Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Pali] Re: PTS dic --public domain? & Skt materials

Expand Messages
  • rett
    ... It s just me who s too touchy :-) You re certainly right that the PTS dic was half the original subject line. I didn t make it clear enough that I was
    Message 1 of 24 , Nov 24, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      >
      >Apologies if something I said was seen as unpleasant. I tend to focus on the
      >issue and sometimes forget the person on the other side.
      >The subject does begin "PTS dic -- public domain..."

      It's just me who's too touchy :-) You're certainly right that the PTS
      dic was half the original subject line. I didn't make it clear enough
      that I was responding to the other half, about obscure and rare
      editions of texts.

      I really like the way you framed the idea of publishing with a
      statement of good faith. That sounds to me like a reasonable and fair
      way to proceed, and I hope this can solve the problem at hand. Of
      course I'm only speaking as a layman. Sangha members probably have
      additional considerations to take into account.

      best regards,

      /Rett
    • navako
      Hello, I know more about this subject than I am willing to say --as I find it intensely boring to write about, and there are indeed many articles available on
      Message 2 of 24 , Nov 24, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello,

        I know more about this subject than I am willing to say --as I find it
        intensely boring to write about, and there are indeed many articles
        available on the internet.

        In Pali specifically, there is an instructive precedent: GRETIL

        The GRETIL texts (in Pali, Sanskrit, etc.) simply state a disclaimer (close
        to meaningless) that copyright applies to the etext just as to the original
        book (and that the author/editor retains their rights accordingly), and then
        proceed to provide a great many (free) electronic versions of texts. Now
        there are two elements to draw attention to here (1) GRETIL is flagrantly in
        violation of copyright in many instances (e.g., Christian Lindtner's edition
        of Nagarjuna), but (2) they only reproduce the original language text (Pali,
        Sanskrit, etc.), not the modern translation, interpretation or essay (in
        English or another modern language). Now again, a dichotomy: (1) the
        publisher does not own the rights to the ancient, source-text, but (2) the
        publisher *does* own the rights to the edition. In other words, the PTS
        (for example) does not have any legal ownership or exclusivity over the
        words of the Buddha, nor even do they own the Romanization of the particular
        manuscripts they used in the Danish Royal Library. What they own is the
        edition, i.e., the intellectual property in question is Fausboll's work in
        reading different copies and correcting errors in the manuscript --and the
        fruit of that labour does indeed have a copyright that will lapse subject to
        the laws of the country you inhabit. This is part of why it has been so
        easy for GRETIL or Metta.lk to churn out "copyright free" editions of
        source-texts: because (1) the source itself is rarely or hardly covered by
        copyright, and (2) you can always beat the copyright of the editor by
        working from the same "unedited" source he/she did. You can, literally,
        read the manuscript in the Danish Royal library, type it up, and do what you
        please with it --Just like Fausboll did.

        The fact is that GRETIL doesn't do this; they *are* transgressing the
        copyright of the editors (and, NB, Chr. Lindtner's edition of Nagarjuna is
        still selling like hotcakes) but nobody presses charges because (1) they
        aren't including the english translation [which drives the majority of
        sales], and (2) they would have to legally prove in court that GRETIL was
        including their corrections to the Sanskrit text --because they only own the
        rights to the corrections, not to the text _per se_. There are precedents
        in this area: e.g., if a dictionary is 100 years old, the content can be
        made public domain (and this has been done, with various internet
        dictionaries), but a more recent edition of the same text that contains
        corrected errors is no longer public domain --in effect, the copyright has
        been revived by editorship. Legally speaking, editorship is a form of
        authorship.

        And now, for something entirely less dull, GRETIL:
        www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/ebene_1/fiindolo/gretil.htm

        E.M.

        --
        A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/
        Get your Dhamma Books from http://books.metta.lk/
        Those who feel shame when they ought not to, and do not feel shame when they
        ought to, such men due to their wrong views go to woeful states.
        Random Dhammapada Verse 316
      • navako
        ... That is not correct; in Australia, the law is 50 years from the date of the author s death. Fifty years --not 70 or 75. And this is being actively
        Message 3 of 24 , Nov 24, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Re: the point raised by Michael Olds:

          > Australia is a member of the Bern Convention and therefore has
          > the same copyright laws as the US and England. That means copyright is based
          > on the date of death of an author or authors. And the term is 75 years not
          > 70...it was extended.

          That is not correct; in Australia, the law is 50 years from the date of the
          author's death. Fifty years --not 70 or 75. And this is being actively
          exploited by the following free e-text website, which quotes the law in
          question:
          http://gutenberg.net.au/

          As I understand the Bern Convention (and I am susceptible to error) it only
          involves one country recognising another's law, not the harmonization of the
          laws themselves. Thus, Mickey Mouse was invented in the U.S.A., and his
          american copyright (with duration, etc., determined by U.S. law) will be
          observed in the U.K., and other signatories to the treaty. HOWEVER, this
          does not mean that the British house of Parliament has no control over its
          own copyright laws; if they decide to change or abrogate their own laws,
          they may do so, but it will only apply to British inventions --obviously,
          they do not have sovereignty over America, nor vice-versa.

          The number of countries on the map that do not have any such laws is small,
          likely to grow: the AIDS epidemic is causing many to reconsider the right of
          "intellectual property" when weighed against the misery of millions.

          E.M.

          --
          A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/
          Get your Dhamma Books from http://books.metta.lk/
          Should a person commit evil, he should not do it again and again; he should
          not find pleasure therein: painful is the accumulation of evil.
          Random Dhammapada Verse 117
        • Michael Olds
          Navako, The issue here may be the same as with Gunnar, the difference between copyright protection and author s rights. Again, there is little practical
          Message 4 of 24 , Nov 25, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Navako,

            The issue here may be the same as with Gunnar, the difference between
            "copyright" protection and author's rights. Again, there is little practical
            difference as far as we are concerned.

            Australia:

            Previously posted quote:
            In February 2004 the Australian government announced that protection in
            Australia would be extended to life plus seventy years, as part of
            implementation of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.
            Source: (Not a government agency)
            http://www.caslon.com.au/ipguide18.htm


            Similar:
            The duration and breadth of copyright protection
            As pointed out above, the AUSFTA extends the duration of protection for
            copyright material, with article 17.4.4 requiring protection for 70 years
            after the death of the creator rather than the 50 years protection in
            Australia at present. The US extended copyright protection from 50 years to
            70 years in 1998 with the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act
            1998.

            [Further extended to 75 years]

            Looks like a government agency:

            http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/rp/2003-04/04rp14.htm#dur

            If I am incorrect in interpreting the above and this remains in the
            discussion stage, as some of the resources discussing this issue indicate,
            my apologies.

            US:

            Here is a link to a table providing a breakdown of what is covered and what
            is in Public Domain in the US:
            http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm


            I dislike being wrong, worse, just after 'being dismayed' by statements put
            in absolute terms concerning the Buddha's language, here I go making
            absolute statements about something where even when I have read so-called
            government documents concerning the subject I should have been aware of the
            possibility that the documents were wrong, etc. So starting my contribution
            to this discussion again I would say: "It is my belief..." I fall into this
            trap all the time...work'n on it down here boss!

            As I see it the point of determining what we are able to do and not to do
            here is focused on two uses:

            1. Buddhists doing DhammaVicaya for themselves. Here I believe we are now
            clear: An individual may copy for his own use any and every publication
            available. Further, as far as I can see [that is 'I believe'!] this
            collection could then be copied by that individual and given to another
            researcher, and so forth. One at a time, person to person.

            2. The need for publication of a Public Domain [Free] edition of the entire
            Cannon in as many versions as there are. This is the most effective antidote
            to the fracturing of the system into schools based on various Pali texts,
            various translations, various teachers. If it is all available, then anyone
            who takes the word of one [only] of these schools is doing so at his own
            risk with no one but himself to blame.


            Take Care;
            and may your life be long and happy!
            Michael Olds

            -----Original Message-----
            From: navako [mailto:navako@...]
            Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 7:57 AM
            To: Pali@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [Pali] Public domain in australia





            Re: the point raised by Michael Olds:

            > Australia is a member of the Bern Convention and therefore has
            > the same copyright laws as the US and England. That means copyright is
            based
            > on the date of death of an author or authors. And the term is 75 years not
            > 70...it was extended.

            That is not correct; in Australia, the law is 50 years from the date of the
            author's death. Fifty years --not 70 or 75. And this is being actively
            exploited by the following free e-text website, which quotes the law in
            question:
            http://gutenberg.net.au/

            As I understand the Bern Convention (and I am susceptible to error) it only
            involves one country recognising another's law, not the harmonization of the
            laws themselves. Thus, Mickey Mouse was invented in the U.S.A., and his
            american copyright (with duration, etc., determined by U.S. law) will be
            observed in the U.K., and other signatories to the treaty. HOWEVER, this
            does not mean that the British house of Parliament has no control over its
            own copyright laws; if they decide to change or abrogate their own laws,
            they may do so, but it will only apply to British inventions --obviously,
            they do not have sovereignty over America, nor vice-versa.

            The number of countries on the map that do not have any such laws is small,
            likely to grow: the AIDS epidemic is causing many to reconsider the right of
            "intellectual property" when weighed against the misery of millions.

            E.M.

            --
            A saying of the Buddha from http://metta.lk/
            Get your Dhamma Books from http://books.metta.lk/
            Should a person commit evil, he should not do it again and again; he should
            not find pleasure therein: painful is the accumulation of evil.
            Random Dhammapada Verse 117






            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net
            [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com
            Paaliga.na - a community for Pali students
            Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web
            only.
            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Bhante Sujato
            Hello once again, So it seems that 70 years is the limit, which of course includes most or all of the material we re interested in. While still intending to
            Message 5 of 24 , Nov 25, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello once again,

              So it seems that 70 years is the limit, which of course includes
              most or all of the material we're interested in.

              While still intending to actively seek permission, i wonder whether
              a registration system might escape the legal bind. The site would
              not be 'public', but interested scholars, etc., would register, and
              as part of that registration would state that they were only using
              the material for their own study. Perhaps there could be a built-in
              limit that each user could download the material once only. I don't
              know if this would help the situation or not.

              Bhante Sujato
            • Ong Yong Peng
              Dear Michael, Navako and friends, Michael is right about the Australian copyright laws, something that most people (in Australia, I mean) may not be aware.
              Message 6 of 24 , Nov 25, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Michael, Navako and friends,

                Michael is right about the Australian copyright laws, something that
                most people (in Australia, I mean) may not be aware. With effects
                from 1 January 2005, copyright will last until 70 years after the
                death of the creator. Please refer to page 4 of the following
                information sheet: http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G010.pdf


                metta,
                Yong Peng

                --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Michael Olds wrote:
                In February 2004 the Australian government announced that protection
                in Australia would be extended to life plus seventy years, as part of
                implementation of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.