bikram big1 The Money Pose

I think most of the comments above are missing the point; there are a few specific issues at hand here, which require a bit of background.

First, Bikram is trying to copyright a specific sequence of movements by the human body. It is questionable whether that can be done at all, similarly to whether it is allowable to copyright a sequence of genes. Can you copyright walking? How about a specific form of dance? (e.g. could Michael Jackson copyright the moonwalk and sue everyone who does it? Is it good for society if the legal system makes that possible, and if not, when don’t we change it?) Against him, you have the requirement of no prior art; I think it would be difficult for him to show that none of the postures he includes in his sequence have been done before, in the 3000 years in the history of yoga, especially given the widely acknowledged and documented existence of other styles of yoga (Iyengar, Ashtanga, etc.). In his favour, perhaps the specific ordering of the moves is original enough to be copyrightable, but that remains to be judged by a court of law. In this case, I would argue that any sufficiently different sequence of moves taught by another teach does not violate his copyright (e.g. it is not a derivative work).

Note that this does not mean that (with current law) he could not copyright “the materials” he produced, such as a book, or a video recording, of his approach.

Second, and much more importantly, the entire notion of “Intellectual Property” is a concept which is going to become more and more subject to debate. Copyrights have been introduced in order to stimulate the production of materials by insuring that the author would be able to get some benefit out of his/her work, in order to stimulate development in the same libertarian sense that property rights exist to support a thriving economy. Today, thanks to Disney and other large media companies, copyright law has been extended to a ridiculous time, way beyond what is needed, to more than a person’s lifetime, which is in my view outrageous and detrimental to the freedoms that artists should have. We need to keep in mind that copyright law is there for the benefit of society and may change in the future; in other words, if society benefits less from a strict application of intellectual property as “property rights”, and that this becomes demonstrable, the elected should change the law (law is there for the benefit of society as a whole). Unfortunately, lobbies and special interests make this difficult at the moment.

The term “intellectual property” is by itself misleading. An eloquent discussion on the topic of IP can be found in “The Comedy of the Commons”, a talk by Lawrence Lessig (link below). In it, he argues that resources can be categorized as being rivalrous or non-rivalrous (you can also find a discussion of this in any good old book on Economics). Rivalrous resources are such that if *I* enjoy it, *you* can’t enjoy it. This is the case of a house or a car, for example, only its owner can use it at any one time. “Ideas”, on the other hand, are non-rivalrous resources, and deserve special treatment. First, the resource (the idea, in this case, the “yoga sequence”) is *more* valuable to its users the more it is shared (the knowledge becomes more valuable as more people can teach it, and it can also be more easily evolved and improved, think “Linux” if you like). Second, the “idea” does not lose its value or appeal if it is shared by more than one person. *My* enjoyment of the Bikram sequence does not make *your* enjoyment of it any less than it would be if I could not enjoy it. Lessig also clearly shows how this distinction has been known back to the days of Jefferson and others. Here is a link to this enlightening talk:

itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail349.html

The problem is that current copyright law in most cases does not make this important distinction between rivalrous and non-rivalrous resources. We have become accustomed to thinking of media as “someone’s property”. But this is bound to change: due to the advances of technology (e.g. remix culture, P2P), there are several instances where information-as-property is raising questions as to the benefits for society of this legal framework. The rising reconnaisance of community networks and the amazing value they can sometimes provide (e.g., Wikipedia) is providing more and more evidence that in many instances, society benefits less from a strict application of property rights than it would with a freer model.

In my view, you cannot discuss this issue unless you take into account the nature of the legal system. Bikram may sue, but in my view he is just hurting the spread of the ideas provided by his system (however valuable they may be).

The Money Pose


More Yoga Links

Other yoga mat articles you might like;

Share and Enjoy:
  • services sprite The Money Pose
  • services sprite The Money Pose
  • services sprite The Money Pose
  • services sprite The Money Pose
  • services sprite The Money Pose
  • services sprite The Money Pose
  • services sprite The Money Pose
  • services sprite The Money Pose
  • services sprite The Money Pose
  • services sprite The Money Pose
  • services sprite The Money Pose
  • services sprite The Money Pose
  • services sprite The Money Pose


No related posts.

Tagged with: • • • • •

Filed under: Yoga Articles