Apparently, the Dhammakaya group in Thailand (reputed to be one of the
wealthiest
groups that even takes over agricultural land from the poor farmers) has
digitalized
the whole of the PTS translations with their permission. However, I am told
that
although the PTS regrets such an action, they do not take legal action.

In Malaysia where I used to word, there is a popular tendency with the Sri
Lankan
foreign missionaries to makes copies of local works and simply put their
temple
name on it (promote their reputation). Understandably, without proper role
models or
teachings, the local Buddhists too have a habit of simply using copyrighted
materials
without due credit, or sometimes even putting their own name to it.

While it is true that Dharma is uncopyrightable, the person's work can be.
The idea
of citing sources and giving due credit is to so that readers and students
know whose
arguments it is, and helps in further discussion.

Piya Tan

On Feb 7, 2008 7:49 AM, Ong Teng Kee <ongtkee@...> wrote:

> Yes,some of the books put online by them are over a century ,but they do
> not mention that PTS did a reprinted copy of the books like the journals and
> Vinayapitaka.Who the hell want to spend the money to buy VIsuddhimagga if
> it is already online.What about the journals?
>
> Jon Fernquest <bayinnaung@... <bayinnaung%40yahoo.com>> wrote: Ong
> Teng Kee wrote: "PTS didn't give them any permission to put their
>
> texts online.I already informed them but still no action until now"
>
> I think you are needlessly frightening people.
> It is not even clear what you are referring to.
>
> You must be referring to the roman script Pali at the Chaṭṭha
> Saṅgāyana site, because the Dhammapada Commentary English
> translation
> was published by Harvard University Press and Archive.org does a
> copyright check on all its works.
>
> If the Pali at the Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyana site is in
> fact based on the 6th
> Buddhist Council in Yangon, as the name implies, how could anyone have
> a copyright over it?
>
> If I edited a part of the Tipitaka and republished it (after being
> published for over 2000 years) can I really assert copyright over that
> edited version of the Tipitaka? Also why would any practicing Buddhist
> assert copyright over it?
>
> I think we can safely assume that we are not committing an act of
> theft when reading Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyana, although it
> would be interesting
> to hear from people who have a different opinion about this, if they
> exist.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jon Fernquest
>
>
> >
> > "Dmytro O. Ivakhnenko" <aavuso@...> wrote:
> Dear Jon,
> >
> > > archive.org has all three volumes of Burlingame's translation of the
> > > Dhammapada commentary into English (not obvious title "Buddhist
> > > Legends):
> > >
> > > http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=buddhist%20legends
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > > Does anyone know if the Pali of this work is online?
> >
> > At:
> > http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/cscd/s0502a.att1.xml
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Dmytro
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
> boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
The Minding Centre
Blk 644 Bukit Batok Central #01-68 (2nd flr)
Singapore 650644
Website: dharmafarer.googlepages.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]