Slashdot Mirror
EFF Says Burning Man Usurps Digital Rights
Hugh Pickens writes "In a few weeks, tens of thousands of creative people will make their yearly pilgrimage to Nevada's Black Rock desert for Burning Man, an annual art event and temporary community celebrating radical self expression, self-reliance, creativity and freedom, but EFF reports that the event's Terms and Conditions include 'a remarkable bit of legal sleight-of-hand.' As soon as 'any third party displays or disseminates' your photos or videos in a manner that the Burning Man Organization (BMO) doesn't like, those photos or videos become the property of the BMO. BMO's Terms and Conditions also limits your own rights to use your own photos and videos on any public websites obliging you to take down any photos to which BMO objects, for any reason; and forbidding you from allowing anyone else to reuse your photos. This 'we automatically own all your stuff' magic appears to be creative lawyering intended to allow the BMO to use the streamlined 'notice and takedown' process enshrined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to quickly remove photos from the Internet giving BMO the power of fast and easy online censorship. 'Burning Man strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit,' writes Corynne McSherry. 'Unfortunately, the fine print on the tickets doesn't live up to that aspiration.'"
just shot themselves in the foot, what better advertising is there than participants showing what a great time they had at the event...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Burning Man started out as an absolute do-whatever-you-want-just-don't-kill-anyone free-for-all.
Like most liberal fantasies, it rapidly devolved into an authoritarian group usurping natural ownership and dictating rules galore.
"We automatically own all your stuff" isn't the only BMO rule totally contrary to the events original spirit.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
My assumption is that they ask/force people to take down images and videos that show extremely reckless illegal activity so as to keep the Powers-That-Be from having evidence to get the event shut down.
...then that's okay, my TOS on my site says that I own everything they produce. If they didn't want to accept it, they shouldn't have sold me a ticket. If they didn't read it, tough luck, that's no excuse.
....make the event so boring that no one will ever want to go to it again. And everyone should wear face masks with out faces on them, or hold up signs saying, you don't have a right to use my face for free advertising.
Or the mask can be pictures or butts... or that horrible pic of that man spreading his cheeks.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Somebody needs to call in Cartman - he'll straighten those hippies out!
Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
... just pay me for the photos I'm taking for you too, and you can have them!
"Burning Man strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit" - Corynne McSherry.
"Communism strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit" - Joe Stalin
"Facism strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit" - Benito Mussolini
Free Martian Whores!
What about free speech, I say fuck em
Isn't Burning Man(TM) where CPAs and other business monkeys go to pretend they're cool for a while.
The same people run the event.
Put up fake child porn or something else considered illegal. They will own them, not you.
And here I thought it was about getting nude in the desert!
Protest by setting fire to something. People will notice then.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
All these years I hearing about this never heard of tickets, that is nuts!!
IANAL, but....
In the Nevada desert? State owned property? Then I doubt they have a legal leg to stand on. However, if it's on private property, then they can probably stipulate what gets done with the photos. Stupid? Yes. Legal? Maybe.
Photographers, print this out and carry it with you at all times: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm. It was written by lawyers who do actually know a thing or two about photography and the law.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I stopped going to burning man years ago when it became a commercialized corporate mess.
Burning man today is not what it was 10 years ago.
today it's a brand to be protected, an event to sponsor.
Bleh.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
BY PURCHASING TICKETS ONLINE, VIA PHONE OR MAIL ORDER FROM BURNING MAN, I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND ITS TERMS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE GIVEN UP SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, AND I DO SO KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT ANY INDUCEMENT OR DURESS.
How do you know you've agreed to the waiver if you haven't read the waiver? Surely if you buy tickets over the phone, (unless they explicitly ask you whether you agree to the waiver) neither party can reasonably expect that you've read the waiver.
And that's assuming this clause is even valid, which I think seems unlikely.
Just start your own Burning Man.
Burning Man isn't a sacred rite. It's a bunch of people who get together and decide to be goofs for a week. Nothing is stopping you from doing the same. I might even join you.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
is less about rewarding creators and more about corporate control of OUR culture
at this point, i am leaning towards "fuck you" to creators, as long as our legal system has an inability to differentiate between corporate distribution channels and actual creators
creators: i'm sorry your grandchildren can't live off your one hit wonder. i'm sorry you won't be a billionaire for "inventing" shamwow. but you can still get a great job as a respected engineer and you can still get great money from touring. sorry, thems the breaks: get to work like the rest of us dumb shlubs
the original idea that guided the creation of the notion of intellectual property: rewarding creators, has been completely corrupted as a way to reward distributors. the legal goon squads make sure actual creators get less $, and consumers fork over more $. in a preinternet world, distributors were necessary, but this is a scenario the internet has destroyed. now distributors are just unnecessary parasites. its called disruptive technology for a reason. it has disrupted the technological grounds upon which the rewarding of distributors works. all that remains is pushing the stake into the vampire's heart
intellectual property has betrayed its philosophical underpinnings, and we, the people, who are supposed to be the ones in charge, now have a duty to do our best to ignore, and/ or detroy intellectual property, since the legal system, which is supposed to serve us, serves corporate masters beholden to nothing but more cash for less reason
intellectual property law is still effective across the land because of legal goon squads, but philosophically, it is defunct, and you should ignore it... at the peril of the legal goon squads, but not at the peril of your conscience. it is at the peril of your conscience that you continue to believe in intellectual property
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Whilst there are probably a dozen practical and legal reasons why this probably isn't enforceable, the one that immediately springs to my mind is that Burning Man is taking place in a Black Rock Desert, which is government-owned and criss-crossed with historic trails open to the public. There are likely to be large areas of Burning Man which are visible from these public areas, and thus, according to Kantor's Legal Rights of Photographers (PDF), open to photographer to take photographs from as they see fit, without restrictions.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Sorry, BMO. Any pictures that I take are mine. You can get stuffed if you don't like them.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
They wouldn't want those DMCA powers in order to take down pictures of people engaged in activities like ... drug taking. A friend who went to a Burning Man festival said that most people he encountered there seemed to be whacked out on Ecstacy.
I've been using this since 1986. Do I get to sue BMO?
--
BMO
Same as with any organised event, I've been along to and involved with the Edinburgh Beltane since 1991 (it started in '88) and people have always said the same thing "it's not what it used to be". Problem with organised events is that it boils down to somebody taking the rap if things go wrong so rules get put into place so no organiser gets personally sued when an idiot throws petrol on a fire (with the usual consequences), or deals have to be struck with the authorities to let some shape of event go on (and the organisers have to work out what point to negotiate to).
Can't speak about photographic rights as Beltane Fire Festival lets anybody film anything - but as a just about surviving community festival that doesn't like corporate branding its pretty galling when all the volunteers work themselves to the bone for months to do a great show then a major TV company or magazine shoots loads of film, publishes the images, makes profit, and gives nothing back to the organisation itself. Dealing with the media - or working out who is shooting film for their personal pleasure and who is shooting to make big profits is very difficult.
My favourite moment was when a National Geographic photographer wanted us to stop part of the show so he could get a good shot on the grounds that he was from the National Geographic.
Step 1: Buy tickets by phone
Step 2: Take pictures they don't like
Step 2a: Publish them
Step 3: When they complain, bring up 17 USC 204a: "transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. "
(once again, no profit)
...because my impression was that Burning Man had become a parody of itself (and, by extension, the whole Mondo 2000 era) years ago. Like, Turn-of-the-Century years ago. These aren't "creative people" making an annual pilgrimage, these are Marketing Execs and guys who view the pre-bubble dot-com era the way today's high school pop music fans view 80's synth-pop bands and narrow ties.
"Burning Man" ?!? Christ, why does that even get any ink here?
Go back about a century and "conservatives" were setting up the national park system and "liberals" were all for industrialization and free enterprise.
It used to be this great piece of hippy anarchy. When are people going to realize that lawyers and litigious thinking(it's not all on the Lawyers) are parasitic. They never contribute to anything they only destroy.
Which is more than you can say about most "liberals" who pretend to be for freedom but are actually nothing more than intellectual facist wolves dressed up as fluffy hippy sheep. Its the deception and lies that sticks in the throat more with the intentions of supposed "liberals".
Not really new, is this ? I remember JWZ blogging about this years ago. See http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/burningman.html
What a depressingly stupid machine.
There is a good reason for it. Burning Man permits all sorts of non-standard behavior, including nudity. For people to feel comfortable in such an environment, photography has to be limited. For the most part this is not a problem -- real Burners ask before taking a person's picture. But there is a bad element that goes to Burning Man; the tourists. They generally arrive on Thursday or Friday, camera in hand, and start snapping pictures.
Those pictures do two bad things: They inhibit people from acting freely, and they present the wrong image of Burning Man. It is not about nudity, but the daffy ducks with their cameras would make it look like it is; as they walk right past some of the most inspiring art in the world to snap a picture of a person who chose not to wear clothes that day. Keeping those pictures -- which misrepresent the event and are widely reviled by Burners -- off the Internet is a good thing.
I am a hard-core supporter of the EFF, but this time they are wrong to judge. Burning Man is a community with certain standards. Making sure Black Rock City remains free -- in both the legal and the psychological sense -- is one of them. Much like the GPL or anti-trust laws, sometimes freedom is best served by restricting behavior that inhibits freedom.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
There's a little thing they used to do way back when, the people didn't like what was going on or how things were handled.
It's called "BOYCOTT"
Don't like their rules, don't go, missing out on all the revenue from the event this year would surely prevent this in future events.
A place in my area does something like Burning Man on a much smaller scale every year, and they too use a policy like this. I happen to know the organizers of the event in my area and I asked them about this sort of policy. It's not what it seems. The reason for the seemingly underhanded legalize has to do with people using drugs at the event.
Basically, if someone takes pictures which could "let the word out" this enables the organizers to take down those pictures and control the information, so the cops aren't up everyone's ass every year. This has worked for the last five years, and as a result it's fine and encouraged to smoke pot and drop acid all weekend long, even in front of event security (they do it too). I don't know if this is the same reason Burning Man does this, but it would make a LOT of sense.
17. I agree to these terms on behalf of any person to whom I deliver any of the tickets I purchase, and I shall notify any such person of these terms when I deliver a ticket to them.
IANAL, but it seems if you obtain your ticket from a third party, you cannot be bound by the agreement which that party entered into when they purchased the ticket. So just make sure you are not on record with BMO as a direct ticket purchaser and you can take and publish all the photos you desire because you can't be bound by a third party agreement.
Burning Man implements a Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ):
One of the essential supports for a TAZ is to ensure participants that their temporary experience - which can greatly differ from normal life - be temporary, rather than permanent. People do all sorts of crazy stuff at Burning Man. That self-expression is easier because they know that photographs and videos of their experience will be handled in a particular manner - for example, not taken and turned into a motion picture.
If you don't agree with BMO's photo and video terms, then you don't understand the concept of a TAZ.
There are many BM participants that plainly don't want the world to see them nude
Then they should not undress on federal land.
That's their right
What, you think someone parading around naked in the desert has a right to privacy? That is simply incorrect.
People have more freedom at BM than the 'default world'
You make "Burning Man" sound like a Ren Faire for wannabe anarchists. And maybe that's true, but if the Ren Faire and Burning Man are held on public land, I've got the same right to take a picture of you wearing elf ears and waving around a plastic sword as I do of you dancing naked in your warpaint. Ridiculous is as ridiculous does, and if you want to keep it secret, keep it indoors.
A different way of interpreting the fine print is "If you want to take photos, you're not allowed to sell/make money off of them." That is very much the point of the fine print. Would people be as comfortable with their radical self expression if they expected everything they did to end up on youtube? That type of constant concern of basically peer survelance is a bigger threat to self expression than a couple of lines of legal jargon that wont apply to 99.9% of participants who just want to enjoy the event. And the other 0.1% that want to make a buck off of everyone else's creativity doesn't belong at BM to begin with.
All your photos are belong to us
i thought columbia house went the way of my simple minds cassette tape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_House
little did i know its still alive and kicking
http://www.columbiahouse.com/
well, i guess some people like getting their mail by pack mule rather than truck too
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Nuclear weapons strive to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit" - Rob Oppenheimer
"Gravity strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit" - Zack Newton
"Slashdot strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit" - Mandy Taco
"Our individuality, creativity and free spirit strive to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit" - J-Dog_666
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Hippies getting pwned again.
ok: creators get fame and esteem and girl's panties tossed on stage. this is how they make cash from now on: touring. other ancillary services like advertising, personally signed media, etc.: lots of ways to make a comfortable living as an artist
meanwhile, all recorded music is nothing but free advertising for the band itself. not that my hippie maoist communist socialist thinking is that revolutionary. its the same business model you know as "radio airplay". truly i am a wacky obamacare secret communist muslim. and other such moronic epithets WITHOUT FUCKING UNDERSTANDING WHAT I AM ACTUALLY SAYING. pffffft
welcome to the life of sculptors and dancers. are they any less artists because they don't have jay z's money? you make music because you love it, not because you want $, right?
well even if that's not true, what i am describing is the model we are moving to. you ask me to find another way. my "other way" requires no finding, requires no enforcement, its just evolving naturally. it just happens. so it is beholden to you to find another way, as my way is the way IT IS BECOMING EFFORTLESSLY. deal with it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
so confiscate cameras. duh. end of problem
don't pull this digital rights nonsense. your scenario is real, but a complete red herring to the issue at hand here
the punishment we are discussing here is the wrong punishment for the crime in question
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
That's one of the things I've always found deeply troubling about some of people on the Left: They're all about Free Speech, until the moment you disagree with them on something.
Regards;
"Most"? No.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
I think the text is a bit litigious, but my bet is that it is there to help protect the events participants more that BMO itself. Burning Man has had problems in the past with amateur pornographers going to the event to film people naked and then selling the tapes/photos online for profit. This is absolutely against the spirit of the festival, which is still a not for profit event. The money earned off ticket sales just goes right back into funding next years event and to the salaries of a staff of year-round employees. I've seen and posted thousands of pic online and from past events and have never heard of anyone getting a cease and desist letter. As long as you are not trying to sell naked pics, I think you'll be fine.
nothing makes sense anymore like it did back in 1830
if you run around nude in front of bunch of people with cameras, some of those pictures might wind up in places you'd rather they not. don't like that? then don't get nude. otherwise, accept it may happen. but trying to control digital rights is not going to solve the problem, got it?
because its really odd to speak of the freedom and individuality of a burning man festival... but when you get nude, all images of your body are now under corporate control. wtf?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I attended Burning Man in SL and if you created anything artistic on your own or did anything outside their social norm they would eject/ban you from the sim. You had to be pre-approved by the elite to display your work, and you had to only display what was considered status quo there. For example, they would hand out a giant goodie box that contained silly hats, t-shirts, a big ridable flying slug creature, unicycle, and other miscellaneous nonsense, and you were expected to put on the things you liked. However, if you put something on they didn't agree with or was higher than 10 feet they would get fascist. For example, I had built a small personal spacecraft no bigger than the slug and I was told to remove it because it wasn't an approved item. I also wore a sculpt I made that made me look like a mountain and sat in one spot very still until someone realized I was wearing a prim and wasn't actually a mountain and they reported me and I got warned. Personally, I thought it was very independant-thinking, creative and clever compared to the other morons swirling the fire batons, wearing the t-shirts and riding the toys that came from the goodie box. I then argued with them that they weren't allowing me to be creative and they said no arguing is allowed and banned me. LOL, so much for freedom. The best word to describe the experience I can come up with is, conformity.
There's a place.
A wonderous place.
Where Like minded individuals gather out on the playa.
They subscribe to a whole new set of ideas.
They represent a new found society Where creativity flows
And parameters are as wide as the open terrain.
That place. That wonderous place is called.....
Buuurningman!
Hey are you going to burning man bury your toes in the desert sand.
Ain't no man for to tell you how to be..
Come on down with me to burning man. I got a recipe for cosmic flan.
Strip off your clothes and set your aura free.
There's a place I know called Black Rock City where we're about to get down to the nitty gritty.
We're all children of the stars above searching for answers and feasting on... Love!
Hey are ya going to burning man? I got a big ol' slab of veggie ham.
Come to camp Disorient and bring some soy cheese.
Free thinking people at burning man, Amazing Larry's got the master plan.
It's all about just letting myself be me. There's a gal I know called Moon Stone Annie she blows flames right out her fanny.
You ought'a see her walking on the tight wire, juggling bananas while her hair is on fire.
Come on down with me to burning man.
It's a fabulous place.
A Fabulous Land.
oooh yeah
Art love love and art art for love.
It's all about just letting myself be me.
Hey are you going to burning man?
Hey are you going to burning man?
They want to keep what happens there a secret so it does not get too big. Like what happend to Bannaroo, Woodstock, and Lalapoluza
Attendees of the Burning Man face widespread difficulties with undercover law enforcement and other do to the widespread and public drug use at the event. Widespread documentation of this being on the internet could likely be used as ammunition to shut the event down completely. This might simple give them a legal fallback to remove incriminating evidence as soon as they can. An optimistic view I realize, but valid.
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
if i ever fucking finish it
people should be allowed to use images of mickey mouse in anticorporate art. likewise, christian groups should be allowed to edit "apocalypse now" if they want a tamer version. or completely mix up a new version of the movie to push a cause completely anathema to the artist who created it. why? because the original is still around, it just creates controversy which drives interest in the original anyways, it ebenfits the artist: more attention, more esteem. see: streisand effect
if someone was raised watching a piece of film that was hacked to promote a sociopolitical cause, and later they find the original, this is an amazing opportunity at self-discovery and personal growth: you've been propagandized, you can now discover the truth. only in an environemtn of completel freedom is this possible. you can't control anyone or anything and expect the opposite results
what i say is: let it all out, let anyone do anything they fucking want with any image or sound out there, completely beyond the control of anyone, including if a creator's work is warped to depict something they despise. perfectly ok by me. imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. your ideological enemies using your work in a mutated form in eventuality only serves to honor you: what you said is powerful. this only adds to your fame down the line and eventually your bottom line. in such an environment, only the truly creative can flourish. command and control, by anyone, meanwhile, destroys originality and culture
let it all out, we all benefit from a richer culture
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I have gone to BM the last 2 years and am getting ready to go again. I take a lot of photos while I am there and as such I have read everything I can find about what they find acceptable and what they don't. They are basically trying to control two things. The first is that they don't want people going in and taking pictures of naked women and trying to make money off them. They also don't want people coming in and making money off of other peoples art. By essentially saying they have the right to take control of any pictures they can deal with any breach of this etiquette after the fact, and most people will comply with take down requests rather than dealing with lawyers and such.
As a private event they probably do have the right to control any images taken at the event to some extent similar to a concert promoter being able to limit people video taping a concert and turning around and trying to sell it.
Essentially if you aren't trying to make money off your photos you will probably be ok. If you are willing to take down any photos of people or their art at the persons or the artists request you will probably be ok. These are not evil people trying to make money off your work. These are reasonable people trying to make sure you aren't making money by exploiting someone else or someone else's work.
As for those commenting about the BM organizers shooting themselves in the foot, you really don't understand the event. Burning Man is not something that has to be promoted, and they aren't trying to maximize the number of entrants through the gates. The environment for the event is very harsh, and the last thing they want is someone seeing a couple of pictures of the event and attending on a whim. This is not Woodstock in the dessert and is not run by promoters trying to make a fortune.
don't like that? then don't get nude.
Do you not see the inhibition to freedom implicit in that statement?
The desire to be nude in a community where nudity is normal and the willingness to have one's picture published on a wanker website are different things. One freedom inhibits the other.
I'm not saying which is the more important freedom in general, but you must see that there is the possibility of a community which decides that the freedom to not wear clothes is more important than the freedom of a photographer to publish a picture of a person without their consent.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
its a great song, loved by many
on what moral basis does that mean my grandchildren should be paid for that?
a real artist gets paid in fame. fame can be capitalized on in many forms, many ancillary flows of cash. but trying to enforce a distribution system the internet has made defunct by suing college students and grandmothers isn't sustainable. its just legal goons trying to rule by fear, rather than understanding how things work. no, legal goons are trying to enforce how things USED TO work
you give your songs out for free. this radical concept is similar to the radical communist method you know as "radio airplay". then you make money touring, live concerts. exactly what is so weird about that? please, tell me
or rather, exactly what is wrong with you that you can't see this is the way we are evolving towards, regardless of what i believe, regardless of what you believe?
the distribution model of the age of cassette tapes and vinyl is not written in the bible. things change. i need not advocate for my point of view. my point of view is called the reality we are evolving towards regardless. so you need to accept what i am saying, not because i say so, but because that is what is happening, already
deal with it. or don't, and grumble about freeloading kids. as if that's the whole point of what i am saying!
you're out of touch with reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Color me unsurprised.
How many times has it happened now that yesterday's idealist liberals grow up to be conservative fascists themselves? And the more liberal/hippy, the worse they are later.
Is this the negative side to the old aphorism (attributed to Churchill) "if you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative when you're older you have no brain"?
-Styopa
then make burning man invitation only, and put security at the gates
but you can't have an open festival and expect that pictures won't end up on wanker sites. you must live in some parallel universe where digital rights are somehow magically 100% enforceable, nevermind even magically 10% enforceable
are you going to pony up the $1 trillion to hire the workforce to airtight police the entire free internet for years and then to fund the legion of legal goons to enforce your policies and then the political contributions to influence the diplomatic corps to put pressure on the servers located on moldova, etc., etc., etc?
you make peace with reality, because here's the reality: if you parade nude at an open festival, your pictures will show up on wanker sites. don't like that? then don't get nude. or make the festival closed invitation only. but you are a fool of you believe this digital rights nonsense is enforceable or feasible or provides you any protection otherwise from wanker sites
i'm just describing the reality of your situation. you deal with it, you make peace with wanker site sleazebags at burning man. but putting all burning man images under corporate ownership not only doesn't provide you any fucking protection, it completely negates the spirit of the festival you are trying to protect in the first place. you wish to be free... by limiting the freedom of everyone else (and it doesn't even work!). i see you've learned a lot from the spirit of the festival: "i wish to dance around nude, free and open to the world... but i wish to control the freedoms of anyone who's eyes and cameras might see me" (rolls eyes)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The reason for this rule was due to Girls Gone Wild coming to Burning Man and later selling footage of naked girls from whom they did not receive permission to do so. It is a rule intended to protect the privacy concerns of the participants, and the idea that Burning Man is a commerce-free zone. If you do a search for Burning Man images you will see that there is no shortage of photos of the event. As an anonymous coward (actually just to lazy to set up an account right now) I will not attempt to say that the way in which BMO responded to the situation, or the language which they use to make sure that doesn't happen again, is right, but in the comments I have read thus far I did not see the cause of this rule's existence stated and I believe it sheds light on why they reserve the right to do what they do. I haven't heard of them actively going after anyone other than GGW.
Burning man is NOT about selling more tickets than previous year, and a restrictive move on photography like this is just evidence of that. It is (amongst a hell of a lot of other things) about self expression, unhindered by the repercussions of eg. your colleagues possibly seeing you online, naked except for a tutu.
So as I see it, this restriction is an ENABLING factor of BM.
i will guess its something like a primitive, pagan shout against things like corporate command and control, organized religious command and control, etc.
so you set up this corporate fine print about photographs for the festival. ok fine. and then later you indeed capture that 43 yo sleazeball in san fran posting pics of women's tits on his blog. yeah, good for you
you've just sold your soul
now burning man isn't a shout against the vile realities of modern life, but just another corporate command and control structure, just another mundane part of what it is supposed to stand in contrast to. no different than mcdonalds and its legal legions out to protect the brand name, or british petroleum tweaking its corporate image with shiny ad campaigns shamelessly apeing the very ecoconscious carefree vibe of something like burning man. a lie. an external image out of vibe with a corrupt internal reality. burning man: we stand for freedom and individuality(*)
*: please note our corporate command and control fine print
so here's another route for you to consider: sleazebags exist, and will parasitize burning man. your choice:
1. accept this unfortunate reality in your wisdom
2. sell your soul and become just another command and control structure, thereby negating the entire purpose of burning man in the first place
its up to you, you choose
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ever go to a concert. You don't have rights to pictures you take. Try taking and using pictures or Baseball games without the Leagues permission. Nothing new here etc they want to let people use their personal images.
...you would pretty thankful that BMorg's totalitarian, authoritarian, rights-usurping power grab on federal land is in place. Most folks that are up there are happy to have a safe space to get their freak on, and safe means not having to worry about some local TV station looking for titilating footage pointing their lens in your direction. Does that take away some of their rights? Sure it does. But it's a decision the the community made collectively, and one that is integral to maintaining the unique character of the event.
TFA seems to imply that one can't take photos on the playa without BMorg tracking you down and hitting you with a DMCA take-down notice, which is patently false. Everyone takes photos at Burning Man, everyone goes on to post most of them all over the web. BMorg's policy is targeted toward commercial content.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm no BMorg fan-boy. They're a bureaucratic and self-important bunch, but on this one they're right.
makes sense in rural areas. it doesn't make sense in urban areas. that's "spooking the horses": if you walk around the ozarks with a gun, you're just providing yourself security. but if you walk around oakland with a gun, you're a gangster
so your logical fallacy is applying the general idea of herd behavior and pointless hysteria towards opposition to carry and conceal weapons. that is, you should consider that there might actually be a solid, logical, levelheaded reason to oppose carry and conceal, not just airheaded emotionality
the truth of gun laws in this country is that currently, HUNDREDS of urban folk die needlessly every year for the sake of a law that only makes sense in the ozarks. but demographics are changing. in the better future, DOZENS of rural folk will die needlessly every year for the sake of being denied protection in the ozarks
there is no compromise between a rural approach towards guns and urban approach towards gun. there is only demographic reality and rule by majority. and demographics tick inevitably towards further urbanization, so enjoy your gun while you still can (legally). urban folks right now suffer and die for the sake of laws which only serve rural folk, only serve historical american reality. as demographics change, a seachange will eventually be tipped, and the legal approach to guns will inevitably reverse
in the better future, rural folks will actually suffer and die for the sake of urban folk. why is this better? because there are a lot more urban folk dying right now today than there are rural folk who could ever die were firearms banned
the ideal of course, is firearms legal in the ozarks, illegal in oakland. its just almost impossible to enforce that, unfortunately
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I dont know everyone paints this as a political issue, the real problem is clearly the lawyers. I say we rename it the Burning Lawyer and have a yearly gathering to cull the herd, patent lawyers especially.
[ ] Inherently over the shark right from the start--every counterculture is doomed to devolve into authoritarianism.
[ ] left Bay Area
[X] charging admission
[ ] mentioned on Malcolm in the Middle
[ ] guy burned the man prematurely and got in legal trouble for it
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
if technological change is fair. they are sitting around, enjoying their priveledged status, and along come a few hundred assholes in these things called saling ships with horses and iron armor and something called a firearm
and centuries old social and legal structures of millions of the people crumble practically overnight
"Second, it must be proven safely, i.e. that we can't subvert the current system (except, of course, in legitimate competition) while we prove it"
the point is, there is no way to bloodlessly transition from the old technological reality to the new technological reality. there is no way to honor the old copyright system in a new system of free-music-as-only-advertising that resembles radio airplay
so what happens? those who are invested in the old system suffer. you speak as such a person. i'm sorry that technological change has made you suffer. go commiserate with the aztec and incan nobles
but not in a million years should technological progress be halted just because it hurts those invested in an old defunct system. its a couple thousand corporate lawyers versus millions of technologically astute culturally hungry teenagers who are, most importantly, POOR
place your bets
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I assure you those of us who participate have very little problem with this. "It's a decision the the community made collectively, and one that is integral to maintaining the unique character of the event". Is a pretty good estimation of the attitude of the participants. We really hate it when Maxim magazine trys to recruit a crapload of frat boys to come take pictures of naked women just to post on their web site or print in their magazine. It's a private event and pretty expensive to attend, there is no reason they can't control the images that wind up laying around the web. In the village I stayed in there is a no photography without express consent of the photographed sign and if it is not obeyed you could wind up being chased by a large group of angry people. We stopped at physical assault but just barely. We usually just soaked them good with water hoping their camera was ruined. There was also a sign noting that water was a large factor in the area and you would get wet on occasion. The biggest pervs started showing up with underwater cameras.
Gutsy, and I will, with an appalling lack of talent... because as you say, we can't get any good without stuff to mash about.
I really believe there's a science thesis in your comment, but it's one of those that's "5 years out". We all know what the **AA has been trumpeting, aka "the control group" (pun intended). You are a crisp example of the study group.
I would qualify your statement that there may be an elite category (like Disney's Mouse) that produces different effects. But I think you're right for midline content. Especially look at the recent movies that have critics wailing "Could have been an awesome movie if (someone) cut/changed about 20-40 minutes of it." Particularly both Transformers. I'd nuke half of the parental scenes.
I think "Linkware" is the honorable way to go. If I ever get inspired to put your work through some tortured pretzel machine, I'll drop you notice.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Well, the terms they are attempting to enforce may or may not be part of the contract: were you informed of them before you paid for the ticket? Did you sign agreeing to them? Are they "reasonable and customary"?
I'm not saying the terms are automatically invalid, but nor is it clear they can impose whatever terms they wish. AFAICS, this is an unsettled area of law, and they are mostly trying to scare people into compliance. Ironic.
in the ozarks, it leans one way, in oakland, it leans the other way
all freedoms exist in tension with other freedoms, i'm glad you understand that
currently, the legal status quo favors the ozarks, at the detriment of the deaths of hundreds of urbanites. the legal status quo will inevitably give way as demographics continue to evolve more and more urban, like it is already in europe, where the legal reality is severely limited firearms because of the demographic reality there
in the future, there will be dozens of deaths of rural people because of firearms restrictions. maybe there will be away to make firearms legal rural, illegal urban in the future, and some effective way to actually enforce that, so deaths in both places are at a minimum. but if given the choice between dozens of rural deaths (in the future), versus hundreds of urban deaths (the reality now because of american gun laws), i choose in favor of laws that serve urbanites, out of the desire to limit needless deaths the most
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
and his grey album (jay zs black album plus beatles white album)
what he did was totally illegal. of course, he worked things out to serve the current legal status quo after he got fame for his work, but imagine a world where such legal concerns were zero, and anyone could mix a grey album. any mashup of any audio content was free and clear. the result?: more, better culture for us
the counter argument is that jay z and the beatles aren't served. but even if they weren't paid one cent by danger mouse, their fame grows because of his remix. which serves them. fame leads to ancillary sources of revenue. now imagine a world where all of these free remixes wind up serving you in fame, rather than in legalistic flows of coinage: if your output is remixed a lot, your fame is huge, you get lots of people at your concerts, you get to plug merchandise on tv, etc
this is the future of the intersection of art and commerce
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"No. What happens is the musical artists (the fact you focus on this proves you don't understand art in general) will simply do small performances (restricting recording devices, by the way), because there would be absolutely no incentive to spend the time and money producing even the first permanent recording when some ass will burst it around the world the next day, eliminating profits."
right, because massive internet fame from free content doesn't exist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boots
"You also obviously fail to recognize that the stage fame and panties! are restricted to a minuscule percentage or musical artists. Yo Yo Ma probably doesn't generate that form of adoration. It's quite fifteenish in nature."
oh, you mean in the 1980s every single act that existed had fame and fortune? that in the world i am describing no one will ever become famous? you are representing a logical fallacy: that fame in the age of cassettes and vinyl will be any different than in the age of free music, aka radio play over the internet, or was any different in the age of mozart or lord byron. so that's your argument?: the quality and nature of fame is going to undergo some sort of unquantifiable vague change... therefore, we should continue supporting bertelsmann with reams of cash. pfffffffft
"Another by the way, blooded fights between technologies work well for the higher technology. This is a level playing field, with both sides having all technology available."
BWAHAHAHAHA. are you trying to say that the technological playing field isn't level? what do i need to record today? A LAPTOP, moron, with FREELY AVAILABLE SOFTWARE. with that, i have more technological acumen than the age of the wall of sound in the 1960s and the massive amounts of cash needed to make that work
the lesson is: technological advancement leads to cheaper means of production. hell, your average teenager with a cheap HD camera and some cheap editing software has more power today than all of the filming and editing power of all of the movie houses in the 1950s!
but thanks for bringing up an argument that only supports the reality i am describing... not advocating for, but describing, the world i am describing is the future, regardless of anything i say or do, or anything you say or do. i'm just telling you facts of life, you're the one playing rearguard for a defunct era
good luck with that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This really isn't any different then the policy BM has had for years - the only new thing in this is that the EFF noticed and sent out a press release.....
don't like that? then don't get nude.
Do you not see the inhibition to freedom implicit in that statement?
Nope. Freedom doesn't mean "I get to do whatever the hell I want and bugger the consequences." It means "I get to make the choice to do it or not."
as if i am advocating for some socialist hippie commune
that paying a programmer a salary is the same as giving an artist's grandchildren a cashflow. i say an artist should instead only get cash for you know, actually working a job: touring concerthalls. and that this is akin to working for a salary like a programmer or an accountant. but nah... let's completely screw up our analogies and play battle hymn of the republic and amp up the high holy moral outrage and act like a programmer working for a salary is the same as paying the grandchildren of the guy who wrote the "happy birthday" song. but thanks for bringing up examples that, in reality, actually support my understanding of the world;-)
all you have to do is describe the old defunct ways of doing things, call me a secret communist muslim, and **poof**, i disappear as a threat to your worldview
if only it were that easy
i'm not ADVOCATING for any alternative reality, i am DESCRIBING reality that is already here
thousands of corporate lawyers versus millions technologically astute, culturally hungry, and most importantly, POOR teenagers: place your bets
i don't have to react to a word of your venom, because i don't have to exert an iota of effort to see what i am talking about come into existence: IT ALREADY IS HERE. i see the writing on the wall, and i incorporate it into my worldview. meanwhile, your reaction against me really isn't a reaction against my particular attitude, but a reaction against reality
hate me and what i am saying all you want. its called shooting the messenger. you'll get just as much mileage out of hating the rising and setting of the sun or the rising and falling of the tides: it won't change a thing
or, rather, understand that things are changing, and deal with that
but right now, you're just living in denial ...something about 3 monkeys covering various orifices in the head...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So, censorship is alright to protect YOUR society but wrong if it protects someone elses society.
Hypocrisy, you are doing it right.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
-First Time Burner Here.
I am going this year. I will take pictures. I will probably post pictures(for private friends to view). Please remember that the first rule of Burning Man is no one should talk about Burning Man. lol nullz. One of the main features of BM is only the people who are there get to experience the ART! Its great that way. You have to be there to understand it. That is probably why they do not wish to disclose all the pictures tothe public. The art is supposed to be viewed only by those who attend. That is why everythign gets BURNED at the end.
so ban cameras at burning man
but if you say the strategy of banning firearms is allegorical to the banning of digital rights... then i have to say sorry, but your analogy is not logically coherent
meanwhile, banning cameras at burning man would be a logically coherent analogy to banning firearms
and (so as not to be a hypocrite, which is what you seem to be suggesting i am) at the point you agree to this tweak on your analogy, i would heartily support you and agree cameras should be banned at burning man
in short:
cameras == guns == tools that can be abused
digital rights != guns != legalistic restrictions on expression
your analogy fails
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the sonny bono argument that copyrights must be extended to geological time is defeated by your observation over the logic of the patent system on drugs
out of the moral recognition that people's lives should not be held ransom to corporate cashflow, the patent on wonderdrugs is very brief, a few years. is the pharmaceutical industry then swimming in poverty? of course not, its quite profitable. meaning what? meaning very short copyrights are not the gateway to the destruction of wealth and the media industry
the reason why the same moral argument as that over drug patents is not held to the argument on copyrights is because the damage done is not plain and apparent. if you can't afford a drug, you die. pretty clear and straightforward. but with copyrights, the damage done is more vague: the loss of culture, the limiting of its richness, the impoverishment of our cultural lives
and so you're right: intellectual property is not a flawed concept, and i would support it if it were limited like drug patents. the problem being, the legalistic trip back to a less insane intellectual property reality is almost impossible, what with corporate interests and their legions of lawyers pulling in the opposite direction. such that, pessimistically, i believe only revolt on the part of the general populace will result in meaningful change (purposefully ignoring and outright destroying copyright laws via technological superiority)
copyright laws are acceptable when it is just corporations suing each other. which is the way it was in the day of the VHS, when the means of distribution was a small gentleman's club. but now every teenager has as much distribution reach on the internet as the major publishing houses. so when it is corporations suing citizens for obscene amounts of cash willy nilly, based on laws which should really apply only to corporations, then philosophical absurdity has been reached, and the laws obviously need a sea change
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Please mod the above up. This sounds like one of the very few posters that has actually BEEN to BM. The restrictions are not imposed upon expression, just on commercialization. And something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that you have to ask permission to take ANY photos. These restrictions have nothing to do with profit, and everything to do with protecting privacy, and nurturing a safe environment for radical self-expression.
the event has had an increasing problem with guys showing up with cameras just to snap pics of the naked ladies, post them online, and charge people a fee to check them out. this certainly isn't the best approach to solve the problem, but there's little else they can do.
"I personally wouldn't care if there's a photo of me smoking a joint at an event like Burning Man, but I imagine for some other people this could be a disaster. Plus there's always the exploitative assholes that come to events like this just to take pictures of naked people and post them on their blog."
If people are doing something that they wouldn't want someone to take a picture of them doing, then they should probably do it behind closed doors and not out in plain sight.
Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
I was under the impression that some of these stringent rules were put in place to protect participants, rather than limit their rights. IE, the organizers want people to be able to walk around naked without ending up on "Girls Gone Wild: Burningman Edition!" and use drugs without the possibility that their "crimes" may end up on the evening news.
is for both of us to harden our positions, and start screaming epithets at each other
for demonstrating a rare openmindedness and therefore a genuine attempt at honest exchange, i hereby declare that if those 1% of unreasonable men who result in progress exists, it exists in you
thank you for reinstating my faith in humanity, and well met
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I've been to burning man 7 times ... its an amazing place and a lot of what makes it special would be ruined if you knew that people were videotaping you doing something odd and then trying to sell that video.
That is the basis of this rule ... and this is the only time I ever know of it being enforced.
To PROTECT people's rights ... not limit them.
In fact there are TONS of videos of burning man on Youtube, and http://www.burningman.com/ has a repository of photos from almost every year.
They just don't want the Girls Gone Wild assholes to sell images of you without your consent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/national/05VIDE.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/26/ctv.burning.man/
People only talk about consequences when they want to see blood.
When you walk too close to the sacred cliff, and you slip and fall to your death, that's a consequence.
When you walk too close to the sacred cliff, and return safely, and then the villagers who control the surrounding territory decide to stone you to death, that's not a consequence. That's just barbarity.
In this case, BMO is trying to create a sacred cliff where everyone can walk without fear of getting stoned.
(Involuntarily.)
A few years back, a company sent photographers to Burning Man to take pictures of naked chicks. They sold this video as "The Women Of Burning Man" or some shit. None of the people had signed model releases or were reimbursed in any way, or even notified that there was nude video of them being sold. Burning Man org is trying to prevent a recurrence of this, or improve their legal case should they need to sue someone else on behalf of their participants.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/07/02/BA88381.DTL
Just sneak in. No ticket -- no rules.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Make a new burning man.
(Why flamebait? That is, I would assume the -1 is about the urge to mod things we don't like down. Maybe we need a +1 flamebait, if we are going to insist on calling inconvenient truths flamebait.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Most political fantasies, conservative, liberal, whatever, seem to end up that way for some reason.
Wonder if that says something about political fantasies.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
It amazes me how hypocritical you can all be. You guys mostly support BM and the ridiculousness that goes on there (or at least you don't have a problem with it) so you think this clause is reasonable. If a software company put a clause into their program retaining rights under certain conditions, you'd be the first ones to jump all over them.
I'm no lawyer, but I smell BS. I hope someone challenges this in court. You either have rights to share your work or you don't. The ability to retroactively claim ownership over a creative work is dubious at best.
Hippie on hippie smackdown in the desert!
+++OK ATH
Which stones, exactly, have been thrown?
Just because a person understands the concept of a TAZ it doesn't mean that they have to agree that it is a good idea or anything more than people wanting to act in one way in one place but presenting themselves as being something else in another. Obviously photographs of the event might not help them in that endeavour.
Serial killers get up to all kinds of crazy stuff in the secrecy of their own homes and that self expression is easier because they know that photographs and videos of their experience will be handled in a particular manner - for example not taken and turned into a motion picture....
I know you want to think that the participants are on some, other, existential plane from normal human beings, but they're not. They're just living it up, getting stoned, having fun, and maybe some don't like the world finding out about it.
More importantly, BM don't like loosing control over the marketing material and possible other revenue streams.
What are you, a hippy?
Encapsulating this vein of curmudgeonly natterings is a sign that appears annually along the road from Gate to Greeters: "Burning Man was better next year."
-- Making reasonable excuses for your behavior since 1996 (the bestest year on-playa ever) :-)
I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there. -- Richard Feynman
"thevelvetflamebait"
a good name for a hardworking troll
i'm not describing a hypothetical system. i'm describing reality whether or not you like it. deal with it. or don't and continue the hardworking troll. whatever works for you
"Y'know why? Because you simply can't maintain a system where the artists get screwed over."
i agree 100%. if you notice what i am describing only screws over distributors. artists give away their media, it serves as advertising for their concert gigs (this radical communist system is similar to what you know as "radio airplay"). they make money at concert gigs. its a nice six figure life for a large number of good artists. how is that being screwed over? because jay z's great grandchildren aren't now guaranteed a cash flow for doing nothing?
copyright is broken. i didn't break it. the internet did. deal
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i didn't kill copyright, the internet did. new technology changes the order of things. why can't you understand that how things are done is not something set down in the bible, and that maybe there is a better way to do things? besides this radical communist concept (which is not some wacky hypothetical i am proposing, but simple reality that i am describing) you might already know as "radio airplay". are free songs over the radio killing artists and their livelihood? no? then why do you think a system where media is freely given out over the internet (aka, reality) is somehow some radical artist destroying force? in such a world, a large number of good artists can make a significant six figure income touring and doing concerts, doing advertising, ancillary materials, etc. how is that inferior to a system where jay z's great grandchildren get a cash flow for doing nothing? it sounds superior to me, why not you? why is your mind glued to an old order that has been destroyed by technology?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"I've never been one for sitting back while disaster looms, comforted in the knowledge that I'm smarter than the masses"
you're an egomaniac. anyone who has to announce they are smarter than the masses, has just announced they ARE the masses. anyone smarter than the masses is smart enough to know strutting around thinking smugly they are smarter than someone else is insecure and with an ego deficit. and you are a reactionary (inability to deal with change), and you most certainly aren't smart. if you were smart, at this point you would have been able to at least describe, if not convince me of, a valid point of view other than flailing around, panicking at the loss of a system dead for a number of years now
change isn't pretty. deal with it. there is nothing for me to defend against your words, as all i see is fear and hysteria on your part about simple change. it reveals a specific kind of mental enfeeblement on your part, a certain lack of cognitive suppleness, to consider the ways in which change might be good, even hypothetically. its all rearguard action with you, and all the future is dark and frightening and all downside
think about what the locomotive did to the stagecoach industry. think about what the airplane did to cruiseship crews. think about what guns did to swordmaking. change happens from technology. it destroys. and what emerges is always better. from the point of view of those whose livelihoods are part of the old way of doing things though, from those feeble minds invested in the status quo, it is only fear and pain. that describes you and your entire outlook
the internet has destroyed traditional copyright. this is not going to destroy the love of music, nor the love of creating music, nor that loved musicians will be rewarded, lavishly, financially. this is beyond a doubt. but in your mind, its like all of music is dying. pathetic
its called creative destruction, and its about a specific, outmoded distribution system, not artists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction
plenty of people lose something temporary and fleeting in order so that much more may gain. you can't even hypothesize how better ways of doing things might come about? not even hypothetically in your dreary mind?
certain inflexible minds like your identify creative destruction instead as just the destruction of all that is right and holy. like when the auto industry dies in the usa: its the entire end of the usa! no it isn't we move on to other industries. why is carmaking the only symbol of american industry and knowhow? its not. why is how they distribute cassette tapes and vinyl the only way god has ordained that music be made? the age of mozart and beethoven, with no recorded music, was a dead zone? no artists made music then because they couldn't get an agent? what the fuck is wrong with your ossified mind?
its mental brittleness on your part. that's all you represent to me, after all your words. i really don't think you will ever understand, your cognition is too fixed on transient economic structures as if they were the word of god
you're just roadkill on the highway to the future. sucks to be you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
How about Whigs and Tories?
pure empty deflection of accusations
"i know you are but what am i"
i'm not sure if bringing an argument down the level of kindergarten interaction is a troll winning or failing, but i'm sure you know the score
have a nice day, roadkill!
xoxoxoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
They are using "censorship" to preserve privacy from paid thugs that would otherwise look to ruin people's time, and potentially ruin their lives by dragging them through a totally unfair and unjust legal system.
Who are people hurting by taking some drugs? Maybe themselves, at worst. Who are you (or who are the police/legal system) to say what people can and cannot do to themselves? They can fuck off back to the 17th century with their puritanical attitudes.
But who's is the other society you are trying to compare this to? The law enforcement society? Censorship of their behaviours and habits is definitely wrong - the law should be accountable to the people. Otherwise I cannot imagine what other society you are trying to talk about - isn't that a straw man argument?