Copyright Issue - Readers Voices [1]

Response to article

Samyak Darshan

Dear Editors HN4U

Let soul secure Samyakthva. Knock thou, thou shall be heard, ask thou, thou shall be given.

Sub: Copyright on Jina Dharma
Ref: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 18:51:55 +0200

Quite a discomforting a question but yet it is understandable that a source from which it emanates, which is foreign in content and extent, cannot but make this approach.

Copyright, if rightly understood, takes birth only on which none other than the person who has brought out something new or original in the mundane world and applicable to patents of new invention or grants of government for exclusive enjoyment or right to own.

Even the omniscient, be it Arihant or Thrithankar or for that matter any Acharya or Muni or Avrad Samyakdhrishti has no right to claim ownership on nature of substance.

In the instant case where the content and extent of the subject is universally open and is nothing but the nature of substances that abounds this universe, the question of proprietorship or ownership does have no stake in this lectures or sermons or deliveries however much special or individualistic it might be as the source is from beginning less past, any disagreement?

That apart, claiming proprietorship or ownership by a renounced Muni or follower or Jina Dharma is obnoxious or disgraceful on a subject which is revealed by Thirthankar Baghavaan for following it and Acharyas and Munis or Pundits are only messengers of this holy message. By this service of propagation, the propagators upgrade themselves in the spiritual ladder than any one else.

So discussion on the copyright to speeches or lectures on Vtiraaga Jina Dharma is ill omened and ominous and definitely one is sinned against sinning. This is Vitraag Jina Saasan.

Besides, Anekant is a unique doctrine on the structural nature of all the 6 substances that constitutes this universe and who can claim ownership and claiming ownership on it is like claiming ownership for elements of nature.

Inclined to believe that none else than greed only is the cause for this kind of thinking in one.

The fact that there is conflicting and contradicting views on this issue from Dr Ramjee Singh erstwhile vice-chancellor of J.V.B.I:

Quote:
Dr. Ramjee Singh, then vice-chancellor of JVBI, said that the university is only the publisher of Acharyashree's writings; the author himself is the owner of the rights. When he gives permission, no more permission is needed. His words were, "Acharyashree said so, and this is all you should consider. His words are law here. Do not worry for copyright; this is a spiritual issue and not a material one. But even while regarding it under worldly aspects, the author's permission is the most important."

As against this the following is the stand of incumbent Sow Sudhamahi Regunathan:

"...The copyright rests with the University and anybody else's permission is of no relevance."

Understood that the institution is a university and has involed itself in the propagation of Vitraag Jina Dharma and of course no question on pricing the edition and collecting the same but speaking of a contract with Achrarya Shree is unimaginable.

May right understanding prevail to those who have professed in the sacred job of propagation of vitraag Jina Dharma.

If found to be distasteful, please forget and forgive.

Truth is Kevalin and the rest mine.

Know thyself and be thyself is the essence of the revelation of Kevalin.

Now for the participants,

Yours brotherly,
sreepalan

Source: Jain Groups: