EDIT: The holder of the copyright in this case is the Buddhist Publication Society and not Access to Insight. But it would be a great benefit to the Dharma if Access would support the free flow of information and support innovators like Noah in their pursuit of an open source practice. For contact info look to the comments.
The conversation of spreading the Dharma has been a hot one amongst Buddhists on G+. Recently a Buddhist monk reformatted the translation of "Path of Purification" provided by Access to Insight free of charge.
Personally I love Access to Insight but dislike most of the formatting (it is not mobile friendly and you can't download much if any of the content. I need to be at a computer to access it). My love for the work they do can be attested to the fact that I link diectly to them from this blog. But with the reaction of another Buddhist monk reformatted and provided accurate attribution of the work and sharing it with others free of charge, I wonder at their intent. Perhaps "Some Access to Insight" or "Access to Insight [but only from our landing page]" would be a more accurate title. The resulting "cease and desist " for spreading the Dharma from the Buddhist Publication Society [BPS] is unfortunate.
This, in short, is bullshit. Noah did not violate copyright and provided what Access was not able to do. I see no malice in his actions of sharing (and properly attributing) the piece and translation to the proper contributors. I have always respected Access for what they do in spreading Dharma but the action they have taken here is not in line with what I _thought_ their mission was. The actions taken by BPS seem to proprietary scent-marking.
If you wish no reformatting of your work then state it in your copyright.
As I can see now, all mobile versions of the work have been removed from the page leaving only a pdf. Again, if Noah presented this work and translation as his own, the BPS would be completely in their right. If they were selling the book and not providing it free of charge and then Noah posted this, they would within their right to sue. However, a free-work, unchanged [except for formatting, in this case a big plus] and properly attributed does not call for this sort of action.
Here is the cease and desist letter:
Dear Venerable,
John Bullit of Access to Insight wrote to me that you have unlocked the Path of Purification and put it online in different formats. This file was only to be distributed by Access to Insight and the BPS. We put years of work into this. Please take it off line or we will take action against you.
Bhikkhu Nyanatusita
Editor
Buddhist Publication Society
Only Access is allowed to spread their free Dharma. If you attempt to spread it they will sue you. The idea of an online sangha is that we provide resources and make them accessable to others. That is what a practice group does. By limiting this access to insight "Access to Insight" limits our work as a sangha, as a group. By pissing on this tree and saying it is theirs we lose connection to the teachings. When the Buddha taught he did not slam a copyright on the work, he gave it to us to interpret and spread. Noah did a good deed by reformatting the work and like all good deads, was promptly punished.
Remember. The Dharma is only spread through the proper sources. Do not attempt to make it too accessible to all or you may call down the wrath of lawyers.
http://greatplainsbuddha.com/buddhist-publication-society-access-to-insigh
Comments
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2306&sid=7d7b5a95db8ae7132835b8026c01a766&start=20 I thought Noah had discussed it with PBS before he did it , but I guess he didn't. However, I don't think it is skillful for others to send his dhamma brother a message saying that he will take action. They are suppose to cooperate and help each other share the dhamma. There is no need to take action against another sangha member for sharing dhamma. They are only able to provide these dhamma texts in web formats, but nowadays many people are moving to the more portable mobile formats with the release of mobile devices and iPad. Noah is delivering it in the format that people find useful.
Perhaps they should cooperate , that way they can share the dhamma more effectively and making it available in various formats.
The holder of the copyright didn't just take some previously written books and scan them into a computer. He took the time to create his own unique translation of the work. Now, if the copyright holder had given permission for people to put his work in whatever format they want, then that's all they needed. But you can't simply ignore copyright.
Those who quickly scan in books and put them online as PDFs such as the Russian who scanned in the latest edition of the Path of Purification (1991) and put it online without having asked for permission to the BPS (Manapa gives the link) don't realize the huge amount of work it is to proofread, format and typeset a book, especially a large and complicated book like the Path of Purification with its many headings and styles, etc. They also don't realize the cost of printing and distributing the book and the cost of maintaining an non profit publishing organization such as the BPS.
And before you go on a rant about how the Dharma should be free, almost every intact ancient sutra exists because some rich patron commissioned copies to be made. The monks certainly charged for their services. In some cases, that was an important source of income. The scrolls were not given away free by the temple monks, and even royalty had to commission copies for their own libraries or were expected to return favors.
The rest is just the typical lawyer generated "cease and desist" letter. Nothing special.
I would suggest that the dhamma be distributed for free, but the problem that we have to face is how to maintain a publisher when they are not getting enough income through donation. I don't want to see them close down because they produce high quality material that I enjoy and I am sure that others are as well.
I don't think they should sue, but they should press to make sure nothing of theirs is hosted on sites they haven't given permission (which the laws would uphold action being taken to do).