Copyright

[LauraJ]

Its a mistake to assume that the only cost of publication is the printing. Having worked for one book publisher, the cost of printing as a total of all production costs was less than 10 percent.
Personally, i think its very important to support publishers of Dhamma Books by buying their publications when possible. By purchasing Dhamma Books one is indirectly funding important translation projects that will not only benefit us right now, but many others well into the futue.
And if one can't afford to purchase this or that Dhamma Book and it is not available online, then one can borrow (even if via inter-library loan) via the public library.

What Ben said ^^

[Cittasanto]

Hi Chula,
there are two parts of that rule and one part of the analysis which make the argument against it being a theft pointless.

Pr 2
Should any bhikkhu, in what is reckoned a theft, take what is not
given from an inhabited area or from the wilderness — just as when,
in the taking of what is not given,

kings arresting the criminal would
flog, imprison, or banish him, saying, "You are a robber, you are a
fool, you are benighted, you are a thief"

— a bhikkhu in the same way
taking what is not given also is defeated and no longer in affiliation.

The international standards for copyright advocated by UNESCO state that infringement of copyright is tantamount to theft.

how it is actually treated in court to determine whether it is or isn't an infringement is besides the point, because they are not charged with anything until proven guilty, and because it is deemed as tantamount (the same as) to theft if they were proven guilty of an infringement.

[Chula]

Hey Manapa,

Yea I agree you do have a point. I guess it could be argued that it's still a Pārājikā, but since there's no actual "taking of what is not given" (only copying - not depriving one of his possessions), I think the 2nd precept isn't broken. Of course this is just my own conjecture, but posting a Dhamma book online being a violation of the second precept just does not make sense to me especially considering the poster is not pursuing monetary benefits.

[Cittasanto]

hi
because that rule needs reinterpreting for modern times in this regard it, it does for the reasons I pointed out and doesn't for other aspects of the rule, such as the inhabited area!
but it would still fall under the precept with interpretation for copyright simply because the taking of something belonging to another even if they don't know, and they don't find out, would still be theft, plus these have a conditional usage, even if a book (in this case) belonged to you or me, the content of the book doesn't. we are solely bying the right to use the book not the content, and even free distribution books can have conditions of use, such as thanissaros books and books from Amaravati have different conditions, thanissaros conditions are basically do what you like no need to ask permission so long as you don't sell in any way, and Amaravati has the condition of asking permission to quote for any reason above and beyond the standard allowable amount, but reproducing the books for free distribution is granted without permission.
but with Dhammic Books we are buying the Book and the work that goes into the book itself not the Dhamma. and in a way if you think about it you can not buy Dhamma.
anyway having to go out now so won't get another immediate(ish) reply back in about 8 hours

[Chula]

Just thinking in terms of the second precept, I think if we redefine what it means whenever the laws of the world changes, then when you break it becomes very relative. For example, in Sri Lanka the concept of copyright is rarely considered or adhered to - especially when it comes to publishing on the Internet. So does that mean it's not breaking the precept to publish a Sri Lankan work online? And when the laws become stringent and enforced does it all of a sudden become a violation of the precept?

I think if we go by what the world considers theft then we will hard time defining what the five precepts entail - especially in this Internet age where immediate replicability makes these matters more complicated. I would stick to looking at in terms of one's intent at the end of the day...

[mikenz66]

Hi Chula,

I really don't see the problem, and I feel that these legalistic discussions about precepts completely miss the point. These precepts are just a very minimal level of sila, and it seems clear to me that we should aim to exceed them (e.g. not just not kill, but also mimize harm to other beings).

A key reason for keeping to the precepts is to make us "blameless", so that if anyone accuses us of wrongdoing we are confident that is it not the case. Not that I can always practise this effectively, but it's clear that it leads to a much greater sense of calm when I do.

For example, to pick on a simpler case, I have not drunk alcohol for about three years. So when I encounter a breath-test roadblock I have absolutely no feelings of guilt arising (though I sometimes feel a minor annoyance that it may make me late...). If I had had even one or two of drinks I know I'd be wondering about what might come up on the test. I know I'd be much less calm.

Similarly, if I've broken any law or rule of my employer, etc, it leads to agitation. Will the IRD find out about some payment that I didn't write on my return, etc?

The precepts are voluntary. If you try to keep them you'll feel better and so you'll progress better. If you are doing something that you think might violate a precept ask yourself if you really need to do it, or whether you'd feel better if you didn't.

Metta
Mike

[Chula]

Hi Mike,

Exceeding the precept by minimizing harm to other beings might be taken as a call to vegetarianism for example. While it is commendable (I am one myself), it's clear from the multiple examples of eating meat in the suttas that the Buddha wasn't trying to "exceed" the precepts. An person who has done the training just has unshakeable sīla - not a broad application of it in a social context. That's why I think it's important to clarify what constitutes the precepts.

Also to clarify, I'm in no way condoning posting any copyrighted material online - this is merely questioning with regards to the Dhamma (Tipitaka and core translations) which we have access due to people of the past freely handing it down in the first place.

Metta,
Chula

I really don't see the problem, and I feel that these legalistic discussions about precepts completely miss the point. These precepts are just a very minimal level of sila, and it seems clear to me that we should aim to exceed them (e.g. not just not kill, but also mimize harm to other beings).

[mikenz66]

Hi Chula,

Exceeding the precept by minimizing harm to other beings might be taken as a call to vegetarianism for example. While it is commendable (I am one myself), it's clear from the multiple examples of eating meat in the suttas that the Buddha wasn't trying to "exceed" the precepts. An person who has done the training just has unshakeable sīla - not a broad application of it in a social context.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of meat eating at all...

That's why I think it's important to clarify what constitutes the precepts.

Perhaps, but as I see it the precepts are just a bare minimum to keep us from doing too much bad kamma. I therefore see little value in going through legalistic machinations about them. If you think something is right, go ahead. If not, don't. Whether or not I, or "the forum" approves is not relevant.

Mike

[suanck]

The precepts are voluntary. If you try to keep them you'll feel better and so you'll progress better. If you are doing something that you think might violate a precept ask yourself if you really need to do it, or whether you'd feel better if you didn't.

Well said. Sadhu!

Suan

[Cittasanto]

hi All,
Interesting turn while I was out!

I had thought my post may of gotten some rougher objection to it as it was half rushed, so I wasn't sure if I was clear, or not?
but looks like I was clear enough

redefine may be a poor word, as would be my choice earlier, maybe a better one would be 'understand the new model which would potentially require application,' would be a better, but certainly longer, way??

I see the vinaya as a sort of Vibhanga to the precepts (in some cases), and certainly some can be applicable to the five, eight, or 10, and unfortunately the legalistic take has its uses while discussing this, and any new "interpretations" or 'applicaions based on modern methods needs to be looked at to some degree so we either collectively or individually see the 'dangers' which may not be so obvious to some.

[Alex123]

Hi Mikenz66,

A key reason for keeping to the precepts is to make us "blameless", so that if anyone accuses us of wrongdoing we are confident that is it not the case.

In real life, sometimes situations are far more complex. A soldier must obey orders and kill the other person ("the enemy"). This is fully legal and blameless in western society. Yet it is not according to Dhamma. So worldly conventions are not always inline with the Dhamma. What is legal in one country, can be illegal in another. Which to trust?

[mikenz66]

Which to trust?

Whether it makes you feel blamable.


Mike

[Cittasanto]

suddhi asuddhi paccattaṃ - the purity or impurity of ones actions is known by oneself Ajahn Chah - Suffering On The Road. The Collected Teachings of Ajahn Chah Volume 3 Talks on Renunciation pp193

this is an interesting article
http://sasanarakkha.org/articles/labels/vinaya.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ajahn Varado has also done interesting work on the Parajika rules which I will share when I have found the site.

EDIT - It is Varado.org but it seams down at the moment.

[Alex123]

Which to trust?

Whether it makes you feel blamable.


Mike

And if it does not make one feel blamable?

[mikenz66]

Which to trust?

Whether it makes you feel blamable.

And if it does not?

Then you won't feel disturbed or agitated if you are blamed.


Mike