Just about everything said so far here concerning copyright is not
factually correct.
Australia is a member of the Bern convention and as such has
copyright laws exactly similar to those in the US and England.
This means: Copyright is based on the date of death of the author(s)
of a work: 75 years (PTS is wrong; I don't know who Bhante Sujata
spoke to, but Dr. Pruitt and I went over this a year or so ago at
which time I did a pretty thorough researching of this issue). The
extra five was a later increase. Copyright does not have to be
claimed to be valid: simply creating a work copyrights it.
On the other hand: an individual may copy a work for his own use; and
may make individual (the idea is one at a time; one may not 'publish'
which means make available for public use) copies for distribution
(this is still being debated, per the MP3 download hubub, but prior
to that the notion was clear and in an unclear state one may act in
accordance with the most liberal interpretation).
------------------------
First off let me say that it is hard to imagine someone more
concerned and unhappy about the state of affairs concerning Buddhist
suttas and the copyright laws. However, the idea of acting carelessly
with regard to use of ungiven materials possibly protected by
copyright law is not good advise, whether to a layman or to a
bhikkhu. Kamma is kamma and it is one thing for a person to act in a
way that will bring unhappy results to himself, and it is another for
a person to give advice concerning such activity.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to meditation is the fact that
individuals have not prepared themselves ethically for the great
power of that practice. They reach a point where they see the
potential and they know they will abuse the power and just shut off.
That 'shut off' can last years and years, and even a lifetime.
One needs to start early!
Not well said.
-----------------------------
The matter of obtaining permission on old materials is not easy, and
sometimes ends in complete frustration. In the case of possibly
Public Domain documents it requires tracing back the death date of
the authors. With the copyright law as is, it does not matter that
the publisher has gone out of business, etc.
------------------------------
I have a different idea. I propose that somehow those of us who are
interested in comparative early Buddhism work our collective powers
in such a way as to raise the money needed to purchase the placing
into Public License of such materials.
Public License is not the same as Public Domain. It would mean that
The Pali Text Society, for example, would say that anyone who wanted
to do so could publish in digital form only (they could retain hard
copy rights, which is their bread and butter, and which would no
doubt profit from the increased distribution of their works via
digital means...ditital is great for looking something up, but not so
good for reading)...even for profit and the PTS could also do the
same. Same for Wisdom Pubs.
It is my belief that the rights could be purchased for no
astronomical sum. There must be some wealthy Buddhists out
there...no? Step up folks! Such a thing is needed in order to prevent
this whole system from fracturing into schools based on translators
or 'masters' or versions of the Pali...etc.
This is an opportunity we have in our Time; we must make an effort
that history does not reveal us to have missed the chance to extend
the life of the Dhamma because we never made the effort.