4 ms·

It doesn't matter one iota if someone claims it as their own, what matters is the benefit it brings. Do you think Patanjali (or whomever) would be protective of

It doesn't matter one iota if someone claims it as their own, what matters is the benefit it brings. Do you think Patanjali (or whomever) would be protective of their techniques and trademark it, patent it, and extract wealth for it? If they don't care then neither should anyone else, and perhaps this will help the techniques spread further, which I'm sure Patanjali et al again, would not be against.

kshacker 5y ago
It matters because the adopter may highlight only 3 out of 20 exercises and if you did not know the original source, you may never learn about the other 17. Not that you may need the others, but maybe if you were aware, you could explore further and use the variations that are already well known to slice and dice when one kind of breathing may make sense as compared to the other. Someone posted this link, so I am just repeating it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCmB8Tnvmw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCmB8Tnvmw. This is an hour long video focusing on different kinds of breathing as part of yoga. Do look at the top comment (as of now) as it provides time-links to 12 different kinds of breathing - bhastrika, kapal bhati, bahya pranayama, agnisaar kriya, anuloma viloma, bhramari, udgeeth, ujjai, shitali, sikkari. If someone develops 3 of the practices on their own, sure, they can describe only what they know. But if they sourced (and productized) 3 of them from a known source, they should refer to the main source, no? Kinda like open source - use but credit.
- brigandish 5y ago
  If I learn 3 exercises lifted from a course of 20 and start doing them, say dead lifts, pull ups and bent over rows, then because the Youtube channel I learnt them off doesn't mention the other course I'm not going to find out about it? Even if we were to wind that back to an earlier time period without all the benefits that search algorithms and the like bring, how would one who benefits from these techniques have such low interest that they'd never bother to find out anything more? I don't buy it. > Kinda like open source - use but credit. I'm all for giving credit. What I don't see is how that negatively impacts anyone in this situation - is Patanjali looking for credit? Does he need credit? Have they brought any of his techniques to more people? All of these questions are yet to be answered with anything approaching a negative impact.
rajup 5y ago
Meh. It's cultural appropriation which a sufficient number of people do care about, whether or not you like it.
- brigandish 5y ago
  From the first definition I found: > Cultural appropriation refers to the use of objects or elements of a non-dominant culture in a way that reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression and doesn't respect their original meaning or give credit to their source. It also includes the unauthorized use of parts of their culture (their dress, dance, etc.) without permission. I await Patanjali to serve papers that use of his intellectual property isn't allowed, apparently because it reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression. Maybe we'll hear about the Buddha's thoughts on copyright next and how derivative works are unauthorized. I refuse to disguise my disdain for this idea.
  - lenkite 5y ago
    It's not really cultural appropriation. It's simply false appropriation. Claiming another's works as your own fancy innovation. Claiming another's achievement as yours with no original attribution. This gets you banned in academics.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      I wasn't aware that either Hof or Nestor were academics so I'm not sure how it's relevant. As to the accusation that they've stolen an idea, someone should outline their accusation explicitly and then, far more importantly, explain why I should care. As I've pointed out, Patanjali wouldn't (or you can point out why he would, that would be interesting).
      - lenkite 5y ago
        > I wasn't aware that either Hof or Nestor were academics so I'm not sure how it's relevant. Classic Strawman Argument. Sad to see this on HN. I never claimed they were academics. Just that doing this in academics would get you banned. They are journalists. The century-old Society for Professional Journalists has a simple statement on plagiarism in its Code of Ethics: “Never plagiarize. Always attribute.” The outline has already been made clear by several posters in this thread.
throwaway_1928 5y ago
It absolutely matters. If Jeff Bezos says he has invented a new operating system and upon a little digging it is discovered that he just tweaked and renamed Linux, then he should and will be called out, and it will hurt his reputation. The problem is not with using knowledge to your benefit, that is why it is there. The problem is with plagiarism, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty.
- brigandish 5y ago
  Linux has a licence and relies on copyright law. If yogic breathing techniques did have a licence, the best you could hope for would be an MIT/BSD licence. I don't see how that advances your view.
  - throwaway_1928 5y ago
    You're missing the point. Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist. And to expect a sagacious progenitor of a millennia-old practice like Pranayama to have considered modern-day legal protections is absurd.
    - brigandish 5y ago
      > And to expect a sagacious progenitor of a millennia-old practice like Pranayama to have considered modern-day legal protections is absurd. Yes, reductio ad absurdum was the point. > Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist. To consider "modern-day legal protections is absurd" but forking an operating system is what? I'd go for special pleading. But to the point. Plagiarism is important in academic circles, it is not for breathing techniques, whether given by yogis or not. *Please show me why Patanjali would care, if he would not then why should anyone else?*
      - 5y ago
mellavora 5y ago
no, it does matter. Because once someone has appropriated it, they can block access to the original material. Theft of the commons is one of the enduring themes of capitalism. Could be soft-blocks, i.e. burying links to the original source so no-one finds it, reducing the number of teachers or the ability of those teachers to make a living, etc. Could be harder blocks; say the new company patents it. Files takedown notices against alternative presentations. Yes, you could fight them on "prior art", but now you have a legal fight as well as the difficulties of promoting the technique. And while I'll take your word for it that Patanjali et al don't mind one group spreading their techniques farther, are we so sure that Patanjali et al would feel about that one group claiming ownership and only allowing that group to access it? Perhaps Patanjali didn't try to trademark/patent (or the equivalent) their techniques because they were morally opposed to this?
- throwaway_1928 5y ago
  Please note that Patanjali [1] was a sage in ancient India and the author of the Yoga Sutras [2], among other works. And I find your comment on 'theft of the commons' insightful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patanjali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patanjali [2] https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm
- brigandish 5y ago
  That's a slippery slope argument, which may not be fallacious, not all are. If we accept that Hof and Nestor have "appropriated" these techniques then the next question would be how has that led to the blocks you've outlined? When will I lose access to the authentic teachings? > are we so sure that Patanjali et al would feel about that one group claiming ownership and only allowing that group to access it? I reckon he'd be against it as Patanjali et al seem more focused on sharing the knowledge in order to benefit others but who's to know. > Perhaps Patanjali didn't try to trademark/patent (or the equivalent) their techniques because they were morally opposed to this? I think this point has been covered but I'll add that I've not noticed any form of communism in the system of yoga Patanjali systematised.

kshacker 5y ago

It matters because the adopter may highlight only 3 out of 20 exercises and if you did not know the original source, you may never learn about the other 17. Not that you may need the others, but maybe if you were aware, you could explore further and use the variations that are already well known to slice and dice when one kind of breathing may make sense as compared to the other. Someone posted this link, so I am just repeating it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCmB8Tnvmw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCmB8Tnvmw. This is an hour long video focusing on different kinds of breathing as part of yoga. Do look at the top comment (as of now) as it provides time-links to 12 different kinds of breathing - bhastrika, kapal bhati, bahya pranayama, agnisaar kriya, anuloma viloma, bhramari, udgeeth, ujjai, shitali, sikkari. If someone develops 3 of the practices on their own, sure, they can describe only what they know. But if they sourced (and productized) 3 of them from a known source, they should refer to the main source, no? Kinda like open source - use but credit.

brigandish 5y ago
If I learn 3 exercises lifted from a course of 20 and start doing them, say dead lifts, pull ups and bent over rows, then because the Youtube channel I learnt them off doesn't mention the other course I'm not going to find out about it? Even if we were to wind that back to an earlier time period without all the benefits that search algorithms and the like bring, how would one who benefits from these techniques have such low interest that they'd never bother to find out anything more? I don't buy it. > Kinda like open source - use but credit. I'm all for giving credit. What I don't see is how that negatively impacts anyone in this situation - is Patanjali looking for credit? Does he need credit? Have they brought any of his techniques to more people? All of these questions are yet to be answered with anything approaching a negative impact.

rajup 5y ago

Meh. It's cultural appropriation which a sufficient number of people do care about, whether or not you like it.

brigandish 5y ago
From the first definition I found: > Cultural appropriation refers to the use of objects or elements of a non-dominant culture in a way that reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression and doesn't respect their original meaning or give credit to their source. It also includes the unauthorized use of parts of their culture (their dress, dance, etc.) without permission. I await Patanjali to serve papers that use of his intellectual property isn't allowed, apparently because it reinforces stereotypes or contributes to oppression. Maybe we'll hear about the Buddha's thoughts on copyright next and how derivative works are unauthorized. I refuse to disguise my disdain for this idea.
- lenkite 5y ago
  It's not really cultural appropriation. It's simply false appropriation. Claiming another's works as your own fancy innovation. Claiming another's achievement as yours with no original attribution. This gets you banned in academics.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    I wasn't aware that either Hof or Nestor were academics so I'm not sure how it's relevant. As to the accusation that they've stolen an idea, someone should outline their accusation explicitly and then, far more importantly, explain why I should care. As I've pointed out, Patanjali wouldn't (or you can point out why he would, that would be interesting).
    - lenkite 5y ago
      > I wasn't aware that either Hof or Nestor were academics so I'm not sure how it's relevant. Classic Strawman Argument. Sad to see this on HN. I never claimed they were academics. Just that doing this in academics would get you banned. They are journalists. The century-old Society for Professional Journalists has a simple statement on plagiarism in its Code of Ethics: “Never plagiarize. Always attribute.” The outline has already been made clear by several posters in this thread.

throwaway_1928 5y ago

It absolutely matters. If Jeff Bezos says he has invented a new operating system and upon a little digging it is discovered that he just tweaked and renamed Linux, then he should and will be called out, and it will hurt his reputation. The problem is not with using knowledge to your benefit, that is why it is there. The problem is with plagiarism, misrepresentation and intellectual dishonesty.

brigandish 5y ago
Linux has a licence and relies on copyright law. If yogic breathing techniques did have a licence, the best you could hope for would be an MIT/BSD licence. I don't see how that advances your view.
- throwaway_1928 5y ago
  You're missing the point. Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist. And to expect a sagacious progenitor of a millennia-old practice like Pranayama to have considered modern-day legal protections is absurd.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > And to expect a sagacious progenitor of a millennia-old practice like Pranayama to have considered modern-day legal protections is absurd. Yes, reductio ad absurdum was the point. > Even if Linux were not subject to a license, a person claiming to have invented an operating system who in reality simply forked Linux without giving appropriate credit would be considered a plagiarist. To consider "modern-day legal protections is absurd" but forking an operating system is what? I'd go for special pleading. But to the point. Plagiarism is important in academic circles, it is not for breathing techniques, whether given by yogis or not. *Please show me why Patanjali would care, if he would not then why should anyone else?*
    - 5y ago

mellavora 5y ago

no, it does matter. Because once someone has appropriated it, they can block access to the original material. Theft of the commons is one of the enduring themes of capitalism. Could be soft-blocks, i.e. burying links to the original source so no-one finds it, reducing the number of teachers or the ability of those teachers to make a living, etc. Could be harder blocks; say the new company patents it. Files takedown notices against alternative presentations. Yes, you could fight them on "prior art", but now you have a legal fight as well as the difficulties of promoting the technique. And while I'll take your word for it that Patanjali et al don't mind one group spreading their techniques farther, are we so sure that Patanjali et al would feel about that one group claiming ownership and only allowing that group to access it? Perhaps Patanjali didn't try to trademark/patent (or the equivalent) their techniques because they were morally opposed to this?

throwaway_1928 5y ago
Please note that Patanjali [1] was a sage in ancient India and the author of the Yoga Sutras [2], among other works. And I find your comment on 'theft of the commons' insightful. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patanjali https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patanjali [2] https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/yogasutr.htm
brigandish 5y ago
That's a slippery slope argument, which may not be fallacious, not all are. If we accept that Hof and Nestor have "appropriated" these techniques then the next question would be how has that led to the blocks you've outlined? When will I lose access to the authentic teachings? > are we so sure that Patanjali et al would feel about that one group claiming ownership and only allowing that group to access it? I reckon he'd be against it as Patanjali et al seem more focused on sharing the knowledge in order to benefit others but who's to know. > Perhaps Patanjali didn't try to trademark/patent (or the equivalent) their techniques because they were morally opposed to this? I think this point has been covered but I'll add that I've not noticed any form of communism in the system of yoga Patanjali systematised.