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
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.
Somebody needs to call in Cartman - he'll straighten those hippies out!
Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
"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!
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"
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.
How about having everyone wear a V mask as a sign of protest?
America needs you, Lawrence Welk, now more than ever!
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
Isn't that always the way? I mean how many people riding Harleys are anything but Corporate Tax Accountants and Project Managers pretending to be bad boys & girls. How many people getting tatoos are getting them to express their individuality, ignoring the millions of tatoo wearing humans also expressing their individuality wearing virtually identical tats?
As soon as something becomes a brand and becomes widely known (hell, I read about Burning Man in Motorcyclist magazine!) then what it originally was is no more. See if we can name one thing that when it became officially organized and well known enough to sell tickets to stayed true to its origins?
*Frito-Lay Group sponsored this post*
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
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.
Whats the matter, did the BMO organizers ban you from carrying your handguns and wearing your white supremacist t-shirt again?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Like most liberal fantasies, it rapidly devolved into an authoritarian group usurping natural ownership and dictating rules galore.
Unlike most conservative fantasies, which start that way.
I've been using this since 1986. Do I get to sue BMO?
--
BMO
I could point out that the phenomenon your referring to isn't a feature of a liberal system, it occurs despite of your political lean, but...
It always amazes me how people throw things into one of two buckets "liberal" and "conservative". One of the buckets is good and one is bad, depending on the person. How about instead of using inconsistent terms like that we get right to the point, call the categories "us" and "them". Remember you don't have to think about it too much, ignorance is a plus when putting "them" down.
As opposed to Conservative fantasies, which don't even bother starting out as absolute do-whatever-you-want-just-don't-kill-anyone free-for-all and just go straight to the authoritarian group usurping natural ownership and dictating rules galore stage....
You would have been better off just saying "Power corrupts"
Don't forget that you have to pay several hundred dollars to get there as well.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
What the heck is "natural ownership?" Copyright is a government creation, not a natural right.
Anyway, BM "devolved into an authoritarian group" only once it sold out and lost touch with its "liberal fantasy". Once I saw Verizon running ads about "keeping touch on the playa" in a burner rag, it was pretty clear that the co-option was complete.
Some of the local burns retain the original spirit -- I've been to Playa Del Fuego several times.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
That's because when Burning Man started it was just goofs in a desert that no one cared about. Today it's a recognizable brand.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
"Horrible" is maybe too strong a word in this case, no? What's the matter are you opposed to the goatse man's right to self-expression?
Well let me tell you something, Mr. Man, you may not realize this, but at Burning Man 2004 the entire event's grand finale was every attendee striking that very pose.
At least I think that's what happened. To be fair, I had dropped some of the brown acid, which I later heard may have been ...(wait for it...) tainted.
[Get it? "Tainted"? As in "taint"-ed? Oh, never mind. My best material is wasted on Slashdot.]
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, -1 misleading. Seems this is as likely a feature of greed, them wanting to control bad press in order to expand the event and make more money. I am sure organizers can get greedy no matter where on the political spectrum you or they view the event. I know, the world would be so much easier if you could just lump people and viewpoints together like that and label them as wrong.
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)
/facepalm
I though Goatse man was an intersting picture. I saw it once, and it's never been forgotten no matter how hard I've tried....
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
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.
More specifically, I'd say it is about "freedom", and when people are free to be themselves, you end up with the group devolving or evolving to whatever the average person in the group is really like at heart. So if you say to a bunch of nuns, "be free!", they'll probably spend the day in prayer. But if you say it to a bunch of people who believe "the system is bad", then often you get social drop-outs who couldn't organise anything more complicated than just... well they become a gang of thugs who wanna just live impulsively. And if there's some proportion of people like that who go to BM, then that's what it will devolve to.
...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.
The people I met were mostly IT geeks. Really.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
the phenomenon your referring to isn't a feature of a liberal system, it occurs despite of your political lean
Be careful, I was modded "troll" for saying the same thing.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
Capitalism started out as an absolute do-whatever-you-want-just-don't-share-with-anyone free-for-all.
Like most conservative 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 feudalistic rule totally contrary to the system's original spirit.
That was fun!
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
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.
"[A]n authoritarian group usurping natural ownership" and imposing rules contrary to the original frame of organization is a flaw of every philosophy of organization from anarchy to socialism including democracy. The People must be ever vigilant.
I'd still rather have the societal freedom and market regulation of the "liberal" philosophy over an unregulated market and/or social conformity of other philosophies. The fact that we have no philosophy of organization that is immune to the flaws of people is not "insightful" to me.
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
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.
Do you WANT the terrists to win?
Most people don't want to spend a week in the blazing hot desert wearing a mask- unless that's what does it for you of course.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
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
It's just as illogical to assume that because there are two buckets that they are equal in every regard. For many issues, there is a right and wrong that goes beyond political and ideological labels. Arguing against what you perceive as immoral or wrong doesn't automatically make you a bigot or an ignoramus.
"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)
Look at Las Vegas, going in a (more) family friendly direction proved successful. I can't say I blame them, though I can't also not call them assholes. The scary part is looking back at your own childhood and realizing how much of it has a gold sticker of approval and a trademark attached.
Can we get a +1 Connecticut Yankee mod? Sam Clemens would have been proud.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
That's because when Burning Man started it was just goofs in a desert that no one cared about. Today it's a recognizable brand.
Not to weird I guess. I hear Charles Manson owns his own typeface.
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;
It's not FEDERAL LAND. It's leased from the BLM.
It's not walking around the desert naked-- it's private leased property.
The land underneath is BLM. The area is leased and is private.
Ridiculous is fine when you're with people that have consented to whatever. But you're incorrect in comparing BM to RenFests. They can do whatever they want, just like it were a nudist camp--- because the lease provides nexus of control to the BM organization. Even the Pershing County sheriffs will walk by, gawk, then walk on-- unless someone's obviously in trouble or violating the law by doing illegal drugs, etc.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
"Most"? No.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Lord of the Flies.
Sorry, no link due to low caffeine levels.
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.
In this case, I don't particularly feel that there is hypocrisy, any more than the GPL is hypocrisy.
Issues of the actual legality of this aside (which looks flimsy), everyone involved seems fairly offended at the idea or concept of keeping people from publishing pictures that they've taken themselves, and the taking of copyright of them. The taking of copyright is the only mechanism that would allow fast takedown of the pictures from news outlets, websites, etc due to DMCA clauses. I may be giving the organization too much credit, but I would imagine that this is actually to ensure more freedom by sacrificing the freedom to do as you please with your pictures: if you know that you can do what you want without being photographed by arbitrary third parties, you have more freedom to do as you please. Individuals can still take and enjoy pictures on their own for their own consumption, but the pictures won't be published without the consent of the organization.
The GPL is formulated in nearly the exact same way: it works within the copyright framework to take away some freedoms (the freedom to redistribute however you damn well please), but it gives the work itself more freedom since it can't be closed by arbitrary third parties and resold for profit without the freedoms of the license coming along with it.
Once again in summary: I fail to see the philosophical problem with attempting to take away a smaller subset of freedoms to guarantee larger ones. That is hardly hypocrisy. I do however agree with most of the other posts though that state that the method of implementing this doesn't look like it is particularly viable.
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
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?
It's just as illogical to assume that because there are two buckets that they are equal in every regard. For many issues, there is a right and wrong that goes beyond political and ideological labels. Arguing against what you perceive as immoral or wrong doesn't automatically make you a bigot or an ignoramus.
If I understand the GP correctly, it's not how you judge the two buckets that indicates ignorance. It's that you think there are two buckets. I'm not saying you think there's two buckets though.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
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...
Meaningless. It is not a crime to hold copyright on an illegal image. It's usually illegal to take, distribute, or possess these images. This would have nothing to do with copyright.
That's pretty much what I was thinking. Primate politics rears it's head again.
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.
I'm struck by how much this statement also applies to the nearby /. story about the current state of Wikipedia.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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
The difference between Liberals and Conservatives ....
Liberals pretend there are no rules, but make lots of rules to cover shit they don't like.
Conservatives makes lots of rules, and pretend to not have any rules.
See, they are different!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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
The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution. -Hannah Arendt
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
You don't really understand Godwin's law, do you?
You Godwin's Law Nazi!
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 REAL reason (for the ban) is so you can act a fool and not get 'known' for it. If your not cool enough to understand why the organizers wish to preserve that kind of protection for people who attend from others who may just be paparazzi basically then maybe its you who never really understood what the 'spirit' of burning man was intended to be. Because offering protection to weirdos = weird things allowed to happen = interesting visit. Unless you just wanna go to the county fair, you can take all the pics you want but you can't get naked. Do the math.
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.
No, they just stopped planting those guys.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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
...and they both end up in the same place: fucking people over.
What if their medium is not performance, or being a sellout? Or if they don't produce music/movies? Are you suggesting that what will amount to abolishing professional CD and DVD recording, is actually a positive step for our culture? What do we do when ebook readers become more popular?
Your solution has no foresight, no benefits that we don't already enjoy now, and no flexibility. It's simply a hack to work with our current times and (some) current tastes.
Of course, because recording something is free, and certainly doesn't have any work behind it.
No wonder you don't support copyright. You don't meet the minimum system requirements.
Except without the free ticket to download any song you want, and the artist gets a say in how much he gives away for the sake of advertising.
Radio is the free advertising. The reason why it actually works is because there is no guarantee that the song you want to hear will be on the radio at any given time, and some such songs are impossible to hear (legally) on the radio. There is incentive to buy behind radio play.
Sure, there's incentive to buy behind releasing recordings before concerts, but not nearly as much. It affords too much value to give away for free. Smart artists (that is, artists who don't go out of business) would cripple it as much as possible, probably by severely limiting what they release. Expect only a couple of songs to be released officially, or expect the songs to be poorly produced (to give incentive to see them live).
I see that you haven't noticed that I haven't resorted to name-calling. And why would I, when I have so many cogent and logical arguments to make?
Certainly not, but they certainly are less of an artist when they get a real job to try to survive the perennial income from touring. There's only so many you can do before people lose their excitement over seeing you.
I support copyright precisely because I can't create music (or any other kind of commercially valuable art). I value the talent of others to at least let them name the price of their own work.
Oh, and the fact that you said "music" and not "art" is typical of your tunnel-vision with regard to copyright.
Look, I have no undue attachment to the current system. All I know is that it works for me, and millions upon millions of others. If you can seriously find another system, independent of copyright, that gives me the artworks I want, and prove that it works in a safe way, then I'm in. I'll bear no grudge. If what you say is true, and that the new system is inevitable, then more power to you.
However, I'd
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I didn't stop to think how interesting it is the one time i saw it or since, but you know what, now that I think about it, it's really not that interesting at all.
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.
i thought "do-whatever-you-want-just-don't-kill-anyone free-for-all" was a libertarian fantasy.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
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
BLM land is public property, even if it is leased. Your argument holds no water.
love is just extroverted narcissism
A liberal 30 years later is a conservative?
This is why I switched from Republican party in early 90's (Darn Bush sr downsized military, forcing me to reserves, and then sent me to war) to Independent for 2000 election (they're both opportunistic politicians-Yeah Nader) to Democrat for 2004 (that thar 'W' guy is nucking futz!).
At this point, I just want to own enough property (North Dakota would be about right) and enough fence to create my own Outside the Asylum oasis. You'ze peoples are all crazy!
(and get off mah lawn!)
I drank what? -- Socrates
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
There are plenty of privately-owned, privately-occupied cabins on Forest Service land. By your argument, anyone can break into them any time, because they are "public". The same would apply to a privately-owned vehicle on a public street.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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
Look at Las Vegas, going in a (more) family friendly direction proved successful. I can't say I blame them, though I can't also not call them assholes. The scary part is looking back at your own childhood and realizing how much of it has a gold sticker of approval and a trademark attached.
When was that? Last I saw (which was some months ago, admittedly), they were still running that "TAZ" (to use the term from a thread above) ad about "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" with all of the subtle-as-Roddenberry-or-Martin implications thereof.
"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
My apartment is leased... is it not private property?
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.
I have never seen a liberal deny the need for rules, they deny the need for rules which only protect people from themselves or enforce a moral stance not everyone has.
A conservative on the other hand wishes to use rules to enforce his moral stance on everyone regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with that stance.
Don't confuse Democrats for liberals or Republicans for conservatives either... neither one fits either bill.
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
--I know what you mean. I'm going to attend for the first time this year, primarily because my wife has the event on her "bucket list", but also to satisfy my morbid curiosity. I was reading through their site as well as the materials they sent us, and found that because the BM "economy" is based on "gifting" or barter, there are no sales of any goods or services allowed during the event. There are, however, two exceptions to this rule: BM organizers have reserved for themselves the ability to operate a "coffee shop" selling lattes, etc., and they will sell you ice at their "Arctica" location.
Remember, all of us are equal, but some are more equal than others...
Uh, no. Saying the argument holds no water doesn't make it so.
It's private property for purposes of the event. You must buy or be granted a ticket and comply with the terms. Go on, pay some money and ask a real lawyer. I lease my office. It's the same as if I own it. You get to come in if I say it's ok-- otherwise you're trespassing.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
i know this is slashdot where talking out of your ass gets you modded as insightful but this is just too stupid to pass by.
you've clearly never been to the event and have no appreciation of its history. i grew up in reno i went for the first time in 1996. at that time there were only 8,000 people (at least according to wikipedia) last year there were 49,500. there's absolutely no way you can scale that without changing the rules. i remember talking to people that we upset that there was no more drive by shooting range. there was a rave camp a mile from central camp and everyone drove their cars around. and that year three people in a tent got run over by a car, so the next year only art cars were allowed and a speed limit imposed.
they don't make rules just to make rules. the rules are either: a) responses to clear problems to keeping the ever increasing number of people from killing each other b) imposed by the counties (washoe and pershing) or blm in order to obtain the permits.
As someone who is going there for the third time this year, I strongly recommend that you try to change your attitude.
Don't get me wrong, if you ignore this advice, it won't bother me one bit. I don't need you to have fun in order to have a good time myself.
Let's be clear - there are plenty of things that are wrong with Burning Man, including your example of the double-standard of what is for sale. The physical environment is terrible. The heat during the day is intolerable, and it can get freezing cold at night. Furthermore, your skin will dry and crack and bleed if you're not careful, and by the time you get back, you are likely be coughing hard at the dust. Then, there are the people. A lot of people go there to get drunk and look at tits. There are those who come out Saturday night and steel shit. My girlfriend's backpack was stolen last year.
If you go to "satisfy your morbid curiosity," I guarantee you that will find a bunch of stupid jerks and washed out hippies hanging out in the desert.
Contrary to what anybody may tell you, Burning Man is still the real world, so it is up to you to try to have a good time. Don't like dance parties? Grab some homebrew and B-movies at the Bad Idea Theater. Want something more interactive? Try shooting a flamethrower or just go for a late night bicycle ride and enjoy the art.
The point is that there are a LOT of different things going on, and despite a lot flaws in the event, there are still a lot of really, really cool things going on (eg, 70' towers of fire). Try to put up with the crap and enjoy the good things.
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
Untrue, and nonsense. By his argument, anyone can TAKE PICTURES OF THE CABINS, because the owners are displaying them on public land. The cabins are private property, so breaking in is still a crime.
The fact stands: if you don't want pictures of your naked self posted anywhere, don't show your naked self on public land. When you are in a public place, you have no expectation of privacy. And just like the cabin example, even though you have no expectation of privacy (can't stop people from taking pictures of you), you ARE protected from robbery and all the other crimes that apply to persons no matter where they stand.
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.)
As a burner who is familar with Burning Man and it's many regional offspring I can say without a doubt that Burning Man has in many ways forgotten what it started as and what it was meant to be. That is one of the things most of the regional events take care of. They continue in the spirit in which it all began. Although things like this do make us take a look at how we do things and see if we need to review or create policies to handle them. My home burn is very much a case of the organizers staying out of the way as much as possible. They believe quite rightly IMHO that the community should be in control and that they should decide how things run.
You mean like the "us" bucket that contains all the people we agree with, and the "them" bucket that has all the people "us" doesn't agree with?
One of the buckets is good and one is bad, depending on the person.
Yes, I guess exactly like the "us" bucket that contains all the people we agree with and the "them" bucket for the ones we don't.
Remember you don't have to think about it too much, ignorance is a plus when putting "them" down.
Yes, ignorance is such a wonderful condition because it allows "us" to put "them" down without even thinking about what "us" believes. We doesn't even really have to know what "us" believes, only that we wants to be an "us" and not a "them", because obviously "us" is good and "them" is bad. (Otherwise we'd want to be a "them", and "them" would then be "us" and "us" would be "them".
Oh, wait, I think you were intending to say that it's "THEM" what is ignorant because they doesn't agrees with "US".
Two-edged sword, claims of "ignorant" is. Not a very productive debating tactic, but very handy when you don't care about finding out who is right or want to have to think about what "us" believes.
Because people in power, if they are not very inteligent, will end up fucking people over anyway. Why? Because it's how our survival instinct works. Simply as that.
When people will stop claim that human being is misterious God's creature and will start to understand themselves and their nature, then maybe something will change. But human doesn't want to understand that, because he is afraid that won't be 'survivalish' enough anymore.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Just sneak in. No ticket -- no rules.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Pretty much "liberal" in today's world equates to doing something more than living an exact copy of the office workers that existed in the office that Neo in "the matrix" worked in...
Or just think something that they don't, and you're "liberal".
I don't understand why even using the term "liberal" is a bad thing... to me, it's like calling someone a state name... "new yorker", "texan", "californian", "liberal". Yeah.. and?
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I plan on having a good time (I usually do, no matter where I am - I enjoy the kind of interaction and human observation I expect to experience there.) I've also spent time living outdoors in various extreme environments (dusty desert and alkali flats included) that would discourage all but the hardiest few.
I was just pointing out a bit of the double standard imposed by the organizers who purport to espouse a philosophy of "anything goes (almost)". Rules that apply to all except the people making the rules just strikes me as fundamentally wrong.
Since you've attended before, I have a question you might be able to answer for me regarding those who would run around trying to steal from others at night: I am a light sleeper, and don't mind a bit of physical confrontation -- what are the rules for burying bodies on the playa? :)
I would be very humbled if he were.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
That was fun!
What? Being dead wrong?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Make a new burning man.
Yes.
(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.
There are already huge bodies of caselaw on this. There are distinct differences between a leased dwelling and land leased for other purposes.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I don't know the details of the laws affecting BM but most jurisdictions recognise more levels than "public" and "private". A shopping mall, for example, is kind of in-between, a privately-owned public space. I can have a policy of not letting black people into my home and I'm legally in the clear. If I had the same policy in my night club I'd be more likely to be in trouble, if I tried it in a shopping mall I owned even more so. Even though all these places belong to or are leased by me.
Except no one is talking about "breaking into" anything. How do you break into open space?
Hippie on hippie smackdown in the desert!
+++OK ATH
Which stones, exactly, have been thrown?
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
As it became more and more popular and notorious, the inevitable happened. More publicity, more voyeurism, more everything. When that happens, there are more rules.
It will follow this progression until it collapses under it's own weight and popularity. Once upon a time, not that many people cared about BM. Now its like some weird thing to ogle "Look Ma, she's painted herself up and runnin' round nekkid! How disgusting - Let's go there next year!"
I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up as a flea market or a campground for elderly nudists.
Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
"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?
But that's totally different. This is property (privately or publicly owned) that is open for the general public to enter. Yes, there may be a ticket purchase, but it is open to the general public.
If those cabins were open for tours by the general public it would be different.
A shopping mall would be a much closer analogy. Ownership of the land has little to no meaning if it is a public *venue*
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Does your office permit visitors/guests? If so, at least part of it is a public venue. I can legally enter without invitation. It is privately owned/leased space being used as a public venue.
You, of course, can expel me and ban me from coming back - at which point it would be trespassing - but until that point I'm NOT committing a crime.
A private home is different - it is NOT expected that uninvited individuals enter. It is not only privately owned but a private venue as well.
Besides all this, someone standing OUTSIDE the event with a telephoto lens could take pictures and not be bound by event rules over ownership of the pictures. The person being photographed would have a fairly difficult time proving in court they had a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' being nude among thousands of other people.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
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
You'd need a helluva telephoto; the perimeter is huge.
You can't enter, because it's not a public venue, it's a paid for event requiring a ticket or an invitation whose admittance requires consenting to the terms of a ticket.
Expectations of privacy at the event are high, because of these terms. That doesn't mean to say that there aren't thousands of exhibitionists of one form or another there; rather, pics taken can be requested to be withdrawn because of the rights granted by the admittance.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
You misunderstand what a public venue is. Requiring ticket purchase does not make it a private venue.
And no, the expectations of privacy are NOT high. The terms say BMO take ownership of pictures/video when 'any third party displays or disseminates'. The event does NOT guarantee or even directly offer privacy. It does NOT prohibit photography. This isn't a splitting hairs, type thing, it's a realistic evaluation by a judge which is why I used quotes. If you think a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an open area surrounded by thousands of people who are free to look, photograph, video, sketch, or do just about anything else then I think you mis-understand what privacy is. In addition, there are plenty of nudie shots from past BM events. The inside of your closed tent, yes, you can expect privacy. Walk around with your junk swinging? No.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
And a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. :)
-Styopa
I wonder how you might respond to this.... my house, my yard, are areas of the world that I and most others would believe to be 'private property', not public in any way, shape or form. Yet photos on Google Maps have presented a view of my privacy to the entire world. Do you believe that I have no right to control such invasions? If you believe that this is ok because it's a matter of 'what's visible' from a public place, the street, then would it also be ok for the goodyear blimp to fly above the bm event, take all kindza pics and sell them to the highest bidder. Would you mind if your pics went on the internet like that? Besides that, what if you bought a ticket to Disney World... and what if Disney said they, not you, owned the photos you took of your wife and kids, just because Mickey was in the background? I don't have answers. only questions. Thanks for lis'nin' seekertom
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?
Exactly.
I drank what? -- Socrates
It's like a shopping mall where access is restricted, and you have to agree to certain terms and buy a membership card to enter.
Those terms are enforceable; for example, if they say the terms say you agree not to enter wearing pink socks under penalty of a $50 fine, and you do it, then they can sue you for $50 if you refuse to pay the fine.
Similarly, if you have to agree to their contract terms in order to buy a ticket, the terms may be enforced against you once you have agreed.
It's not a question of the status of the property, once you bought the ticket, you're subject to their rules.
Now if you somehow snuck into the event without purchasing a ticket from them (and agreeing to their terms), matters would be different.
It's not a general public venue, it's a semi-public venue where all participants have agreed to certain rules (Terms) to acquire the ticket.
The rules for protecting privacy give people a better expectation of privacy than if they were at a normal public venue (since they know everyone allowed access to the event has had to agree to privacy-protecting terms).
You have limited or no expectation of privacy with respect to parts of your yard that are fully visible from a public street.
However, only things that can be seen by the human eye are not protected. If the photographer were to use a FLIR gun or a telephoto lens, they would be in violation of your property rights.
Similarly, if a blimp were to fly low enough to the ground that they could observe you with the naked eye (below 100 meters or so), they would be violating your air rights to the airspace above your property.
...this is actually to ensure more freedom by sacrificing the freedom to do as you please...
Mr. Orwell, is that you?
RTFA ... or terms.
The terms say nothing about protecting your privacy.
Regardless of that, the general situation (large crowd with cameras all over) pretty much guarantees you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. I challenge you to find case law or a judge that would disagree.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Wish I had the mod points to give you, but you appear to be correct -- I checked the BLM FAQ and it seems to indicate the same thing as well. BLM land is public land, and is administered on behalf of the Federal government.
I'm curious if (a) you're a lawyer, and (b) where you got your info on telephoto lenses from, because as an amateur photographer I have done a bit of reading on photographer's rights, and the general rule of thumb has always been stated similar to: "If you are standing in a public place (a place freely accessible to the public, which may in fact be privately owned property), you are free to take whatever photos you want of whatever is visible." It's hard to see how you can make a case that a telephoto lens is somehow violating someone's property rights, since telephoto lenses don't let you see through walls (a violation of privacy), etc. None of the guidelines I have read cite any restrictions on telephoto lenses such as you have described.
In point of fact, people can and routinely do take photographs of private property (buildings, houses, estates, etc.) from the street, even when building owners have a policy requiring "permission" to photograph the edifice (generally unenforceable). Google drives around neighborhoods and busy city streets taking photos of everything, routinely pissing people off, but they're within their legal rights. And photojournalists routinely use telephoto lenses to get difficult shots from a great distance when they don't wish to trespass, and I do not recall any of them getting sued or arrested for using a telephoto lens.
yes,I agree with what you said. I suppose the real issue is this... someone is stepping up to the plate to act as our 'protector', and we don't like it. However, the implied consent of the ticket forms a contract, and unless we can prove it unlawful or invalid, I agree, it sticks. How many other things in our society are like this? Give me something I really like or want or need and place so many controls and restrictions on it that I get crap on my candy, or, I just don't take the candy. Does it sound like the fine print in the credit card agreements? We, as Americans, need to get a grip and decide what we really want in life. Take the candy with the crap on it or don't. It's our choice. Just do it with open eyes and don't bitch when the constitution is gone. thanks for lis'nin' seekertom
Well, BM used to allow people to bring their guns and go shooting, but that was ostensibly banned because the event grew too large for all range safety rules to be properly observed. One stray bullet or ricochet could make someone's life very unhappy.
If you are on public property and use extraordinary means, such as a telephoto lens, to capture images of things that cannot be seen by the naked eye, then the owner of the property may sue for intrusion of seclusion. Telephoto lens may be used in some cases, for occasions such as photographing arrests, crimes, accidents, the photo is newsworthy, and immune to claims of privacy violations.
This is not applicable to commercial entities; a commercial entity cannot sue for the privacy violation, this is a personal rights issue.
In this case, the expectation of privacy may be weakened or virtually non-existent, because the Burning Man Organization allows people to bring cameras to the event, and they can also photograph and use the photos. They don't promise people not to photograph or allow pictures of them; therefore, people don't have an expectation of not being seen or photographed.
Google does not use extroardinary means such as telephoto lenses to capture things that could not be seen by the naked eye.
The matter of trespass is completely separate from the question of whether it's legal to photograph or not.
A photographer can be trespassing, and it still be legal to take the photo. If the photo does not violate the privacy law (or other laws), the photographer can still publish it, with no recourse able to be taken against them for the acts of photographing or publication (they can only be charged with the trespass).
A photographer can be in privately owned publicly accessible property and still legally take photos; permission to access the property is implicit, and no additional permission is required to photograph.
Even if the photographer is caught on private property with or without permission, the property owner can't seize (steal) the camera or film, in order to prevent publication of the pictures: only a police officer (or other government official) making an arrest can seize those things.
Are you serious? Liberals have LOTS of rules designed to "protect" us from the evils of all sorts of things, real AND imaginary.
Global Warming, Universal Health care, Fast Food Labling laws, Anti Smoking Ordinances, Fairness Doctrine, Homosexual Marriage ....
You're just blind. One man's morals is another man's insanity. And just who's morals are we supposed to side with? I don't want your morals anywhere near my kids, just as I'm sure you don't want mine anywhere near your kids, so who gets to decide???
The left is just as hypcritical as the right.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.