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?
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.
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?