study and research that went into that translation.
Remember, things arise in dependence on many conditions.
That is basic Buddhism 101.
Translations are no different. They don't just appear out of nowhere.
When that person was busy carefully translating the Dharma words that you so cherish,
it means he or she wasn't doing something else to make a living
something that might have paid a great deal more.
maybe he or she thought that translating dharma for your benefit was just a little bit more important,
even though it paid a lot less than some other job.
And so, we say thank you to that person by stealing from them because
"that intellectual rights stuff is BS".
Apples grow for free on trees too,
so let's go help ourselves to free apples that somebody else worked all day picking,
and is selling to earn their living.
The rights to intellectual property are not only about money.
It's also about protecting the integrity of the work, so that somebody can't do what i just did,
just take what you write and add to it, distort it, or use it in some other way without your permission.

Just thought you'd like to know.

.
.
.


I have decided to get back to you now.

I will say it does not go well for me to think that by claiming to own intellectual property, I will stop people from distorting what I translate. It is their own karma for distorting it. If people translate for a living, that's fine. Claiming the intellectual property is fine too. But you are doing less in spreading the Dharma. And I thought that the purpose of Buddha's teaching is to stop "owning" anything, and the more you give the more you will receive (cause and effect). What happens to Buddha's teaching now? If the translators don't care about that Dharma that much and merely translate for a living, then I guess it does not apply. Then we don't hold them to that standard.

Another thing is by claiming to own the intellectual property of the translation, the translators are conveniently monopolizing the teaching of Buddha. Without the teaching of Buddha in the first place, what is there to own? What happens to "give and take" relationship here? The translator can at least gives back by not claiming "intellectual property." Buddha did not claim intellectual property either. Then again if the translator does not really care about the Dharma (merits, letting go of owning a self, cause and effect,etc) that much, then it does not apply.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 2186
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby Son of Buddha » Thu May 23, 2013 7:40 pm

"PadmaVonSamba"]
LastLegend wrote:When it comes to Dharma, I am not buying this intellectual property bs. Hey it's just me, and I like breaking peoples windows and stomping on little birds.


I know you didn't say that.
I reinterpreted what you said, and distorted it by adding something you didn't say.
But if you think intellectual property is BS then that shouldn't bother you,
because you don't own the words you posted. Totally open-source!


intellectual copyright doesn't protect against distortion of a translation,it protects against an EXACT COPY of the said translation.so in truth by changing what he said you circumvented any intellectual copyright he would of had.




"PadmaVonSamba"This is like getting a crappy translation.
When you pay for a good translation, you are paying for years of study and research that went into that translation.
Remember, things arise in dependence on many conditions.
That is basic Buddhism 101.
Translations are no different. They don't just appear out of nowhere.


this has actually nothing to do whatsoever with intellectual copyright laws.

"PadmaVonSamba"The rights to intellectual property are not only about money.
It's also about protecting the integrity of the work, so that somebody can't do what i just did,
just take what you write and add to it, distort it, or use it in some other way without your permission.

Just thought you'd like to know.


nonsense intellectual property laws do not protect the integrity of the work it only protects against direct COPY of said work,as a matter of fact if a person,did what you did and changed the translation,then he would not be in violation of intellectual property copyright laws.since you didn't COPY what he said,you in fact created a whole new translation and in turn circumvented the copy right law itself.

(this works the same way with ALL copyrights,look for instance at the gun corperation,well say for example COLT has the intellectual property rights copy rights for the 1911 pistol,so WHY is there many different companies that produce the 1911 pistol if colt has the copyright????well all you have to do is CHANGE an aspect of the design,and upon doing so you circumvent the copyright laws(since your design is not an EXACT COPY)

like wise copyright laws do not protect the integrity of the product(sutra translation)
I could tommorro make a complete fake translation of the Lotus sutra and claim it is what the sutra itself says and sell it on Amazon for $20 and nobody can stop me cause I didn't COPY anyone.(the fake sutra translation itself would my own intellectual copyright)

like wise you can literally rework PREXISTING sutra translations that have intellectual property copyrights,as long as you change the wording to the equivilant meaning and its not a direct copy word for word.

as as matter of fact one of the Diamond Sutra translations in English,was never translated from Chinese,the "translator/author" took 9 PREXISTING English translations that were already copy righted and he simply changed the wording to the equivilant meaning to circumvent copy right laws.

wanna see how to circumvent copy right laws?????
(he went to jetta grove for business)
(he proceeded to travel to jetta grove for the purpose of business )

there I just circumvented intellectual copyright laws.(remember the SUTRA itself is not copyrighted the TRANSLATION is and since I created a NEW translation,I have bypassed the law itself.)

peace and love
(P.S. intellectual copyright laws concerning translations is BS)
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby Karma Dorje » Thu May 23, 2013 8:52 pm

This whole "copyright violation is theft" thing is so ridiculous. Even our courts don't treat it as theft, let alone buddhist mores. Otherwise, offenders would be charged with theft and not copyright violation. To steal something, you must deprive an owner of an object they possess. If you copy something, you create more of it. You don't deprive the copyright holder of an object they possess. Future profits are not something they possess.

Many of those that argue for copyright law here are purposefully using a misleading metaphor, because they probably instinctively recognize the weakness of their argument against copying. It is particularly funny in the context of Dharma when so many of the luminaries would borrow large parts of their treatises from other works. It was widely thought that one should not just write for the sake of writing if someone else has said it better already.

By all means we should support translators by purchasing their products, donating to them, etc. but it is really incumbent on them to find a business model that supports them rather than harping on Internet piracy. That particular horse is long past the gate. I gladly donate to translation efforts and would pay for a subscription model if it was presented to me.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
~Arthur Carlson
User avatar
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby Leo Rivers » Fri May 24, 2013 12:04 am

If you copy something, you create more of it. You don't deprive the copyright holder of an object they possess. Future profits are not something they possess.


I am confused. I thought successful suites for loss of future revenue (considered a possession) are a staple of law.
The DVD industry is founded on prosecuting "multiplication" of copies as a loss of future income. Aren't translations like this?
On the other hand, look at Kessinger Publishing - they strip the footnotes and introduction from The Lotus Sutra by Kern and sell it on Amazon in a text identical form.
In some cases the translation seems covered by preexisting ownership by a religious tradition but the obvious scholarship or new composition remains covered by protection.

It is this kind of question interesting to me because I see a grim future for Dharma publishing, largely supported by a dying Boomer Money Culture. And there is an Elephant in the Room too. If a book is out of print, I can't reprint it to keep my religious culture alive by obtaining its text base. AND ALL BOOKS MADE BY MODERN METHODS WILL BLEACH AND VANISH IN 30 TO 50 YEARS. We'll lose Steven King forever, because only hand writing and movable type ink on paper persists. Modern methods are best viewed as Xeroxes.

I can see it now. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra AMAZINGLY is published and a copy rushed to my deathbed - I reach out, the light dimming in my eyes, but no, I'm not going blind, at the last moment I have had a visionary experience - I was watching its xerox print pages vanish over the decades. All Wisdom Publications and Snow Lion Publications are wads of yellow paper with blank pages. There is no Dharma nor Buddha in the World Wide Ecological Sauna. Cannibalism is rampant. Everyone Is a Republican who can't get enough of karaoke and "Dancing Queen" .... Seeing impermanence, I am liberated. I'm off now... :alien:
User avatar
Leo Rivers
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:52 am

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby tobes » Fri May 24, 2013 12:28 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
tobes wrote:
I think that the conceptual logic of possessing phenomenal things or abstract/immaterial things (such as ideas or intellectual work) is problematised by Buddhist metaphysics and practice. We can think about monks and nuns relinquishing even their hair, and the way that it is impossible to establish independently existing entities of any kind in the Madhyamakan tradition.

So, I think the issue is a little complex, but I'm on the side of LastLegend. Intellectual property is BS.

I do not see how anyone would be harmed by me forwarding a short pdf of a chapter of Tsong Khapa to two people overseas. I do not see Tsong Khapa receiving any dues for his labour. The translators are all famous tenured academics, they do not need royalities.



So, if something is tangible, made of material stuff, it's real (can be considered property)
but ideas and words are not real (cannot be considered property).
From a Buddhist point of view,
this certainly puts a lot of stock in the "reality" of the material world
and doesn't say much for the argument that all phenomena are a projection of Mind.

There is something called fair use. You can quote, quite extensively from copyrighted works.
The issue of infringing upon intellectual rights has to do with
--taking what someone else has produced by their labor,
--and owns as a result of their labor (attention, ye workers of the world...!!!)
and who is trying to sell what he has produced,
....taking that and copying it without his permission and giving it away for free,
which is basically undermining his livelihood.
It's like being Robin Hood, except that instead of stealing from the rich to give to the poor
it is stealing from the worker to give to those who can probably afford to pay fairly.

And then justifying that action because one has some kind of good intentions
(the ends justifies the means)


Did I not clearly write: " and the way that it is impossible to establish independently existing entities of any kind in the Madhyamakan tradition."?

How you can garner from that that I'm somehow defending material stuff as real is something of a mystery.

In fact I think it is a critical point in this discussion - both Locke and Kant (key liberal figures who ground our present legal notion of property rights) presuppose that phenomenal things are independently existing. It is only on that basis that their conceptual predication of ownership can be imputed.

What happens if we conceive of material entities as arising, abiding and ceasing, and always contingent on causes, conditions and imputations? Is not the predication of owning some "thing" precisely what is meant by concealing its true ontic state as empty and dependently co-arisen? Is it not an expression of reification?

I think it's really worth thinking about that.

And the solution is complex, because clearly - in all canonical texts including those written by Madhyamakans (such as the Ratnavali) - theft is strongly denied and giving is strongly encouraged. This clearly presupposes some account of justified ownership.

But the Buddhists are not really political philosophers. What kind of conception of property rights might be justified given Buddhist metaphysics?

A big question.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby tobes » Fri May 24, 2013 12:36 am

JKhedrup wrote:Not all translators are famous tenured academics, I am not sure how you got that impression. Only a few are.

Gavin Kilty, an excellent translator who produced Mirror of Beryl amongst many others, had to teach ESL to support his family. Good on him, some might argue-but imagine how much more he could accomplish if able to work full time.

Sorry I have to correct sucg misperceptions lest people think translators don:t need money and food for rent like everyone else. In China and Tibet, there was patronage for translation efforts, but this is not the case in the west.


I was speaking specifically about the Lam Rim - Cabezon, Cozort, Lopez, Napper, Newland, Wallace, Jackson et al....

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Fri May 24, 2013 12:50 am

Son of Buddha wrote:
intellectual copyright doesn't protect against distortion of a translation,it protects against an EXACT COPY of the said translation.so in truth by changing what he said you circumvented any intellectual copyright he would of had.


Most contracts I am familiar with contain a clause that prohibits the person who purchases publication rights from doing any editing of the work without the author's prior consent.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby Karma Dorje » Fri May 24, 2013 1:06 am

Leo Rivers wrote:
If you copy something, you create more of it. You don't deprive the copyright holder of an object they possess. Future profits are not something they possess.


I am confused. I thought successful suites for loss of future revenue (considered a possession) are a staple of law.
The DVD industry is founded on prosecuting "multiplication" of copies as a loss of future income. Aren't translations like this?


Those suits are civil suits for damages. You can't be charged criminally (with theft) for "stealing" future profits.

Leo Rivers wrote:It is this kind of question interesting to me because I see a grim future for Dharma publishing, largely supported by a dying Boomer Money Culture. And there is an Elephant in the Room too. If a book is out of print, I can't reprint it to keep my religious culture alive by obtaining its text base. AND ALL BOOKS MADE BY MODERN METHODS WILL BLEACH AND VANISH IN 30 TO 50 YEARS. We'll lose Steven King forever, because only hand writing and movable type ink on paper persists. Modern methods are best viewed as Xeroxes.


I see the opposite future. Projects like 84000, the Sugatagarbha Translation group, etc. and lots of crowdsourcing of translations. If you want to translate all of the canon to English (or whatever language for that matter), crowdsourcing is the way to do it. Have a strong group of editors overseeing countless individuals contributing to the work piece by piece around the world around the clock. It's a lot more scalable and meritorious than a few scholars doing the entire work themselves. The old model of book publishing is dying and being replaced with a new paradigm, just as Gutenberg's invention obsoleted scribes before him.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
~Arthur Carlson
User avatar
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby yegyal » Fri May 24, 2013 1:47 am

Karma Dorje wrote:
I see the opposite future. Projects like 84000, the Sugatagarbha Translation group, etc. and lots of crowdsourcing of translations. If you want to translate all of the canon to English (or whatever language for that matter), crowdsourcing is the way to do it. Have a strong group of editors overseeing countless individuals contributing to the work piece by piece around the world around the clock. It's a lot more scalable and meritorious than a few scholars doing the entire work themselves. The old model of book publishing is dying and being replaced with a new paradigm, just as Gutenberg's invention obsoleted scribes before him.


True, but again this requires funding. Projects like the 84000 are entirely run on donations. You won't be charged for the reading room, but that's because somebody else paid to make that available to you. In fact, if anybody really feels strongly about the spread of the Dharma and making it free of charge to anybody that is interested, than I strongly suggest making a donation to the 84000. And since tomorrow is Sagadawa Duchen, I can't think of a more auspicious time to do this. And since I believe in putting my money where my mouth is, I hereby pledge to do exactly that.

And since there's no time like the present, I just went to the 84000 and made a donation. Why not join me?
yegyal
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:02 am

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby Leo Rivers » Fri May 24, 2013 2:14 am

The old model of book publishing is dying and being replaced with a new paradigm, just as Gutenberg's invention obsoleted scribes before him.


But we are conflating production with preservation in a way. Book Publishing (which is distribution), book Production and book Preservation each have unique Problems.

In capitalism, publishing is determined by market (lowest common denominator driver), production by costs (cheap materials and processes are drivers), and preservation is seen as an enemy of future sales, (planned obsolescence is part of the industrial strategy.) At least Kings had peer review as a selector of material. And their preservation techniques reflected their values of "Quality of gift".
User avatar
Leo Rivers
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 4:52 am

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri May 24, 2013 12:02 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:
intellectual copyright doesn't protect against distortion of a translation,it protects against an EXACT COPY of the said translation.so in truth by changing what he said you circumvented any intellectual copyright he would of had.


Most contracts I am familiar with contain a clause that prohibits the person who purchases publication rights from doing any editing of the work without the author's prior consent.
.
.
.


That would only be valid if you were the one who originally created the product itself,generally this applies computer companies who were the original creators of the tech and book authors who created an original story. Since its originally there you cannot edit it.

However it would not apply for translations,the reason for this is the sutra itself can be translated by ANYONE,the translator himself is simply coping a text in his own launguage,and likewise anyone else who wishes to do so can likewise copy the sutra in his own tongue(translation).
With that said NO translator has created anything original its simply a copy of a copy.
and at the end of the day you will have 4 different translations of the same sutra,and all 4 translations will have the same meaning,and generally the same wording,the only difference between these translations will be the CHOICE OF WORDS USED.

For instance If I wrote a sentence in chinese,and asked 4 different guys to translate it for us,you would get 4 different translations of that one sentence that say the same exact thing,the only difference would be the words the translators used.
(i am happy today)
(I have had a joyious day)
(my day has been full of joy)
(i have enjoyed my day)

At the end of the day ALL the translations are copies of a sutra and are going to be the same in meaning the only thing that will be different is the exact words that are used
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby yegyal » Fri May 24, 2013 1:01 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:At the end of the day ALL the translations are copies of a sutra and are going to be the same in meaning the only thing that will be different is the exact words that are used



That's assuming that all translations are accurate, which would be a huge mistake to make when we're talking about Dharma translations.
yegyal
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:02 am

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby mutsuk » Fri May 24, 2013 3:47 pm

tingdzin wrote:I'll hazard a guess that none of the people who think that the idea of intellectual property is BS have ever contributed anything to a serious translation, editing, or commentarial effort.

Exactly. And I would add : why would these people want to own someone's work(s)? That's pretty telling...
mutsuk
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby oldbob » Fri May 24, 2013 3:51 pm

Karma Dorje wrote:
Leo Rivers wrote:
If you copy something, you create more of it. You don't deprive the copyright holder of an object they possess. Future profits are not something they possess.


I am confused. I thought successful suites for loss of future revenue (considered a possession) are a staple of law.
The DVD industry is founded on prosecuting "multiplication" of copies as a loss of future income. Aren't translations like this?


Those suits are civil suits for damages. You can't be charged criminally (with theft) for "stealing" future profits.

Leo Rivers wrote:It is this kind of question interesting to me because I see a grim future for Dharma publishing, largely supported by a dying Boomer Money Culture. And there is an Elephant in the Room too. If a book is out of print, I can't reprint it to keep my religious culture alive by obtaining its text base. AND ALL BOOKS MADE BY MODERN METHODS WILL BLEACH AND VANISH IN 30 TO 50 YEARS. We'll lose Steven King forever, because only hand writing and movable type ink on paper persists. Modern methods are best viewed as Xeroxes.


I see the opposite future. Projects like 84000, the Sugatagarbha Translation group, etc. and lots of crowdsourcing of translations. If you want to translate all of the canon to English (or whatever language for that matter), crowdsourcing is the way to do it. Have a strong group of editors overseeing countless individuals contributing to the work piece by piece around the world around the clock. It's a lot more scalable and meritorious than a few scholars doing the entire work themselves. The old model of book publishing is dying and being replaced with a new paradigm, just as Gutenberg's invention obsoleted scribes before him.


YUP!!!

Certainly translators deserve to be able to cut the best deal they can in the market place, but crowd sourcing, translation groups, and "fair use" will make it very difficult to be an independent translator. The market place sorts everything out.

That said, perhaps there needs to be a two tiered system, where high end, high production value, publications, support the translators and translator groups, while low price point, low production value, free on the web, sourcing makes everything / everything available, for free, for practitioners of all economic classes.

Fair use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

My best guess take away is that it is legally, ok (not necessarily legal, but not pursue-able) for an individual to make a copy pf anything for their own personal use, for their practice.

If that is accepted, then why can't there be a "Dharma Exchange," located in each major country, where a practitioner, interested in reading a Dharma book, can email a request to the exchange and then have the hard copy of that book, mailed to them for a one week free loan. If someone were to scan, or photocopy, that book for use in their personal Dharma practice, I don't think there is any effective liability. Of course the public libraries, and inter-library loans, effectively already provide the same free resource, now. A "Dharma Exchange", would only formalize the process. Perhaps the scan file could be returned to the exchange which could then loan out additional requests, electronically. Note that the original digital file would be returned after the one week free loan.

Maybe with easy, unlimited, and free access to all written Dharma material, people would give up any grasping after intellectual meanings and be ready for contemplation. :smile:

What a thought! :smile:
oldbob
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:19 am

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby pemachophel » Fri May 24, 2013 4:08 pm

Copyright is a Western legal convention that has been adopted by most, if not all, countries by international convention. Copyright exists for the lifetime of the author (such as a translator who has copyright for the translation but not for the original departure language work) as well as 100 years from the creation of the work. After 100 years, any and all previously copy-righten materials enter the public domain, meaning anyone can do anything they want with them. BTW, according to U.S. law, copyright exists automatically as soon as a work is created regardless of whether the author or their agent has formally submitted a copyright form with the Library of Congress copyright division. Such formal submission is merely legal evidence proving one's copyright should breach of copyright become legally actionable.

Sorry, I was copyright editor for the publishing company I worked for for 30-some years.

For me, the issue comes down to whether the author (or translator) personally intends/intended for the free distribution and use of their work or not. In other words, from a Buddhist POV, whether something is "freely given" or not. If not freely given, then, as far as I can see according to the teachings on the 10 demeritorious actions, it is stealing with the karmic repercussions of stealing.
Pema Chophel པདྨ་ཆོས་འཕེལ
pemachophel
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 9:19 pm
Location: Lafayette, CO

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby oldbob » Fri May 24, 2013 5:16 pm

pemachophel wrote:Copyright is a Western legal convention that has been adopted by most, if not all, countries by international convention. Copyright exists for the lifetime of the author (such as a translator who has copyright for the translation but not for the original departure language work) as well as 100 years from the creation of the work. After 100 years, any and all previously copy-righten materials enter the public domain, meaning anyone can do anything they want with them. BTW, according to U.S. law, copyright exists automatically as soon as a work is created regardless of whether the author or their agent has formally submitted a copyright form with the Library of Congress copyright division. Such formal submission is merely legal evidence proving one's copyright should breach of copyright become legally actionable.

Sorry, I was copyright editor for the publishing company I worked for for 30-some years.

For me, the issue comes down to whether the author (or translator) personally intends/intended for the free distribution and use of their work or not. In other words, from a Buddhist POV, whether something is "freely given" or not. If not freely given, then, as far as I can see according to the teachings on the 10 demeritorious actions, it is stealing with the karmic repercussions of stealing.


:good: :twothumbsup: It is good to air the issues.

Issues

So if someone borrows a copyrighted book over and over again from a public library, this is not stealing, but if one copies that book for one's own personal use in a personal Dharma practice, then it is stealing, simply because this was the business modal intention of the author, i.e. that the author did not INTEND free permanent distribution, while still allowing free placement in public libraries, for purposes of free loans??????

Also, if a copyright protects against stealing, with the karmic repercussions of stealing, up to 100 years from the creation of a work, why should it not be stealing forever! How can the law arbitrarily (at 100 years plus one day) supersede the original intention of the author? I think I will write my congressman!

Also, if it is accepted that the general copyright law, can totally over-ride the original intention of the author after 100 years (without this being "stealing") why shouldn't the "fair use" provision of the that same copyright law be acceptable as currently interpreted, i.e. allowing for an individual to make a copy of a copyrighted work for their own personal use (without this being stealing)?

Also, the Buddha Seed exists in all sentient beings. The Buddha Seed is beyond time. So perhaps if the "100 years in the future" part of your timeless Buddha Seed nature, copies something today, and reads it as your timeless Buddha Seed being of 100 years in the future, then no law is broken because copy-rite only extends for 100 years? Right!

Of course no one should take what is not freely given, and I would NEVER imply that anyone should. Perhaps once a work is placed in public library, or posted on the web, it has been effectively, "freely given" regardless of a possible original intention of an author not to allow free distribution. Otherwise, before anyone would take out a library book, or Google search on any written work, they would have to write to the author and ask to them if that is ok with their original intention so as to avoid, "taking something which is not freely given?"

I think there is an effective "reasonable expectation" of "freely given" once a work is placed in a public library, or available freely from multiple sources on the web. These are "interesting" legal points.

Then there is the issue of committing a small bad, for a greater good ---

If you are "stealing" what is not freely given, so as to help you free all sentient beings, maybe the greater good is what determines what is stealing and what is not stealing.

Lots of issues to look into - if that is what you would like to do.

Best, ob
Last edited by oldbob on Fri May 24, 2013 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
oldbob
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 8:19 am

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby Tom » Fri May 24, 2013 5:39 pm

Hopefully we all agree that the fact that the dharma has no owner is not a good reason to continually benefit from the efforts of translators without supporting them.
User avatar
Tom
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri May 24, 2013 7:49 pm

yegyal wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:At the end of the day ALL the translations are copies of a sutra and are going to be the same in meaning the only thing that will be different is the exact words that are used



That's assuming that all translations are accurate, which would be a huge mistake to make when we're talking about Dharma translations.


Well out of 4 translations you can do comparisons between the different translations,to see if they say the same thing(in meaning).
Also as said before copyrights dont protect the intergrity of a text whatsoever,it only protects me from you copying my exact words,it doesnt protect the lotus sutra from being inaccurately translated and produced.

In truth these copyrighted translations are actually destroying the integrity or our sutras.
Example: we have a sentence in chinese that literally translates word for word:
"I went to bathe at the park"

Now the first translator,translates this sentence in its literal form and copyrights it.

Now a second translator comes along and translates the SAME sentence,except he cant translate the sentece for what it literally says,since the (literal) translation is already copyrighted,so he actually has to change the words and refigure the sentence to get the same meaning just to bypass the other translators copyright.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Who owns the Dharma?

Postby Son of Buddha » Fri May 24, 2013 8:04 pm

Tom wrote:Hopefully we all agree that the fact that the dharma has no owner is not a good reason to continually benefit from the efforts of translators without supporting them.



Yes support the translators but do not support the copyright of our Dharma.

Do wanna know just how dangerous copyrighted translations are?
Okay lets say I am a reputable translator,and I translate lets say the Lotus sutra.

Okay its copyrighted by me so I can do whatever I want with my translation,okay so if I convert to christianity 2morro,none of you can reproduce or reprint my translation EVER AGAIN im talking it off the market(could you imagine kerns or watsons translation disappearing overnight?)

Okay its my copyright but I want to SELL my copyrighted translation...so the westboro baptist church buys my translation copyright the decides to quite reproduction and reprint of the lotus sutra translation.

Do you see how dangerous this is?

What happens if I die and my copyright and my possesions are passed down to my child who belongs my uncles baptist church....yea you will never see that translation ever reprinted again.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anders, JKhedrup, Sherlock and 4 guests

>