Ong Teng Kee: "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?"

1. If copyright has expired then the writer and their heirs no longer
own rights to the work.
2. Actually giving away free ebooks while selling paper books is a
viable business model, the most famous case being Bruce Eckel's
"Thinking in C++" or "Thinking in Java."
http://www.mindview.net/Books/TICPP/ThinkingInCPP2e.html

Many people buy paper copies of books, if they're cheap enough,
because then you can bring the book to a park or a cafe or read it on
the subway, and using the computer in public places makes one look
like a geek, and you can make notes in a book, but if you have to
travel, a two ton library is hard to move around with.

But the question you ask raises some interesting questions, like how
much value do you have to add to a work to own it? That someone could
"own" the Tipitaka does seem a little horrible.

As many authors point out, the Tipitaka is actually not a unified body
of texts, there are many different recensions and copies that differ,
and sometimes historically, references to the Tipitaka are referring
only to the very small part of it, for instance in remote Laos. In
local monasteries a full set of Jatakas was probably more important
than a full Abhidharma set, I guess. I'm interested in these different
recensions and whether these differences can be used for dating. If
anyone knows about this, please share it.

Sincerely,
Jon Fernquest

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, 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@...> 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]
>