Burning Man Responds To EFF's Criticism of Policy

Briden writes "Earlier this week, we discussed the EFF's criticism of the Burning Man Photo Policy. Burning Man has now responded at length on their own blog. Here's an excerpt: 'In fact, there are but two essential reasons we maintain these increased controls on behalf of our community: to protect our participants so that images that violate their privacy are not displayed, and to prevent companies from using Burning Man to sell products. We don't remove images from pages just because they criticize us (I've never been involved in taking down an image from an editorial blog criticizing Burning Man, and it's certainly not because there haven't been any!). We're also not at all interested [in] preventing participants from sharing their personal imagery or impressions of the event on third party sharing sites in a noncommercial manner, so long as they observe the concerns about privacy and commercialism. We're delighted to see people sharing videos, stories, and pictures on our official Facebook page, and we know that it, along with Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo, etc. are representative of the way many of us share personal imagery in the digital age.'"

Comments

No sir, I don't like it

[yttrstein]

I liked Burning Man a lot more when it was called "touring with the dead". Precisely the same amount of drugs, spectacle and enlightenment, except for about 300 bucks less per person.

Re:No sir, I don't like it

[impaledsunset]

But, but, but we are doing it for your privacy! We ask you to give us rights to your works, and give some of them up, _solely_ for your own good, don't you get it? We're thinking 'bout you! How can you acuse us like that?

And, no, we're not lying, no... No, really!

Re:No sir, I don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds about like the federal government.

Re:No sir, I don't like it

[Vu1turEMaN]

+1 AMAZING for subtle Ren and Stimpy reference.

Re:No sir, I don't like it

[FiloEleven]

Except this is voluntary.

Re:No sir, I don't like it

[fractoid]

OH SNAP

Re:No sir, I don't like it

[martyros]

You forgot, "Just look at our record; we've been doing this for a long time and never abused our rights. Furthermore, the minute we do, next years' attendance drops significantly, so we have a financial incentive not to abuse our power."

Re:No sir, I don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

the minute we do, next years' attendance drops significantly

Have you not been paying attention to anything? People allow shit like this to go on all the time. I am sure you have heard the term "bread and circuses". Guess what... The Burning Man is a circus.

Re:No sir, I don't like it

[Hojima]

I personally know people who have gone to the BM and they have no complaints over this. A friend of mine said she like the ability to paint her body and walk around in the nude without her dad seeing her in a Girls Gone Wild video. The burning man really is incredibly lenient about the amount of control they exert, but when you go in to blatantly exploit the population at their expense, you've crossed the line. The burning man is actually not about profit, and the 300$ that everyone whines about is nothing to the people that enjoy going there. They even see a percentage of it go back to them, because don't think there aren't any employees to ensure a good time, or activities that they provide (and who cares if they profit a bit). And if you take a look at they're office staff through google, you'll see they're not the suits you might expect them to be.

Re:No sir, I don't like it

[Geoffrey.landis]

Quick summary is that Burning Man has made a rights grab, and their response is to say, but we're only going to use our powers for good, not evil.

Very likely true. I believe them.

Nevertheless, their policy essentially boils down to, "all your base are belong to us."

Re:No sir, I don't like it

[metaforest]

The burning man is actually not about profit, and the 300$ that everyone whines about is nothing to the people that enjoy going there.

Agreed!

It's been quite a few years since I have gone. Honestly, the cost of getting there, and back again, in the first place, with everything you NEED to survive, and have a respectable chance of having a healthy, and comfortable good time, far out weighs the cost of the admission price.

If you are whining about $300USD for admission it's more than likely you also haven't got a decent plan for basic survival on the playa.

Both times I went (back in the mid 90's) I spent easily 10 times as much on travel, survival, and my project than the admission cost.

As for the IP rights. Grow the fuck up. IP rights have become a pain in the ass. That the BM has allowed recording of the event at all by participants, and still manages to not come across as Madonna, is pretty amazing. I can search the interwebs right now and find literally hundreds of thousands of images, videos and audio from the event that are untrammeled by BM's content policy. Including commentary, criticism, annoying parody, and even voyeuristic presentation. Where is the evil suppression?

The one thing I do not see is commercial exploitation of BM or it's attendant masses.

It seems to me that the EFF has stepped over the line here in assuming that carrying a weapon, a priori means that the weapon will be abused. I personally appreciate most of the work the EFF does, but maybe they have spent too much time fighting the Guberment, and 'evil corporations.' The EFF needs to remember that most people who carry a side-arm are not contemplating criminal acts. They are simply exercising their right to be ready to defend themselves. So far as I have seen BM applies their IP rights protocol to the same standard. It's unfortunate that IP rights are so messed up that BM has to do this to protect the event from commercial and privacy exploitation.

Re:No sir, I don't like it

[HTH NE1]

Quick summary is that Burning Man has made a rights grab, and their response is to say, but we're only going to use our powers for good, not evil.

Very likely true. I believe them.

They are authoring the contract; they can put terms in it that clearly limit themselves against being evil, eliminating the need for trust.

Re:No sir, I don't like it

[DeVilla]

So, the problem is her Dad seeing her in Girls Gone Wild. Him watching videos of her on vimeo and You Tube are cool though? Or does she know he only looks for her in GGW videos? Perhaps she's not what he's actually looking for?

Public Event

[b4upoo]

Just how the heck can they claim privacy concerns for a public event in a public space? If people wish to do something in private I suggest that they do it alone in a place where only they can go.

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody said they leased the area the festival is on, so it wouldn't be public space but private space.

I don't care enough to verify that, though ;)

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

The previous post answered that. Apparently, there is something over 300 dollars worth of admission fee. This likely is needed now to secure the space for the event, pay for insurance, etc. which means it's no longer a public event, it's a private enterprise. As a private enterprise it's not surprising that they would want to start to control the how images, etc are used. After all, if there is money to be made from images of their event, they would want to be the ones making the money. That's plain human and, further, corporate nature.

Re:Public Event

[Hizonner]

1. The people who come to Burning Man are NOT the general public; they're a subculture with completely different attitudes. If your boss happens to actually be at Burning Man, it's pretty unlikely that your boss is the kind of person who will then turn around and decide to fire you for, say, being naked at Burning Man. Same for lots of other people who might give you grief for lots of other things. Yes, it could happen, but it's far, far less likely, and probabilities matter.
2. You can see who's around you at Burning Man (or in any public place, for that matter), and adjust your behavior accordingly. You can't see who might look at a photograph later.
3. If you don't happen to notice everybody who's around you in a public place, you expose your activities to the relatively limited number of people who are right there, right then. If you don't happen to notice that a photograph is being taken, that exposes your activities to an unlimited number of people, that number of people can grow in the future, and people can easily pass around a credible record of your activities, rather than just gossiping about them. Again, the probability of harm is much greater.
4. Burning Man isn't a completely public event, in that the attendees are supposed to agree to certain rules, including privacy rules, which do NOT apply in public places in general.

I don't necessarily like the BMO's picture policy, because I think it gives them too much arbitrary power. I'm not even sure it's reasonable to try to address these privacy concerns, or similar concerns in similar public or semi-public settings, at all, because it's damned hard to actually have a useful effect without giving somebody too much power. But it's bogus to pretend the concerns don't exist.

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still outdoors in a wide open space. Sorry...that is public.

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an open space, but invites are based on tickets.

Your logic fails, try again.

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Your 'it is because I say so' argument fails. Outdoor events can be private. Try wandering onto a golf course during a PGA event and see how far you get. 'But it's outside!' you can yell while the police push your brainless ass into the back of the squad car.

Re:Public Event

[cmdahler]

It's always fun on slashdot to see the IANAL-but-I-KNOW-I'm-right crowd come out of the woodwork on articles like this. No, he's not a moron - you are. BM is held on property that is leased for the event. That makes it private, you can't get in without a ticket, which does indeed hold you under a binding contract while you are on that property. The only way you could get around this legally would be to find a location that is not on the leased property from which you could view BM, and then take pictures there. Now, go back under your rock.

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure he could take pictures at that PGA event without giving up any rights to them. That's because in public, there is no "expectation of privacy". Certainly he may have to pay admission to get in though. I don't believe the GP was arguing about that.

Re:Public Event

[Yvanhoe]

The first time I heard about the Burning Man, they were saying everywhere "come at your own risk ! We don't provide water or health services ! If you want to be safe, either bring an hospital or stay home !" At the beginning, it was supposed that there were no spectators, only participants. They sounded like they would be ready to leave you dead on the sand.

Now what ? They want to protect the privacy ? What kind of sissy participant is unable to come unrecognizable if s/he does not wish to be ?

Re:Public Event

[fooslacker]

Only if they allowed you to bring a camera into their private event. I think this is crap, and stupid on Burning Man's part, but private events control whether you can take pictures or not and what you can do with them all the time.

Re:Public Event

[fooslacker]

The first time I heard about the Burning Man, they were saying everywhere "come at your own risk ! We don't provide water or health services ! If you want to be safe, either bring an hospital or stay home !" At the beginning, it was supposed that there were no spectators, only participants. They sounded like they would be ready to leave you dead on the sand. Now what ? They want to protect the privacy ? What kind of sissy participant is unable to come unrecognizable if s/he does not wish to be ?

It's not about privacy. Burning Man is no longer what you described. It's now a corporate money machine and like all things that explode with success the raiders descend and now they try to control the environment so that the golden goose continues to lay eggs for as long as possible. Their goal is to no longer have Burning Man grow but instead to have it generate a low risk income for as long as possible before their suffocating grip slowly kills it. This is not new by any means, companies behave in the same way in any industry.

Entrepreneur begets, risky business, begets client base, begets minor success, begets corporate buyout/rapid growth, begets a need to ensure future profits, begets restrictions on customer base, begets slow decline begets litigation, begets bankruptcy begets another cycle.

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way you could get around this legally would be to find a location that is not on the leased property from which you could view BM, and then take pictures there. Now, go back under your rock.

If that's leased land, then it's the same as taking pictures of a bathroom from out in the street. Very, very illegal.

Re:Public Event

[Khyber]

The Bureau of Land Management would absolutely disagree with you. The Black Rock Desert is public property, through and through. The reason for the hefty fee is for the PERMITS for such an event.

And I just spent a week going out to various deserts to do meteorite hunting and to watch the Perseids, the Mojave and Black Rock deserts were my first places to go hunting, so I already know the area of which you talk about, as I had to go get a permit for my haul from that desert area from the Bureau of Land Management.

Re:Public Event

[skuzzlebutt]

So, then, Google is breaking the law by photographing people's houses and making the images public? Pointing your camera into a window is far different than pointing it into, say, a an open-air beer garden on a sidewalk in San Antonio.

Re:Public Event

[Khyber]

"BM is held on property that is leased for the event."

NO IT IS NOT. THE BLACK ROCK DESERT IS PUBLIC LAND AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DOES NOT LEASE OUT PARCELS FOR TEMPORARY USAGE, ONLY PERMITS TO HOLD AN EVENT AT SUCH DESIGNATED LOCATION.

You don't need to be a fucking lawyer to know that one, you just need to have the skills to know how to read a fucking map and know which government agency to call/check with.

You are the moron.

Re:Public Event

[FatdogHaiku]

It's always fun on slashdot to see the IANAL-but-I-KNOW-I'm-right crowd come out of the woodwork on articles like this..

Well, they are really hiding in the woodwork and shouting out their opinion. The fact that they post AC is a pretty good indicator that they are full of crap. The rest of your points are spot on. Just like software, if you don't like the conditions just say no thanks.

Can someone please fork Burning Man... What to call it though...
Burning Guy?
Smoldering Dude?
Immolation Person?

Re:Public Event

[DerekLyons]

The people who come to Burning Man are NOT the general public; they're a subculture with completely different attitudes.

The people who come to Burning Man are whoever can cough up the dough to purchase the publicly available tickets. Subcultures interested in privacy sell their tickets through private (and often quasi backdoor) means, and they don't advertise the sales and have multiple ticket purchase locations.
 
They may have started out a subculture, but they've been commercial for years now.
 
 

If you don't happen to notice everybody who's around you in a public place, you expose your activities to the relatively limited number of people who are right there, right then. If you don't happen to notice that a photograph is being taken, that exposes your activities to an unlimited number of people, that number of people can grow in the future, and people can easily pass around a credible record of your activities, rather than just gossiping about them. Again, the probability of harm is much greater.

The solution to that is simple - don't do something in a public place you'd be embarrassed to be photographed doing. I mean seriously, I'm getting tired of the nonsensical arguments advanced in this and the previous discussion that Burning Man is simultaneously a place for public performance art and a private place where the performers/participants shouldn't be subject to the normal constraints of being public. You can be one, you can be the other, but you can't be both at the same time.

Re:Public Event

[CecilPL]

I hear there's good old-fashioned forking going on at Burning Man all the time!

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

The land is public for roughly 50 weeks of the year. Durning Burning Man, the BLM permit makes the area of Black Rock City and a 2 mile perimeter private. I believe the permits are public record, feel free to file a FOIA request and read them before you start talking out of your ass.

When farmers lease BLM land for their cattle, do you think they are not allowed to turn away trespassers?

Re:Public Event

[sumdumass]

Public and private are separate in terms of admission verses privacy. Under the Current US rules concerning privacy, if I can see you and you are not inside your home (which is sort of questionable too depending on if the curtains are closed or not) then your actions become public. This is how tabloids get away with anchoring a boat of the coast of a private Island or beach and taking photos of celebrities, this is also how people can take photos of the PGA event from outside their controls and the PGA has little control over it. Even the police will not be able to do anything. Trademark and copyright might come into play but that's a case for a civil lawsuit, not criminal enforcement.

Don't confuse two very distinctly different concepts of the law.

Re:Public Event

[Ian Alexander]

TABM Ain't Burning Man.

Re:Public Event

[sumdumass]

Public and private are distinct legal concepts within concepts. The confusion here is that people are wanting to claim that because they can control admission to the event, it's private. That's probably right, it's a private event. However, in the terms of privacy it's a different standard and being a private event doesn't necessarily maintain an expectation of privacy and can be very public in those terms.

The problem here is people without proper consideration of the law or concepts of the intricacies in it. You can stand outside the event's borders and take photo graphs of anything you can see and there isn't a thing they can do about it. You can sit inside the events and take photo's of everything and there isn't a thing they can do about it unless trademarks and copyright come into play. Major League Baseball, probably one of the most arcane in regards to rules like this, can't do a damn thing about someone taking pictures of people in the stands at one of their parks. The rules for privacy when covering something in plain sight often follow the rules a cop needs for probable cause but a little less stringent for public people. This is how tabloids get away with using telephoto lenses a mile away to take pictures of celebrities on private beaches, private parties, and so on. They, just like the police, can even go to the air and see over privacy fences.

Re:Public Event

[nosferatu1001]

No they cannot.

To control your images taken in a semi-public space (to be a private space only members can be invited: these tickets are available to the public) copyright must be assigned to them, entirely or through exclusive license. USC17 s204 requires that this is with a PHYSICAL SIGNATURE - it MUST be written.

Buying tickets over the phone means that they cannot assign copyright.

Re:Public Event

[Runaway1956]

Please, just admit that this event offends your sensibilities, and that you are unwilling to afford them any privacy. In fact, if you had the opportunity, you would cause troubles for them, simply because your sensibilities don't permit you to recognize their activities as legitimate.

The only advice that I can offer you is, "Don't look, Ethel!"

Ooops, it's to late. You've already been mooned!

Re:Public Event

[v1]

We need you to write us a blank check signing away your rights in case we need them to protect you (us). We promise not to abuse it.

Is anyone else tired of hearing this?

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean that you ARE a lawyer? Just curious.

Re:Public Event

[blackraven14250]

Then the ticket has an agreement on it, that says when you use the ticket, you have to agree to forfeit pictures. They do this (not always with forfeiting pictures, but very common to have this type of agreement) at all sorts of sporting events, concerts, conventions, and anything else you think of that uses tickets.

Re:Public Event

[wickerprints]

You don't need to buy a ticket to drive along public roads and photograph what you can see with the naked eye...although of course, if you violate traffic laws you might "purchase" a ticket against your will....

Look, I'm a photographer and I know what is and is not allowed in terms of image capture, copyright, and publication rights in the US. If you are standing on public property, you have the right to photograph just about anything you can see with your unaided vision (i.e., no long telephoto lenses or binoculars to peer into houses). The key is whether the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy from where they are located and the context in which they are situated at that location. Buying a ticket from an event organizer who has leased the land for that event turns that land into private property for that event's duration, and therefore ALL activities fall under the purview of the organizers. You become their guest, which is why they can eject you from the event should you violate the terms of the contract you agreed to by purchasing the ticket in the first place.

So to compare Google's Street View against Burning Man photo policy is comparing apples and oranges. One is about photos taken from public land, whereas the other is about photos taken at a private event. The organizer's policy is designed to prevent commercial use, which is absolutely their right to do. They could even have the right to prevent you from taking pictures at all while on their property, just like a shopping mall can say "No Photography Permitted."

I'm not concerned about the legal issues surrounding photography @ Burning Man. I'm far more concerned about the issues surrounding photography of public landmarks from public property that is now being prevented by law enforcement under the guise of "anti-terror measures." That's right, photographers (basically anyone with a professional-looking camera) are being told they will be arrested and their equipment confiscated if they take photos of, say, the Sears Tower, or the Brooklyn Bridge. WTF is that? And much of the time, if you do a bit of digging, the real reason why this is happening is because the advent of high-quality digital imaging has now made it possible for amateurs to create artistically compelling images that compete with the "official" landmark images that are for sale. Why buy a poster or print if you can shoot your own? It's just another piece of security theater and illegal restriction under the guise of "protecting us from terror." That is something to be worried about.

Re:Public Event

[centuren]

The people who come to Burning Man are NOT the general public; they're a subculture with completely different attitudes. If your boss happens to actually be at Burning Man, it's pretty unlikely that your boss is the kind of person who will then turn around and decide to fire you for, say, being naked at Burning Man. Same for lots of other people who might give you grief for lots of other things. Yes, it could happen, but it's far, far less likely, and probabilities matter.

At the same time, if you go to Burning Man and are photographed doing drugs and running around naked, and these photos make it back to your boss who DOES fire you for whatever behavior, so be it. It's your choice where you go and how you act, and if that violates something in the company guidelines you might have to answer for your decisions.

As for photos, if Burning Man is in a legal position to set the policies it has, then again, you are entering into that contract. If it is too absolute, then, like all opt-in situations, just don't go to the event. If there policies exceeds their position, then someone can challenge it legally.

Basically, I don't see much of an issue here. No expectation of privacy makes a person not responsible for their actions, and BMO's photo policy is part of the package whether anyone likes it or not. The EFF commentary theorizes that it's a "misuse" of the DMCA, but doesn't challenge its legality. If you are a regular Burning Man attendee you can decide to continue to opt-in or not, and for those that Burning Man holds no interest, what's the bigger story that is of concern? Many events are held that don't allow ANY photography by attendees. Isn't that much more restrictive than BMO's policy?

Re:Public Event

[fooslacker]

So I think you aren't paying attention...I was referring to the AC above who said he could take pictures at a PGA event and I said "only if they let you bring a camera in" because it is a private event that has controlled entry. Lots of places don't allow cameras or photography from those attending.

Where your argument comes in is if they let you come in with all your stuff and then claim they own the rights to the photograph. That said, as you pointed out, they can also force you to sign away rights in order to bring a camera in as you pointed out.

Can they keep me from using my personal plane to fly over and take pictures form the outside? no. Can they keep me from attending if I don't agree to abide by their rules? yes.

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is photographing people's houses from public roads.
This fits the definition of a location that is not on the private property from which you can view and take pictures.

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Close the blinds on your windows.

Re:Public Event

[ZuchinniOne]

One of the things that makes Burning Man wonderful is that it is not corporate. And it is not for profit. The ticket prices vary from about $125 to $300 and all give full access for 1 full week. They also don't make any profit from vendors etc ... because there are none at the event and they don't want any.

There are only two shops, one for ice and and one for coffee,. And all of the proceeds from that go to the local school district.

In fact the entire economy is gift based, so you will literally have people coming up to you just handing you things, from candy to homemade wine, to carbonated fruit.

If they wanted to make money the festival would completely change and it would pretty much be ruined.

Re:Public Event

[mcvos]

That's because in public, there is no "expectation of privacy".

But on Burning Man, there is an expectation of artistry, fun and non-commercialism, which unexpectedly appearing on Girls Gone Wild videos isn't.

Re:Public Event

[ZuchinniOne]

It's not about privacy. Burning Man is no longer what you described. It's now a corporate money machine

Sorry to tell you that you're just wrong. Burning Man has grown a lot over the years. But what makes it amazing is that it is still a community event that focus on art, people, and wonder ... and there is no focus on money.

There is a fire department; a group of rangers that go around helping out participants; and at least 3 medical clinics with doctors, nurses, EMTS; there are entire camps devoted to repairing everything from bicycles to art cars; and the really cool thing, is that every single person working at those places is a participant! They came of their own accord and do what they are doing for free because they love the community.

Re:Public Event

[fooslacker]

I have no doubt that those that are still attending it believe that and I'm sure that the general spirit is still there among a majority of participants. It was definitely about that when it started. But trust me, when they start worrying about who is using pictures for what and they're threatening people with legal talk and they're selling tickets and leasing property and buying insurance it's becoming about money. I'm sorry for your loss. I would suggest you move on and find the next grass roots version or if you still enjoy it then keep going until it changes to the point that you don't then find the next grass roots version. Either way change and commercialization is the way of the world and these are pretty good indicators it is coming to Burning Man. The good news is there will always be new things when creatives are involved.

Re:Public Event

[Bjorn_Redtail]

As a matter of fact, they aren't. They lease grazing rights, which do not include the right of folks to pass over the public lands. Not that this stops them from trying... Of course, I'm sure Burning man has a different agreement.

Re:Public Event

[Khyber]

Thank you for beating me to this, I was at work. I had part of my childhood living on a ranch, and grazing rights DO NOT make a place private property, by any means.

Yet another person that has never dealt with the BLM talking out of their ass. That property is marked on all public maps as public property, that means that people can walk all over that land without needing to pay a goddamned dime. The *ONLY* way such public property could be considered private would be if the Commander-in-Chief decided to camp there, and that is only by virtue of the fact that the SS would immediately cordon off that whole area for the President's safety, and even then it's back to public usage the moment the President is gone.

I've dealt with the BLM for almost two decades. I know exactly what's talked about, as I even discussed this with the BLM about making an area private - only if I purchased it lock stock and key from the government would it be considered and marked as private property on the map.

On a BLM map, public spaces are marked in Yellow, private spaces are marked in white, and no-go zones are marked in red, such as fire zones and military training areas.

The entirety of Black Rock Desert is public property. Usually I avoid Burning Man and go for the ARLISS and XPRS rocketry fests in the middle of September.

Yes, I'm there QUITE OFTEN. Whomever marked me as troll is a total tool.

Re:Public Event

[Miseph]

I know some burners, and I can honestly say you're full of shit. If I really want to, I could probably go for approximately free (I'd have to chip in for gas and food, but I pay for that normally, so it hardly counts) with the connections I have simply because of the tangentially related activities I do. I don't because, well, it doesn't really strike my fancy. They're absolutely a subculture (or maybe a sub-subculture), just like otakus, gamers, hackers, furries, rennies, martial artists, wannabe martial artists, sports fanatics, people into BDSM, theater buffs, film buffs, music buffs, independent theater buffs, independent film buffs, independent music buffs, hashers, /b/tards, the Rainbow Family, club kids, right-wing paramilitary gun nuts, and any number of other groups who all hold many events of all sizes, scopes, prices of admission and mainstream appeal. Hell, I'm pretty sure that there are burners who haven't ever made it to BM for whatever reason (finances, work, kids, court orders not to leave their state of residence), they just attend local and regional events put up for and by the community so that they can have more than one event per year.

Anyway, your assertion that a subculture can't have events you need to pay to get into, or that such events have to be somehow "underground" is bullshit. Anthrocon advertises, and they sell tickets through reputable channels, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to show up and pay to get in because it's somehow not just for furries anymore.

Re:Public Event

[Khyber]

I will just point you to my above post and tell you to STFU, you spineless nameless faceless whore!

Re:Public Event

[DerekLyons]

The OP implied that BM was somehow private and thus shouldn't be treated as being public - I showed how this was false.

Re:Public Event

[metaforest]

Buy Windows over the phone, apparently does confer rights to Microsoft. Are you thinking that the agreement written on that ticket is unenforceable?

Try to tell the security staff at a Metallica concert that you have the right to capture content using the camera, or audio recorder you failed to sneak in. They will give you two choices... surrender the device(s) or leave the property. They might just throw your ass out with no further comment, and no refund.

Re:Public Event

[colmore]

If people are having the same kind of fun, who cares?

The rule changes have been pretty logical and the increase in control has more to do with the increase in attendance. A stadium concert has far more rules than one in a small bar. This isn't the result of some corporate conspiracy.

Re:Public Event

[toddestan]

And much of the time, if you do a bit of digging, the real reason why this is happening is because the advent of high-quality digital imaging has now made it possible for amateurs to create artistically compelling images that compete with the "official" landmark images that are for sale. Why buy a poster or print if you can shoot your own? It's just another piece of security theater and illegal restriction under the guise of "protecting us from terror." That is something to be worried about.

Does that really make sense? It's not like recording music here, where the tools have improved dramatically over the past 10-15 years or so. I can take my 30 year-old SLR with its 30 year-old lens and create poster quality images that are of equivalent quality (some might say better) to the digital cameras of today. And back when my camera was new, it was considered a lower-end model too.

I don't think it has to do with digital cameras so much - they're just taking away our rights because they figure they can get away with it.

Re:Public Event

[skuzzlebutt]

Going a bit off topic: I agree with that last part...that's some horribly scary stuff. I'm sure there is a commercial (read: lobbying) aspect to it, but the larger issue is control.

I read a blog post recently (I think it might have been a photog with the same name as me, which was how I found him, or possibly a friend of his linked from his site) who was harassed and almost arrested for taking pictures in a train station--after the TSA or whomever runs the show had publicly stated that it was OK to do so.

It's all about control. Bureaucrats create shadowbox controls to keep people too scared to "cause trouble" and possibly scare their donors, and the police/security forces hired to back up said vague policies take it too far, because it's what they get paid to do.

Example du jour: the jackasses who want to take public schools and hospitals off of Google Maps/Earth. Because if Osama Bin Laden can count the number of air conditioners on top of my kids' schoolhouse, the terrorists have already won.

I'm sure you've seen this, but it curls my toes: http://www.ehow.com/how_2048594_inappropriate-pictures-landmarks.html

Re:Public Event

[fooslacker]

If people are having the same kind of fun, who cares?

Agreed. I wasn't saying people shouldn't go, I was saying realize why things are changing. If people still enjoy it they should attend.

The rule changes have been pretty logical and the increase in control has more to do with the increase in attendance. A stadium concert has far more rules than one in a small bar. This isn't the result of some corporate conspiracy.

Whether or not you think the changes are logical or acceptable is a personal thing. For those that don't they should find something else that better suits them. For those that do they should continue to enjoy it.

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a liar and a cheat. Why is your life so empty?

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

... it's becoming about money.

Dead right. The worst I ever saw along these lines was the ticket to an event at a site in Concord, CA, which site was, at the time "presented by the San Francisco Chronicle/Examiner" (I don't recall which of the two local newspapers it was). In two-point type, you were informed that each ticket included the parking fee. EACH TICKET!!!

So, if you went in a twelve-occupant van, you paid twelve parking "fees" for the one parking space. Worse yet, if you WALKED to the venue with five friends, you still had to pay for six parking spaces. I was happy I drove alone in my own car. The grasping bastards!

To add insult to injury, there were kids walking around with hand-lettered "VIP parking" signs. You became a VIP by giving them ten bucks. I don't know if this was even recognized by the venue or was encouraged by it for a cut of the swag.

Re:Public Event

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's not a moron - you are.

Actually, you're the moron because you're implicitly assuming that the law's definition of public/private is the only valid one. Grow out of your blinkered view please, thinking the law is the only reality is childish.

I have not the previous AC, just somebody who's sick of people who can't think for themselves.

Re:Public Event

[cyber-dragon.net]

Except that part of the permit is that the land is temporarily changing hands, the terms of the contract determine what rights the BLM keeps.

Just like my landlord may own my apartment, but they have a very limited set of rights there. It is MY private space even legally.

Re:Public Event

[cyber-dragon.net]

You know BLM in terms of farming... that doesn't mean there aren't other contracts. Have you actually READ the Burning Man contract to see what it says? If not, read your own complains regarding not knowing what you are talking about.

Just because the map is marked off for what it is 90% of the year does not make it so at all times. I went to college basically on BLM land and I can recall several events which were allowed to cordon off portions of it and we weren't allowed.

It is NOT public as they can and will eject you from the land if you don't have a ticket or brake the rules. They have law enforcement there to back them up on this. Or are they wrong too?

It sucks anyway

[thetoadwarrior]

Let them own the pictures and everything else. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence should move on to another even tor start their own.

Re:It sucks anyway

[betterunixthanunix]

The whole time I was reading the response, I kept thinking, "If they need to police photographs just to keep the noncommercial environment, then it is time for Burning Man to just end and for something new to take its place."

Re:It sucks anyway

[skuzzlebutt]

I've been thinking that since I first saw a documentary on BM about five years ago. My first thought was "how awesome, free-for-all art-fest!", but after a little research, having just watched an in-depth movie on how it started, etc, the ticket prices alone made it obvious that they had veered pretty hard off-course.

And I don't buy into the "but we have to charge x to cover expenses" crap. It may be true, but if you are out-pricing 99% of the artists who would really add color and flavor to the event, then your mission is no longer facilitating a friendly space for art: you are facilitating an event, not much different than a curator or the manager of a conference center...and that's a big difference.

Re:It sucks anyway

[H310iSe]

it doesn't suck (going again this year) BUT you're right, there is symbiosis on Sept... 17th? from at least a music pov it should be *at least* as good, possibly better

There's tickets?

[savanik]

Since when did you have to buy tickets for Burning Man? I thought it was a counter-culture, anti-corporate, neo-society experiment out in the middle of nowhere that sounded like a really cool idea. Now they're saying that they're trying to 'keep it real' and prevent crass commercialism by... putting a highly restrictive EULA on the tickets they're selling for the event at anywhere from $280 to $450?

For that matter, now they're saying they're building a community/city out in the desert. Since when do you get charged a fee for walking into a city?

I was actually thinking about going to Burning Man this year. It sounds like I already missed the good years.

Re:There's tickets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since at least 1995, 14 years ago.

Complaining about burning man was better last year.

Re:There's tickets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when burning man was good?

Burning man was never good.

Re:There's tickets?

[CRCulver]

I was actually thinking about going to Burning Man this year. It sounds like I already missed the good years.

There are other festivals that are similar to Burning Man--out in the middle of nowhere and dedicated to radical free expression--but which are still quite unknown. I'm obviously not going to name any, but if you are the sort who is into that sort of thing, you probably have friends who are also into that sort of thing and who know some cool places to attend. Just ask around, enjoy yourself there, and live in the moment without thinking all the time about how you missed Burning Man at its prime.

Re:There's tickets?

[Overunderrated]

That's faux-socialists for you. Everyone giving gifts to each other works out great, as long as there's a lot of money paid up front to create the temp economy. Real life doesn't operate for free, but get someone high enough and they think they're revolutionary.

Re:There's tickets?

[yttrstein]

The good YEAR was the first one. I know I sound like an elitist snob, but really I was just lucky enough to be in the right car at the right time and ended up going by mistake.

I went to the second one on purpose, and wanted to leave the minute I saw some asshole selling ten dollar hamburgers off the grill hanging on the back of his microbus. I've not gone back since.

Re:There's tickets?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're better off.

Re:There's tickets?

[Anonymous Coward]

> wanted to leave the minute I saw some asshole selling ten dollar hamburgers off the grill hanging on the back of his microbus.

There is no money allowed in BRC. So ummm... you're not an elitist snob... you're just a liar pretending that you're an elitist snob.

Re:There's tickets?

[desmondmonster]

There are serious logistical challenges to building a city in the desert. Organizers must secure permits, hire portapotty cleaners (who come every day), give out art grants, etc, and these things cost serious money. Burning Man isn't spontaneous and people have realized that for 50,000 people to live civilly with each other, there need to be some rules and a modicum of organization. (The "rules," IIRC, are mostly about adhering to the laws of federal park lands, which the playa is.) I've been twice and old timers always say it's not like it used to be...even people who have been there only three times. But they keep going back, because not-what-it-used-to-be is still better than anything-else-that's-going-on.

Re:There's tickets?

[Mr. Slippery]

Everyone giving gifts to each other works out great, as long as there's a lot of money paid up front to create the temp economy.

The Rainbow Gatherings have been going on a lot longer then Burning Man. Always free.

Regional burns like Playa Del Fuego are quite cheap, just enough to lease the land, maybe a little extra to buy firewood and first aid and safety gear.

I have no idea what it costs to lease the land, and buy the necessary material to build and then disassemble Black Rock City, but I suspect the per capita cost is just about what a ticket costs.

Spending money to build the box in which the gift economy experiment takes place, is different than spending money to prime the gift economy.

Real life doesn't operate for free

Not as long as there are landlords around to squeeze rents out of us, no. But in real life, apart from landlords and capitalists, food actually, literally, grows on trees. As does fuel for cooking and heating, and a wonderful building material called "wood". The sun shines for free; the photosynthesis that makes the oxygen you breathe is provided free of charge. Real life is free; it's humans who add a cover charge.

Re:There's tickets?

[Distan]

I'm not going to correct all the errors in your post, but the key error is falling into the "we need permits" trap that the Burning Man organizers have set up for you.

Anybody can camp on BLM land. No permit required. In the early years, we all used the "spontaneous gathering" excuse (the same as rainbow gatherings still use today). If a group has no leader, there is nobody for the government to demand a permit from. If 20,000 people spontaneously all decide to individually camp at the same place at the same time, no permits are required because the gathering is not organizing.

By setting themselves up as the "leaders", Larry Harvey and company were able to exert further control over an event that was originally all about spontaneity and lack of control.

Re:There's tickets?

[paimin]

Nope, you're just a jackass pretending they know what they're talking about. I have no idea if there's a no-money rule now or was one in the beginning, but there were DEFINITELY people selling food and other things 15 years ago. Try knowing what you're talking about before spouting off.

Re:There's tickets?

[Joe Tie.]

Despite hating heat, I was considering going a couple years back. Even by then the general opinion had been that it'd become so commercial that going was pretty much pointless other than to just be able to say you were there.

Re:There's tickets?

[Bigjeff5]

Real life is free; it's humans who add a cover charge.

That really depends on what you consider "free". In real life we evolved ways to free up people from the task of hunting/gathering for their own personal needs. Smaller and smaller groups of people were needed to supply food and materials for the entire community, which meant everybody else was free to do something to make their slice of the world better for the community. Thus, the modern world was born, and eventually grew into what it is today.

That things may have gotten out of hand a little bit does not suggest in any way that devolving culture by 10,000 years is going to make life better. In fact, if you ever listen to archaeologists or read books about what things were like back then, it really sucked. Life was hard, most people died early. Convenience was a piece of flint chipped to the shape of a spear, which meant you might actually get that buffalo this time and be able to feed your family for the month.

But in real life, apart from landlords and capitalists, food actually, literally, grows on trees. As does fuel for cooking and heating, and a wonderful building material called "wood". The sun shines for free; the photosynthesis that makes the oxygen you breathe is provided free of charge.

You've got an odd idea of what living in nature is like, have you ever actually tried it? I know people who have, and it's no walk in the park, as you seem to suggest. Why the hell do you think we developed away from it?

The fact is, all of you people who claim life would be better if we all just "got back to nature" are nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites. You could do it now, as you say everything is free, so all you have to do is leave, find some place secluded, and live. But nobody from Burning Man, or any of these other "freedom" parties ever does, because nobody wants to give up the luxuries the modern world provides. It's really nothing more than an excuse to have a raucous party.

Your idealism is faked.

Re:There's tickets?

[desmondmonster]

'spontaneously gathering' may work for a few thousand people for a couple years, but the cat's now out of the bag. if you want to throw technicalities at BLM, they can probably find a technicality to toss all the campers off the land. burning man gets away with it every year because it brings money into a depressed area, which requires coordination. if you want to relinquish all responsibility, you're opening yourself up to being controlled by other, outside influences. i think the tradeoff's worth it.

Re:There's tickets?

[Tacvek]

The fact of the matter though is that if there was no organization the event would be classed as a riot, not spontaneous camping. Thanks the the events' namesake, that would be easy for the government to justify. Further, many of the imposed rules are mandates from the Bureau of Land Management, not from Black Rock City LLC.

Re:There's tickets?

[skuzzlebutt]

I think that, ultimately, is the moral to this story: if you are putting substantially more focus on the apparatus than the thing the apparatus is supposed to do, you probably don't remember exactly why you built it in the first place.

or: catching a mouse is not the same as building a mousetrap factory.

Re:There's tickets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea well, 20,000 people spontaneously shitting in the same place without porta-potties presents certain logistical problems but I'm sure you have the answer to that.

Re:There's tickets?

[baKanale]

But in real life, apart from landlords and capitalists, food actually, literally, grows on trees. As does fuel for cooking and heating, and a wonderful building material called "wood".

And apparently in the fantasy realm you've labeled "real life" the food and wood are just shit out by the trees in a useful form and nobody actually has to do work to put it to use. Work was invented by The Man for the express purpose of "keeping you down".

Meanwhile, in the ACTUAL real world, somebody actually has to collect the food, or God forbid, grow it on a farm. Maybe even prepare it into a tasty meal, depending.

And somebody has to collect, chop, or saw the wood, depending on whether you're burning twigs, burning logs, or making boards.

And somebody else has to build the tools needed for that job.

And somebody else has to gather the raw materials to make those tools, which itself requires tools.

Not to mention the time required to develop the skills needed to perform some of these tasks and do it well.

And these people who sweat and bleed and work their fingers to the bone to get these jobs done should just freely give the fruits of their labor to you, at no cost, for what reason? So you can sit around on your ass, drugged out of your mind, contributing nothing but bad poetry and worse philosophy? Yeah, sure, ok.

Re:There's tickets?

[CRCulver]

The fact is, all of you people who claim life would be better if we all just "got back to nature" are nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites. You could do it now, as you say everything is free, so all you have to do is leave, find some place secluded, and live. But nobody from Burning Man, or any of these other "freedom" parties ever does, because nobody wants to give up the luxuries the modern world provides. It's really nothing more than an excuse to have a raucous party.

Burning Man isn't about getting back to nature as much as it is getting away from other people. Burning Man has always attracted nerds and there is a lot of interesting technology being tried out every year. Burning Man is about radical free expression, so yes, Burners have always been upfront that it is a raucous party.

It is Rainbow Gatherings that are about getting back to nature. Yes, it is true that most participants hang out in the forest for a month eating the simplest of food, but then go back to civilization and sit in a comfortable flat. However, there are plenty of people who do nothing but drift from one Rainbow Gathering to another through the course of the year. They have cut themselves off from most of the luxury of the modern world (even getting between Rainbows is likely to be done by hitchhiking and hiking, with sleeping rough in a tent, instead of something more comfortable) so their idealism is much more credible.

Re:There's tickets?

[fluxrad]

food actually, literally, grows on trees. As does fuel for cooking and heating

Jesus, man. wood is worse than coal! I sure hope you're not an environmentalist.

Re:There's tickets?

[TheLink]

The hunter gatherer lifestyle isn't that bad actually in certain environments/regions, the big problem is if you have medical emergencies - break a leg etc.

The other big problem is, you need very many acres of land to support just a few humans doing that. Because "Nature" isn't going to conveniently produce edible plants/fruits and animals in high densities just for us humans.

Because of that I don't think the earth can support 6 billion humans living the "back to nature" hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

That's why farming will still be required. Whether the modern style farming with large areas of monoculture (same plants/animals), or some other form.

We're also running out of fish (due to terrible fishing practices like "bycatch" etc). If we weren't that low on fish, just a few humans would be able to live quite well just by fishing from the shore or from small boats. It seems that humans thrive on fish (that's not mercury/PCB/BPA laden ;) ).

Just look at the historical accounts. In the past many places had "zillions" of oysters/lobsters/cod/sardines/bison etc. A small bunch of people could live very easily off such riches. It's a bit like a few people living off the "interest" of a large sum of money. Sadly we've been eating into the capital for a long time already.

The other big problem we wouldn't have as many cool toys or other "shiny" stuff, or fancy stuff like spacecraft for instance. I like my toys :).

Re:There's tickets?

[Anonymous Coward]

wood is worse than coal!

I've done no real research on the topic, but really? Wood is worse than coal? I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) in a sense trees are a carbon sequestration system. They gather carbon while they grow, and release it when they burn. At first glance I would assume burning wood is almost a zero sum return on carbon. As long as you re-plant another tree in place of the one you burnt in a few decades it would soak up all that carbon again. Coal on the other hand seems like it would be harder to replace and take longer to do so than a few decades, so even if burning coal and wood were equally bad the fact coal is harder for nature to remake I would think would offset some of the negatives of burning wood. Perhaps wood is only worse for the environment when you look at it from how much energy per unit it can produce.

Re:There's tickets?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume

"I'll see you in another life, brotha!" -Desmond Hume

Re:There's tickets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me more about your story. I want to know everything.

Re:There's tickets?

[fluxrad]

Perhaps wood is only worse for the environment when you look at it from how much energy per unit it can produce.

There's the rub. You get fewer BTUs per unit burned from wood, so you have to burn more of it. Since coal is concentrated, you're getting more of the good stuff and, thus, less pollution per BTU.

Re:There's tickets?

[mcvos]

There are other festivals that are similar to Burning Man--out in the middle of nowhere and dedicated to radical free expression--but which are still quite unknown. I'm obviously not going to name any, but if you are the sort who is into that sort of thing, you probably have friends who are also into that sort of thing and who know some cool places to attend.

I'm into that sort of thing, but all my friends have become really boring lately. There's lots of festivals I want to go to but don't have anyone to go with. Well, I'm at Hacking At Random now, and found two friends as well as making a lot of new ones.

Re:There's tickets?

[ZuchinniOne]

I'm missing it this year :( quite sadly. I'd highly recommend that you go. It's one of those things where afterwards you'll being wondering why you even considered not going.

Once you get there everything will make sense. You have to remember that this is not a typical event. People who go consider themselves a community and almost everyone supports the EULA because of past problems where people tried to sell videos of people at the event without their consent.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/26/ctv.burning.man/

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/05/national/05VIDE.html

As for the tickets, they are well worth it and are not sold for profit, but to cover the costs of the event. Such as leasing the land from the BLM, providing toilet facilities for 50,000 people for 1 week, etc ... it's actually a bargain!

Also, most people don't know this, but probably 20%-30% of the population have advanced degrees in science or engineering ... and trust me that you'll be amazed by the art and contraptions that come out of these peoples heads :)

Like a man in a faraday cage with two GIANT tesla coils playing with lightening :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJShbQoXVzo

Re:There's tickets?

[DynamiteNeon]

Well, I can only speak from my own experience as someone who only started going in the last 3 years. I've enjoyed my time there.

There are always going to be people complaining about the politics or old-timers who complain about the "Good Old Days", but in the end, I've met some really interesting people and had some good times.

This complaint about the terms really is only whining about a small handful of people out of the 50,000 attendees the last few years.

Also, regarding tickets, I'd much rather pay a little cash to have proper porto-potties and ice trucked in than the alternative. Even if a few people are taking advantage of the cash (which is debatable), they spend quite a bit of it to maintain the ecosystem and fund some of the coolest art I've seen in a long time.

Re:There's tickets?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha ha. You really think those people who go to the Burning Man will argue with you on this point.

They are there for the sex and drugs. The fake ideology is just a front for the shy women. (Women are not shy anymore these days but anyway...)

Trust me, things like the Burning Man are the best ways to do mass orgies.

Re:There's tickets?

[that this is not und]

It's a religion.

You're still a True Believer.

He's an apostate.

Grind your teeth, dude.

Re:There's tickets?

[paimin]

Uh, what? Re-read the thread, "dude".

Re:There's tickets?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was actually thinking about going to Burning Man this year. It sounds like I already missed the good years.

Yep, long since. It started as a local party at Baker Beach -- not sure of the exact locale, but it was small local bit of festivities at some beach on the edge of San Francisco. Same story with the Renaissance Faire (God, how I hate that bullshit name, with the tacky e on the end). I gather it went down the tubes of its own weight, but may be starting up again, at least in the SF bay area at a different venue.

I don't know for sure about the motorcycle shindig in Branson, but I bet the yuppification (and consequent commercialization) of the event will kill it off eventually.

Personal opinion -- I believe people buy Harleys for the same reason IT managers always bought IBM -- you'll never be blamed for making the FUDulated choice.

Show some hair -- get a Husqvarna bike.

Anyone can piss on the floor; be a hero -- shit on the ceiling.

Re:There's tickets?

[Dodder]

Agreed. Just look around for a hippie you know or have seen. :) Even if they don't know they'll easily be able to find one that does. And they're usually very open and eager to expose people to the experience.

A co-worker friend of mine has been trying to get me to go to one of the regionals for a while now.

I want to go to the big one in Nevada one day. I know it's not going to be "as good as it used to be". I've been to Grateful Dead shows in the mid 90s that weren't as good as they used to be back in the day. Lived in Boulder in the mid-late '90s. Lived in Austin in the Late, Late 90s. Yeah, I missed them all when they were awesome. I'll tell you what. My life is very much richer for at least getting to experience what they were when I was there and I could easily imagine what they used to be from it.

It's waaaay better than nothing and short of time travel that's your only other option, nothing.

Time to have the funeral

[Sir_Kurt]

I have followed Burning Man for many years. I have not attended myself, so maybe I am not qualified to comment, but in the best Slashdot tradition......

I have enjoyed hearing tales of Burning Man from my friends, and I find the images a videos facinating. However it is now clear that the organizers are interested in money, and by attempting to prevent others from capitalizing on the event, are positioning themselves to do the same.

Like the famous funeral held in Haight-Ashbury in 1967 to protest commercialization of the movement, Burning Man should recognize that their creative cycle has come to the point where the appropriate thing to do is bring it all home and walk away.

Burning Man, we knew ye well.

Kurt

Re:Time to have the funeral

[Shadow of Eternity]

Or alternatively everyone could just show up like normal but without buying a ticket. How do you stop THAT many people in the middle of a desert?

Re:Time to have the funeral

[Hal_Porter]

Burning Man corp is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Halliburton / Umbrella Corporation. They have a zombie army.

Re:Time to have the funeral

[Sponge Bath]

"They have a zombie army."

Excellent! BM is now a FPS turned real, pack the shotgun!

Zombie: ...uuuurgh mooooaan... far out man.
*BOOM* head shot!

Re:Time to have the funeral

[istartedi]

Burning Man corp is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Halliburton / Umbrella Corporation

Does that mean you no longer have to worry about losing your security clearance if you attend? I was never cleared, but I used to be around a lot of people who either were, or were planning to be. There was initially this idea of "attend BM, certain denial", but later on it became "they will just ask you a lot more questions".

Re:Time to have the funeral

[Anonymous Coward]

It is clear you are not qualified to comment. If the BM organizers were trying to cash in on the event they would sell TShirts like concerts (they don't), they would allow vendors to sell food (they don't), they would charge premiums for better placement of campsites (they don't). If they were trying to cash in on the event you would see a store on the sight selling officially licensed Burning Man gear (you don't). They don't even sell water at the event. If the organizers are positioning themselves to cash in on the event, then they are doing so in a very inefficient way.

Re:Time to have the funeral

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the thousands and thousands of police at the event might help them keep the unpaid masses out.

And as someone who has happily bought tickets for the last two years and have my ticket for this year ready to go that most of the people there are more than happy to contribute our ticket fees to the group effort. I have seen where the money I pay goes and I am comfortable that it is not going into the organizers pockets. The event costs them a huge amount to put on, and they obviously could not fund it out of their own pockets.

And apply your logic to something truly commercial like an NFL football game. What do you think would happen if people stormed the gates and refused to pay for tickets? They obviously couldn't stop everyone from getting inside could they?

Re:Time to have the funeral

[Bob9113]

Or alternatively everyone could just show up like normal but without buying a ticket. How do you stop THAT many people in the middle of a desert?

By asking nicely and giving more than you are asking them to give up. Much like we keep telling the music industry to do. It actually works. It's pretty cool -- you should come some time.

Re:Time to have the funeral

[Shadow of Eternity]

Or a shopping mall or killing off , you can take pretty much anything to some absurd conclusion if you try hard enough.

Re:Time to have the funeral

[Hal_Porter]

I think they're asking questions to make sure you're not a HIPPY.

Re:Time to have the funeral

[deathguppie]

I have been there. First there is only one way in or out of the event. Second there is a huge plastic trash fence that runs around the entire event (about 7 or 8 miles I think). Third, the fence is patrolled. Fourth, all vehicles are searched upon entrance for weapons or stowaways.

It may seem a bit to controlling if you have never been there but actually if there was absolutely no law and order in a city of 40,000 to 60,000 people you would see a lot of horrible crime. Once you are you are pretty much responsible for yourself. There are real police patrolling the streets but not that many.

You know I'm actually kind of sick of this thread now. Most of the people posting here have never been and will never go.. so what is the point of this discussion anyway. :P

Re:Time to have the funeral

[Anonymous Coward]

Burning Man corp is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Halliburton / Umbrella Corporation. They have a zombie army.

Don't worry, Milla Jovovich just started working RE4

Re:Time to have the funeral

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have been there. First there is only one way in or out of the event."

Sort of like there's only one way to get into the US from Mexico?

Re:Time to have the funeral

[that this is not und]

Most of the people posting here have never been and will never go..

Obviously. Most of 'these people' have no idea what a Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ) is all about.

However, organized religions grow around TAZ's. That's happened here.

Re:Time to have the funeral

[that this is not und]

If the BM organizers were trying to cash in on the event they would sell TShirts like concerts (they don't), they would allow vendors to sell food (they don't), they would charge premiums for better placement of campsites

It's called 'Maximizing value.' That's why the Disney organization carefully controls how and why and where they allow their cherished Mickey images to be displayed. If 'Burning Man' tee-shirts were available at Target, the 'brand' would be diluted.

I mean, get real here. BM has been mocked on The Simpsons(tm). It doesn't need to go past that...

Despite BM assurances ...

[Anonymous Coward]

the fact remains that on nothing more than BM's whim they can claim ownership of the copyright of someone else's work be it a photograph, video or whatever.

Once they've claimed the best items for themselves, I imagine, they could be used to promote the Burning Man Event itself. If there are any items that cast a poor light on the event they can be claimed and put in the can, never to be seen again.

This boils down to corporate greed and censorship.

Re:Despite BM assurances ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it boils down to personal greed and censorship. There is no corporation involved.

Re:Despite BM assurances ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Personal greed is more dangerous than corporate greed could ever hope to be.

Re:Despite BM assurances ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because those giant corporations that everyone on slashdot bitches about are far less damaging than Joe Nobody trying to scam a few extra bucks.

Re:Despite BM assurances ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to burst your bubbles guys but this is not a personal event. It is a corporate event, owned and operated by a limited liability company called Black Rock City, llc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rock_City,_LLC

Corporate owned, operated and expected to make money, having all the responsibilities and liabilities of any other for profit enterprise in the world. Therefore, as apt to try and take control of as much as it can in regards to what it considers either beneficial or detrimental to it's own existence as any other corporate body would.

I've not been to one, likely won't get to one but after reading about it I can't see how anyone would think that this sort of thing could just go on year after year as a completely spontaneous event with no one agent or agency in charge or setting up all the things that are needed to allow thousands of people to gather and survive for some period of time in the middle of a desert.

Like just about everything else, it's a wonderful dream to think of this as spontaneous but it isn't. The corporation likely has the standard five year plan to guide them not just though the current year's Burning Man but how to prepare for the next several year's events as well and these plans will be modified by things it learns and finds as it analyzes the previous and current events.

Re:Despite BM assurances ...

[Supergibbs]

Yes BM is an LLC but for good reasons explained here. They don't accept investors, have any commercial sponsorships, or endorse any products. They don't allow outside vendors and only sell coffee/tea and ice at the event. They definitely aren't out to make a lot of cash and have very few year round staff. A lot of the event staff is volunteer.

Another day at the office

[Jeppe Utzon]

Flame on!

So fix the terms and conditions

[RedWizzard]

In fact, there are but two essential reasons we maintain these increased controls on behalf of our community...

If there are only two cases where you need that control then specify those two cases in the terms and conditions. Don't just include a blanket "we can make you take them down for any reason and then we own them" clause.

Re:So fix the terms and conditions

[pha7boy]

hear hear. what they suggest makes sense (yes, privacy is important, and so is making sure they pictures are used in a manner consistent with the spirit of the event). But spell that out in the EULA don't use a hatchet job to get it done.

Re:So fix the terms and conditions

[Supergibbs]

Yes but if you don't use a hatchet then sneaky lawyers will argue subjectivity etc and find ways to exploit BM and it's culture. I'd love to live in a world where I could trust everyone to respect each others wishes but we don't. I, as a burner, would MUCH rather put my trust in the Burning Man LLC that has proven itself to act in it's participants best interest for 20 years over some jerk who wants to make "BM Girls gone wild".

Right

[CODiNE]

I bet this all started when pictures of someone's boobies got online and mom & dad found out.

*Dad at work*

"Hey Jim, check out this boobie parade thing!"
"Whoah niiiice... wait-a... what the hell!! Susieeeeeee NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"

Make it clear in writing.

[GrantRobertson]

If you have a rule written in a way that allows for broad range of interpretation, yet you claim that you only enforce within a narrow range, then it is incumbent on you to rewrite the rule to only cover that narrow range. Otherwise that rule or law can be selectively enforced or more harshly enforced later.

Never trust a vague or partially enforced rule or law. They are quite often used against the citizenry or "community" later.

Re:Make it clear in writing.

[TubeSteak]

but we've never indicated any desire to interfere with tagging images with "Burning Man" on sharing sites or talking about it online -- nor indeed, to censor anyone from engaging in criticism or negative commentary about the event on personal, editorial, or third-party sites, as the EFF seems to infer. This is where their argument really falls apart.

Want proof? We've not engaged in trying to censor or remove certain third party sites containing criticisms of Burning Man using our trademarked names (some of these URL's even contain "Burning Man" alongside derogatory phrases, but they're obviously social commentary, and of little concern so long as they remain free of either violations of privacy or commercial content). We've equally never intervened on any of the many (hundreds? thousands?) of Burning Man related debates or criticisms on sites like Tribe.net or Facebook.

Uhhh... can they?
Owning a trademark doesn't give you license to remove image tags, take down criticism, close BurningManSucks.com, etc

Or am I missing something? Who would make such expansive claims unless they thought they could do those things?
/I also fully endorse the Parent post.

Re:Make it clear in writing.

[martyros]

On the contrary, society only works based on trust. Rules are only there for when trust breaks down.

The "enforcer" is promising people coming to the event (1) no commercial exploitation and (2) a certain level of privacy (for those who want to express themselves by being nude). To fulfill this promise, he "enforcer" is asking photographers to voluntarily give them over-arching powers over their work. They ask attendees and artists to trust them to protect them from exploitation, and they ask photographers to trust them to only use their power over their work for good. Since the assignment of trust is limited in duration (it lasts only the one year) and the event is repetitive, giving a feedback mechanism and incentive for the enforcer to keep their promises.

Either way, the bottom line is that if you don't trust the Burning Man enforcement team, you don't have to come.

Re:Make it clear in writing.

[MindlessAutomata]

Everyone is a "self-interested fuck" and you should NEVER blindly trust ANYONE. The parent you are responding to is right on the mark. Laws are very frequently interpreted in interested ways to get DAs another notch on their belt, and every message board I've been at, the moderators and admins would use gaps in the rules to enforce their own agendas (and of course then all the other moderators and admins would stand up for them). Rules against "insulting people," for example, are always extremely bad laws as one person's insult is another person's compliment or may at least be neutral. The label "racist" is highly appropriate but (political example incoming) I once accused someone of being "racist" by them supporting Israel's policy of favoring (racial) Jews, as all immigration policies that factor in race for whatever reason are racist. I was, of course, punished, yet they would also punish me if I said that to a skinhead if one were to be on the forums because it's an "insulting" word (despite the hypothetical skinhead highly favoring the word) as if words and their meanings had some sort of objective component and connotation. Other words of this type include "fag," "nerd" (which some of us /.'s take with pride), and even words such as "feminist", "socialist," and "anarchist." Then there are rules like "don't be a jerk," and laws IRL like "disorderly conduct" and "disturbing the peace" which anyone at any time can be convicted of simply because of how loose and subjective they are.

My point here is that any broad rule that is subject to moderator or admin or law/rulemaker interpretation can easily screw you over. And it doesn't even take an entire organization, one person within that organization can do it and the rest likely back them up. I've seen a fair lot of this so I'm assuming it's a sort of universal. If you're the odd man out arguing something unpopular or are not conforming properly you're a target and often a big one. Anyone who tells you we are a nation of laws is naive, and anyone who tells you you can ever trust an organization faithfully is idealistic.

Re:Make it clear in writing.

[GrantRobertson]

the bottom line is that if you don't trust the Burning Man enforcement team, you don't have to come.

My point is that not everyone will be fully aware of the policy and will, therefore, attend without realizing that their rights may be abridged in the future. Additionally, if the Burning Man enforcement team only ever intends to enforce the rules a certain way then they need to put that into the "contract" they create between themselves and the attendees. They can specifically say, "This provision will only be applied in cases where the published photographs invade another attendee's privacy or are used for commercial gain at the expense of the Burning Man community." To claim that these are the only conditions where the provision is enforced but refuse to put them in writing is very disingenuous indeed. It doesn't matter how long of a history they have of not enforcing the provision. Leaving it as stated leaves open the possibility that they may, in the future, choose to enforce it however they see fit. Even honest organizations with honest people are sometimes sold to others who are not so honest.

Finally, why do they need to claim copyright on the images? All they have to do is claim that a contract has been violated and sue based on that.

Re:Make it clear in writing.

[mvdwege]

Everyone is a "self-interested fuck" and you should NEVER blindly trust ANYONE.

What a sad world you live in. I pity you.

Mart

Re:Make it clear in writing.

[martyros]

Did you read TFA? It's probably worth your time.

First of all, he said that people who brought cameras were given really specific training ("enculturation") to let them know what behavioral expectations are at the festival. I'd be surprised if this didn't include a deeper explanation of the rights they're being asked to hand over, and how they've been used in the past. (After all, it's a lot easier to convince someone not to do something than to have to enforce it after the fact.)

Re copyright: the main thing is that copyright, for good or for ill, is very strong. That's in part what makes the GPL so powerful (powerful enough to force MS to release source code under the GPL). The DMCA makes this even more powerful; which can obviously be abused, but in this case it allows them to quickly and effectively police "misused" images.

The article actually talks about other possibilities: using a CC license, using contract law, pursuing the fact that the person in the image didn't sign a model release, &c. The fact is that all of those other ways of doing things are less effective, more costly, and a lot slower (e.g., years). In the end, you may be able to punish the photog for breach of contract, but (according to the article) you can't bring back the image once it's out there. With the DMCA, you can issue a take-down notice and it disappears very quickly -- and that's all they really care about.

Re:Make it clear in writing.

[GrantRobertson]

It's funny how here on Slashdot if someone doesn't agree with you they automatically assume that you haven't read the fine article.

Yes, I did read the article and the response from the Burning Man people. However, my point still stands. It doesn't matter how much Burning Man explains to people what they can and cannot do, it doesn't matter what the history of the enforcement is or how honorable the Burning Man enforcers are personally. If there is a possibility of the policy being misused (by the nature of it being vague) then there is a very high likelihood of it eventually being misused. All they have to do to remove concerns about this possible misuse is to change the wording of the provision. It is that simple. Refusing to do so is telling as far as I am concerned.

Yes, copyright law is strong, but so is contract law. It is possible to build a very high penalty into a contract that is equivalent to DMCA fines (excepting jail time). Enforcement of a contract can produce the same expediency as far as getting images removed from public display if the contract is written strongly enough. There is no need to claim ownership of someone else's property to then force them to do what you want with it. I feel it sets a bad precedent. I don't like many provisions of the DMCA and I certainly don't like using it as a magic-big-stick to wield power over people.

How would you like it if the government claimed copyright over everything they did, then used the DMCA to issue takedown notices against everyone who wrote about what they didn't like about what the government did? What if the government claimed copyright over all military actions and issued takedown notices against everyone who published pictures of the war or described how the war was going? It seems one can make all kinds of onerous censorship seem perfectly reasonable if one simply claims copyright on something that does not belong to them in the first place. (Yes, I am using the slippery slope argument. That is because I really believe it applies here. Just because the argument has been misused in the past is no reason to consider it permanently invalid for all arguments.)

Besides, the claim of copyright is included within a contract. Therefore, the DMCA power in this context is actually no stronger than the original contract. Just because the courts are nearly always ready to jump on that DMCA bandwagon is no reason for an organization such as Burning Man - who claims to embrace counter culture - to jump on that bandwagon with them. To do so speaks volumes about their true nature and intentions.

Re:Make it clear in writing.

[Supergibbs]

If you have a rule written in a way that allows for broad range of interpretation, yet you claim that you only enforce within a narrow range, then it is incumbent on you to rewrite the rule to only cover that narrow range. Otherwise that rule or law can be selectively enforced or more harshly enforced later.

Never trust a vague or partially enforced rule or law. They are quite often used against the citizenry or "community" later.

Everyone knows how sneaky lawyers will argue subjectivity etc and find ways to exploit BM and it's culture. I'd love to live in a world where I could trust everyone to respect each others wishes but we don't. I, as a burner, would MUCH rather put my trust in the Burning Man LLC that has proven itself to act in it's participants best interest for 20 years over some jerk with fancy lawyers who wants to make "BM Girls gone wild".

The real reason

[__david__]

I remember this coming up a number of years ago when they first put this clause in the ticket sale license. It was discussed to death back then and so it's kind of funny to me that it has suddenly come up again. The (possibly apocryphal) reason that my more in-the-know burner campmates told me way back when:

The year before a bunch of guys went around with a video camera and tried to release a "Girls of Burning Man" video in the style of "Girls Gone Wild". This was widely viewed as poor form. So the organizers put the clause in specifically to nip that kind of behavior in the bud. They didn't want people (women in particular) to have to worry about unwittingly becoming part of some cheesy softcore porn video.

Re:The real reason

[Hal_Porter]

It doesn't seem to be working too well

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&sa=1&q=Girls+of+Burning+Man&btnG=Search+images

Nor would you expect it too quite frankly.

Re:The real reason

[ikkonoishi]

There are a lot of pictures out there, but they aren't distributed in bulk for money.

Re:The real reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, it's OK to give it away but don't sell it!

Re:The real reason

[Abcd1234]

Question: Do a lot of people fall for your forkbomb?

Re:The real reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Crap. Where did my Saturday afternoon go?

I went to Burning Man a year ago....

[Anonymous Coward]

...and I really didn't enjoy ia at all & I fall into the target group (male 20-30). There seems a belief too that anyone who doesn't enjoy it is either thick, against violence or especially 'doesn't get the message behind it'. Well, none of those apply to me. In this flawed film, I understand that it was any of: a)a group of young men rebelling against a Borgeousie consumerism society. b)one man seeing how he is totally dissatisfied with life and how his mind tries to change things or c)people stopping to watch Cornelius fight himself because voyeurism is human nature the film makes a deliberate attempt to make the viewer feel guilty for being a voyeur. (I'll come to that later)

You can take your pick really, whatever way, I still find it crap. Any film (Shawshank Redmeption excepted) which concerns 'one mans' anything, generally creates no emotion in me other than boredom. The whole tagline to the film makes me want to puke: "one 30 year old man's journey of self-discovery." So what? Are we supposed to sympathise with Norton because of this? I'm sorry but I have sympathy in films with people dying, or who's family have been killed. John Hurt triumphing over cancer in Champions, Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan, thousands of others. Even Norton himself actually in the brilliant American History X. In the 2nd half, I sympathise with him for the life he has found himself with.

But in this (and I find myself saying the same as I did with the equally awful American Beauty) Just because some blokes fed up & having a midlife crisis we're supposed to feel for him. Oh diddums. The only film where this premise has worked brilliantly is 'It's a Wonderful Life' with James Stewart. He was in crisis (and justifyably too) but never resorted to any of the levels stooped to here. (That might seem a weak point, but It's just come to me & I can't put my finger on exactly why Wonderful Life is so far superior to Fight Club in tackling a midlife crisis, but they are as far extreme as you can get) I'd also question whether we're all voyers? For every moron that slows down on a motorway to look at an accident on the other side, there's a 100 or so that can't believe the stupidity of it.

There are countless flaws too. The scene prior to the car crash wouldn't have worked? Who was Norton talking to? with the passengers there? Where did he acquire his knowledge of soap from? Would people have watched 1 bloke fighting himself? and much more too. Ok, maybe one or 2 of those have answers but I couldn't find them. I think to really enjoy this film, you have to have clicked or empathised with the main character, and if you did, I feel a bit sorry for you. It would however account for the popularity of such things as marriage guidance councillors, drugs, footballers agents, even to a degree religion (but only when it becomes absolutely fanatical & life revolves around it).

Maybe it's just me & I'm fortunate but so many people seem unable to get through the little problems that life throws up on their own & without help of any kind anymore, like inventing a friend for one thing. I know plenty of people who like this, intelligent some of them, so I've no problem with people who enjoy 'Arty & deep' films with psychological meaning to them. I just don't. But not through failing to understand them, Just merely through not connecting with characters who suffer problems like a 'mid-life crisis for non deserving reasons'. On top of all of that, it was a very slow film too.

Captcha: analfucking
-=Ethanol-fueled=-

How I read it

[AFresh1]

What I got from reading TFA was that Burning Man's lawer (who used to be head lawer at the EFF) has found this to be the most reasonable way to accomplish their goals. They looked at many other ways, but the choices they have are limited by the law. They continue to have discussions on how to not take too much away, but their lawers haven't figured it out yet.
More transparency would be nice. This blog post was a good start, although something formal describing what they are attempting and why they chose the option they did would be even better IMO.

Ah privacy ...

[Lemming Mark]

Seems like "Privacy" is the new go-to excuse for people who want to make unreasonable / unusual demands about photographs. We care about our attendees' privacy so much that we want to own pictures of them! Even if we didn't take them, we want to own the pictures of them - for their own protection! It's for your own good, move along now. I'm seeing a vague and ironic similarity with the shopping malls who CCTV your every move but claim personal photography is forbidden to protect their customers' privacy. Sure, we want to own pictures of everyone - but you can trust us! Somewhat unlike the shopping malls, I can believe that this is probably true of the Burning Man organisers - they may very well be trying to protect their attendees and have no ill intent.

They may very well have good intentions. They want to restrict your freedom of expression but only in good ways! As creative people, though, if they want to prevent abuse of imagery from their event maybe they ought to have thought twice before giving themselves easily-abusable powers. Maybe they believe themselves pure enough and hard enough to corrupt from an organisational standpoint that this isn't a risk. They may also have a point in believing that a strength of the event is being somewhat "disconnected" from the usual freedom to take and display photographs. Maybe this is sufficient to justify these restrictions.

At the end of the day though, their attendees are creative people and should, hopefully, be able to just Burning Man by their actions - what their policy is *and* how they choose to enforce it. I don't think they're being entirely reasonable but then I won't be going anyhow ;-)

Re:Ah privacy ...

[buzzn]

A couple years ago at BM I met a pro photographer who was working on a book project. He took a lot of pictures of people and was very conscientious about obtaining model's releases. The BM organization reviewed the project and to this day has not approved it for final publication due in no small part to concerns about some semi nude photographs in the set. That is not about censorship. It's absolutely the case that they do not want other people to profit from sensationalist coverage about the event. You can (and do) speculate that Burning Man, LLC might someday want to cash in and abuse their powers. However, this is antithetical to the core values of the event. It would be as absurd as Disneyland becoming a spring break destination for college students. Please do a search on flickr etc. and then let's discuss how they restrict your photographic freedom of creative expression. They don't.

Re:Ah privacy ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been going to burningman a long time. While I disagree with the heavy-handed rule, but you also have to understand the community and how it developed. Back in the day where the BLM and the state did not force their regulations on Burningman (which is why the tickets, etc are now required), cameras were basically banned. You did not take pictures of other people or their stuff without their permission, and even that was rare. If you did it would be the equivalent of going into a biker bar and spitting on someone, i.e. it likely would not be pretty. Now that the event is fairly well known, about half of the population are first timers every year. Cameras are still not allowed without registration, and then you're still supposed to ask permission to take pictures of individuals. With nearly 50,000 people, this is obviously unenforceable and the population doesn't care as much as when it was a tighter community and it was enforceable.

The Burningman Organization is owned by 5 people who are credited with making the event what it is (some arguments about certain people who think they should control a piece). One of their key rules is no commerce. That means no advertising, no money, no selling. When you're at the event, everything is free and no one is trying to pitch their business to you. That really changes the way people interact. Think of how you'd react to someone at your door if you know they weren't trying to pitch their religion or a home security device, but probably giving you a free pizza or icecream on a hot day.

The burningman organizations role in enforcing this is two-fold. Protecting people who do not want pictures of them naked running through the desert publicly posted, and to keep people from using photographs of other people or their work used to make money. I don't like the wording they use, and I don't trust them 100% but I understand why the rule is in place and I trust them enough that I'd rather have it there than completely eliminated, but I'm also one of those people in favor of the "no cameras at Burningman in the first place" rule. So that is why the community has support for a crappy clause.

Re:Ah privacy ...

[Lemming Mark]

Well, I'm not actually saying that they are planning to cash in / abuse their powers. I'm just noting that they're giving to their organisation powers which could be abused. Which is probably fine at the moment, if they consider themselves pure and uncorruptable for now. However, they're obviously worried about commercialisation. If, for instance, in 10 years time commerical interests have somehow taken control of their organisation and decide to exercise the rights they've been reserving on all the photos taken over that time period then that would be a problem and highly antithetical to the stated intent of this licensing deal.

It's a bit like the principle that you shouldn't vote in oppressive laws: it's not just a question of whether you trust the current administration to use them sensibly, it's also a question of whether less well-meaning successors could abuse them. I do generally think that a prerequisite to true freedom of expression is that it not be at somebody else's sufferance: if somebody is reserving the right to restrict what you say, this element of freedom is not there no matter how generous they are. In essence they're giving you a very very large reserve to live on but it's still them that sets your boundaries.

But the blog post stated privacy as a concern - I really intended to point out that that argument seems like a red herring. The example that you gave of a photographer on the book project is, I would consider, something of a case in point: the photographer was responsible, none of the individuals minded being in it so there is no privacy concern, yet publication is still not approved and cannot be published. I personally don't think it's reasonable for the organisation to do this, however it's their choice. I would, though, rather privacy not get trotted out every time somebody wants to restrict photography for other reasons.

Re:Ah privacy ...

[coastwalker]

Nice to hear the opinion of someone who has actually been to the event. I haven't but I took the blog post at face value and dont see anyone posting anything that contradicts what they say. Given that the laws they have to operate under are not of their choosing I cant understand the fuss that people are making.

privacy?

[Dr_Ken]

If privacy is so important why parade around nude or in outlandish costumes then? Every social phenomenon seems to morph from spontaneous fun to organized event to incorporated enterprise. Didn't BM start out as just one guy burning a large scale wooden stick figure that he built himself along the beach in California? Now look at it. Note to social engineers: You can't organize and control anarchy or direct spontaneity.

Re:privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Humanity is filled with people who have an intrinsic need to control other people. Any event, any group, any organization of people attracts them, because they are not happy unless other people are being controlled "for their own good".

Even an event where that is contrary to the whole idea and spirit of it, those people still exist, and still want to control.

Re:privacy?

[misexistentialist]

There are degrees of privacy. If every public action is to be scrutinized by the global population forever, life would suck. If you go out in public you hopefully make yourself presentable, but if you go on TV you need makeup-artists and hairstylists to manage your appearance.

Re:privacy?

[Mr. Slippery]

If privacy is so important why parade around nude or in outlandish costumes then?

Because parading around nude, or in outlandish costumes, at a private event with a cohort that shares many of your values, is different than parading around nude, or in outlandish costumes, out in the mundane world.

Many people face the possibility of losing their jobs - or even their kids -- if their participation in events outside the cultural mainstream is found out. If someone can get their kid taken away for being at the SubGenius's "X Day", it could certainly happen to Burning Man attendees.

Doesn't mean I necessarily agree with this solution -- at events like Starwood and the Free Spirit Gathering, the rule is basically "You may not take a photo of anyone without their permission". If you want to add a DMCA-takedown enabling clause to that, it seems to me (though IANAL) that adding "If you do take any photographs during your attendance at this event without the permission of all identifiable subjects, you surrender all copyright interest and they immediately become the property of $EVENT_ORGANIZERS".

That way, legitimate photos are yours, and this kicks in only when you've violated someone's subjectright.

Re:privacy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Note to social engineers: You can't organize and control anarchy or direct spontaneity.

Disingenuous play of words. Literally correct, but you make it sound like this is the full truth, which it is not.

Agree with 'you can't direct spontanety', but anarchy can certainly be organized. I mean 'organized' as in orchestrated, but not as in 'controlled'. BM is a living proof of this fact. And anarchy can be controlled in the macro sense. The entropy of anarchy can be confined to a bounded region, but you are right in implying that every individual act of anarchy can not be controlled.

Black Rock City is a world with with different rules, one that promote the ideals of what the US started with a long time ago - pure and simple freedom sans orthodoxy. Of course, it is also an example of a society with rules that created a country like the erstwhile USSR - the socialism of a barter economy, and people voluntarily sharing and helping each other. It's almost like an artist's conception of Utopia. Within this city, many many innocuous acts occur that are preceived as immoral in the Default world. So unless the organizers of the party can guarantee that it will be a private, and secretive, party, a sizeable chunk of the best and the most passionate participants will be loathe to attend.

Here is a thought - if you are a slashdotter, and love the ethics that drive the serious, non-trolling, discussions here, there is a good chance that you know about BM or would enjoy going to the BM. Now ask yourself this question - would you attend if you didn't know that this EULA clause existed to protect your privacy from your 'normal' bosses, coworkers, acquaintances, family et al.?

In an ideal world, technology would advance to ease this clause. I wish everybody could wear a wristband with a little chip with a unique ID, and all camera's within BM had a DRM processor that blurred the images of all persons or items whose ID tags weren't on the allow list of the photographer. Now, if this technology were also smart enough to keep images that are not personally identifiable (groups, distant shots etc.) from getting blurry, it might be a userful tradeoff for photographers. And the BMO might be able to change the EULA to somethign like 'though shall not use any cameras that aren't BMO-DRM capable'.

get a clue, slashdot

[Aurisor]

I know. EULAs are evil. But, this is not your garden-variety EULA. This is an EULA expressly designed so chicks can feel comfortable *running around topless.*

Can we just take a deep breath and stow the nerd-rage on this one?

Re:get a clue, slashdot

[Mashiki]

Apparently you've never been to other parts of the world. They can do it in parts of Canada. No one gives a shit, and that's in a "public" space. Personally this reeks of money grab but what do I know I'm already in my 30's, and simply don't care anymore.

Re:get a clue, slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I know. EULAs are evil. But, this is not your garden-variety EULA. This is an EULA expressly designed so chicks can feel comfortable *running around topless.*
>>Can we just take a deep breath and stow the nerd-rage on this one?

My vaunted principles are more important than women, sir!

Good day!

Re:get a clue, slashdot

[DNS-and-BIND]

So, as long as it's for a cause someone considers "good", we should insist that the same someone be allowed to grossly violate fundamental freedoms? I'm sorry but if it's a choice between the protection of photographers rights or topless women, I'm not on the side of the strippers, nope. My right to take photos supercedes your "right" to run around with no clothes on.

Re:get a clue, slashdot

[indiechild]

Agreed. This is certain Slashdot readers being completely clueless about social interaction and the role of privacy in modern society.

Re:get a clue, slashdot

[kalirion]

So then you don't mind if someone tracks you down and take photos of you and your house and provides Google Map links and posts it all on Burning Maps blogs for them to appreciate your defense of photographer's rights?

Well hell, I'll name one

[Civil_Disobedient]

I'm obviously not going to name any

Why not? Don't want to "ruin" a good thing? Bah, says I! I'll name one, then. kaZantip is a somewhat hedonistic music festival held on the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine. It's becoming a lot more commercial now (aren't they all?) but it's still a lot of fun if you're into the scene.

Also, it's filled with beautiful Ukrainian & Russian women that really enjoy their sunbathing.
Check out the photo gallery for more.

Re:Well hell, I'll name one

[CRCulver]

Festivals dedicated to radical free expression (like Burning Man) are very different from music festivals.

Re:Well hell, I'll name one

[maxume]

When I vomit, I call it free radical expression.

Re:Well hell, I'll name one

[Anonymous Coward]

That photo gallery sucks ass. It makes you a retarded flash player that only shows the top part of any picture. All the hot naked women are cut off at the neck.

Re:Well hell, I'll name one

[Anonymous Coward]

Festivals that bring in nearly 15,000,000 in revenue and pay yearly salaries aren't dedicated to radical free expression.

They can dress it up any way they want

[SmallFurryCreature]

The message is still the same, a bunch of people who always claim that all censorship is bad even if its is to protect society claiming that their censorship is alright to protect their society.

If you are against CCTV you can't put CCTV up in front of your house. If you are against speed bumps, you can't petition to have one put in place in your street.

This measure is nothing more then censorship and using extreme draconian laws to do it.

Considering the supposed background of the Burning Man event that is hypocrasy in the most extreme sense.

It does not matter in this discussion wether you agree with the measure. At issue is WHO is implementing the measure. It would be like greenpeace running its ships on whale oil. You might be pro-whale-hunting but would still have to say that such a measure would be completly and utterly wrong.

Allow me to sum up for you...

[fooslacker]

"no no we're the good guys we're doing it to stop the big bad corporation and greedy people. IT"S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD."

Any time someone's position boils down to it's for your own good, they're a liar. It may be for some reason they consider noble and altruistic but what is in your best interest is exercising your free will and when people restrict free will in another it is in their best interest not yours.

Burning Man may be a wonderful thing I've never gone but don't for a second believe anyone is helping you out by restricting what you can do. I don't even necessarily thing they shouldn't try to restrict you but I'm offended by the rationale corporations, religions, third world dictators, and now naked, desert hippies use when rationalizing why they're doing some form of mild evil or evil light if you will.

As a disclaimer, I work for a mega-corp, belong to a religion and hope to someday be a third world dictator surrounded by naked, desert-hippy chicks so it's not like I'm against these types of folks on principle, just for the love of all that is good quit telling me you're limiting me for my own good.

Why the policy strips "your" rights...

[buzzn]

The entire purpose of BurningMan, LLC is to get people to not go. This is why the event is held in mid summer in the center of an inhospitable and very dusty desert hundreds of miles from civilization, with a steep entry fee, and the rules and regulations are totally outrageous. Despite all this, a few thousand people still show up. I hear that this year they will institute mandatory strip searches at the gate, and next year drug testing.

Because

[Usually Unlucky]

These rules are probably in place because after people come down from their drug trips they are horrified to see naked pictures of themselves on the internet. I am sure the naked woman dancing at burning man on its wikipedia.org page probably isn't thrilled to have that honour.

Re:Because

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure the naked woman dancing at burning man on its wikipedia.org page probably isn't thrilled to have that honour.

Why are you sure about this? Are you a mind reader now?

As a long time burning man attendee and eff member

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe people ar missing a valuable opportunity to address the matter of legal protection for photography. I do know there are some extensive protections in place for the photographer but I am unaware of comprehensive coverage for the subject or creator of a subject matter that is photographed. It would be ridiculous to have to place NDAs or EULAs on our persons or art works but while art galleries do have some additional legal protections in place, public events may not.

One last note, burning man is actually a private event which happens to be permitted to occur on public land. I would recommend reading articles and background materials before starting a flame war!

/. Users - AKA The perpetually clue impared

[FlyingGuy]

Such typical responses...

First of all the photo policy is rarely, if ever used. When it is, it is because some asshole went to the event with primary intent of taking pictures of nude people so they can sell them. That we don't tolerate, period, end of discussion. You don't like it, don't by a ticket.

Ticket prices? Ever wonder it costs to pay for porta-potties for +-50,000 people and have them serviced twice a day? Go here and read the afterburn reports, they contain a full accounting of what it costs to put this event on. Give you a hint, it is over 1 million dollars just so people can take a shit.

And yes, I attended the even for 5 years running, and I worked for the event, so yes I know of what I speak.

Re:/. Users - AKA The perpetually clue impared

[Anonymous Coward]

300 x 48 000 = 14 400 000 6.9 percent of total revenue. That isn't much - wish I could get such high margins.

Re:/. Users - AKA The perpetually clue impared

[Anonymous Coward]

> First of all the photo policy is rarely, if ever used. When it is, it is because some asshole went to the event with primary intent of taking pictures of nude people so they can sell them. That we don't tolerate, period, end of discussion. You don't like it, don't by a ticket.

 

The photo policy is also used against spinoff events that are not under the umbrella of Burning Man "Regionals" even if these events are not-for-profit.

 

The Burning Man LLC simply wants to keep all power, control, and money.

Re:/. Users - AKA The perpetually clue impared

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's just funny how when the EFF goes after others, it's "right on, brothers", but when they turn their attention towards us, everyone just needs to chill out and go away. It's irrelevant if the policy is used or not - if it can be used, it will. The most outrageous claims against freedoms we all share are justified because it makes the lives of BM administrators easier. "That we don't tolerate, period, end of discussion." is something that Sheriff Joe Arpaio would say. Stupid policies about owning camera images and then refusing to obey the law when confronted is something that a school principal on a power trip would do.

Just trust us...

[Spazmania]

Concise version: Just trust us. We'll only use the power wisely.

Re:Just trust us...

[Psyborgue]

And sometimes that works, especially when the followers of such policies are volunteers or can otherwise "opt out". Look at the BDFL model for OSS development. Leaders are only leaders so long as they have followers and burning man will be successful only so long as their leaders don't abuse their power (people will simply not buy tickets).

Ugh

[brunes69]

Taking a glance at those photos, I would pay more money for the vast majority of them to put their clothing BACK ON.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time you got laid, humpdick?

Suppose Disney did this.

[Animats]

Suppose Disney did this. Which they could. Then they could squelch embarrassing videos like this one of the aftermath of a monorail crash. You can see guests trying to get the driver out of the wrecked monorail as the clueless Disney employees try to stop someone from photographing the crash.

The problem is that Burning Man wants to censor videos at their absolute discretion. If they had a set of standards on what was acceptable, that would be reasonable, but, as is typical with EULA agreements, they overreached.

They've been at it for years

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in '98, I was accosted by the Burning Man photo police for taking a picture of my >own tent. The guy demanded I produce a press pass because he deemed my old medium format film camera to be "professional-looking."

Transfer of Copyright

[bmo]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

"(a) A 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."

SCO has been trying to get around this since 2003. The APA contains no such language that the Unix copyrights were ever transfered to SCO from Novell, much to SCO's dismay.

An EULA is not a contract. It is not a conveyance of copyright signed by the ticket holder/owner of the photographs. The BMO cannot own your photographs simply because you bought a ticket. The BMO (not me) is making nice, because I think someone told them they don't have a leg to stand on.

--
BMO

Go to burning man..

[leptons]

...or shut the hell up, because you really have no clue what you are talking about. Most of these posts sound incredibly misinformed. I've been to burning man 10 times since '96 and I'm happy BMO has taken steps to limit the use of the event by unscrupulous people who wish to profit from exploiting people at the event who are trying to experience just a bit more freedom than is welcome outside of burning man. I've seen outrageous and awesome things at BM, and to exploit those things for profit would be to prevent unique and wonderful situations from happening there in the future. People at burning man can and do express themselves in ways not possible outside of burning man, and to record video and sell it as a 'girls gone wild' type product is just plain wrong. It has happened before, and this is what prompted BMO to take action in this way. I can say with full confidence that BMO is only trying to protect itself and the citizens of black rock city from this type of exploitation.

Re:Go to burning man..

[bitrex]

Why exactly do the participants at Burning Man need and deserve extra protection from "exploitation" over and above the protection afforded to any other citizen in any other circumstance under the law? People are exploited for profit in any number of different ways including through print, photographic, and television mediums day in and day out. Life is hard and unfair. Just declaring that "we are a special community in need of special protective measures because we do things that we can't do elsewhere but we want to be able to do them here without interference because we're us" hardly seems like suitable justification.

More precisely

[pavon]

This isn't a EULA at all. It is standard contract that you agree to in the standard way when you purchase a ticket. There is no reason I can't sign away my copyright to a work if I choose to, or place limitations on how I distribute these works.

The reasons that people object to these terms (and I don't blame them) have nothing to do with the objections to EULAs.

You Are Clueless

[Bob9113]

Wow, it amazes me how many comments start or end with "I don't go to Burning Man, but I know how that community should work." No, you don't. You don't have any idea what Burning Man is.

People keep saying it's a public event in a public space. No, it is not. It is a private event on leased land.

People keep saying these are their photographs in question. No, for the most part they are not. When you take a picture of a non-public figure on private property without consent where the subject matter is primarily that person, you do not have full exclusive rights to that photograph -- it is not "yours" in the legal or moral sense. When you take a picture where the subject is primarily someone else's work of art, particularly on private property, you do not have full exclusive rights to that photograph -- it is not "yours" in the legal or moral sense. When TIVO misappropriated the Linux kernel, where were all you screaming, "This is TIVO's software!" No, it wasn't.

People keep saying they've never been, but they think it sucks now and used to be better. WTF?!? What would you say to someone who said, "I've never read Slashdot, but it's just a bunch of teenagers talking about Miley Cyrus, so it sucks."

Nearly fifty thousand people will haul everything it takes to survive for a week in one of the most barren and hostile environments on the planet in two weeks. You don't know shit about why we do it, and what we have to attempt to make it work. The United States legal and cultural systems are completely fucked and make it incredibly hard for Burning Man to work. Yet we still try, and we get pretty goddamned close to what we are trying to achieve. So until you've been there, until you've been through a four hour dust storm, watched it destroy half your camp, and come out smiling because that dust storm means you are home (and your in-camp DJs didn't drop the beat the whole time) -- you don't know what you are talking about.

Re:You Are Clueless

[/dev/trash]

You used to be much cooler man. The MAN has gotten to you!

Re:You Are Clueless

[YesIAmAScript]

TiVo didn't misappropriate the Linux kernel. If TiVo had misappropriated the Linux kernel, they would have been sued by the FSF.

I do feel somewhat sympathetic about the problems of putting on Burning Man. But saying it us the US legal system or cultural systems that cause this problem is ridiculous. The problem is that technology is making what people thought was once private behavior more public. And they then are worried about or ashamed of others finding out what they did. This isn't a legal system problem. This isn't a cultural system problem. It's individuals somehow deciding it is important to them to appear to be conforming to the morals of others but to not actually do so!

Re:You Are Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, it amazes me how many comments start or end with "I don't go to Burning Man, but I know how that community should work." No, you don't. You don't have any idea what Burning Man is.

People keep saying it's a public event in a public space. No, it is not. It is a private event on leased land.

People keep saying these are their photographs in question. No, for the most part they are not. When you take a picture of a non-public figure on private property without consent where the subject matter is primarily that person, you do not have full exclusive rights to that photograph -- it is not "yours" in the legal or moral sense. When you take a picture where the subject is primarily someone else's work of art, particularly on private property, you do not have full exclusive rights to that photograph -- it is not "yours" in the legal or moral sense. When TIVO misappropriated the Linux kernel, where were all you screaming, "This is TIVO's software!" No, it wasn't.

People keep saying they've never been, but they think it sucks now and used to be better. WTF?!? What would you say to someone who said, "I've never read Slashdot, but it's just a bunch of teenagers talking about Miley Cyrus, so it sucks."

Nearly fifty thousand people will haul everything it takes to survive for a week in one of the most barren and hostile environments on the planet in two weeks. You don't know shit about why we do it, and what we have to attempt to make it work. The United States legal and cultural systems are completely fucked and make it incredibly hard for Burning Man to work. Yet we still try, and we get pretty goddamned close to what we are trying to achieve. So until you've been there, until you've been through a four hour dust storm, watched it destroy half your camp, and come out smiling because that dust storm means you are home (and your in-camp DJs didn't drop the beat the whole time) -- you don't know what you are talking about.

This year will be my third Burning Man, so that makes me barely qualified to respond. I agree with the parent. If you've never been there, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:You Are Clueless

[Bob9113]

It's individuals somehow deciding it is important to them to appear to be conforming to the morals of others but to not actually do so!

Hmmm...

deciding it is important to them to appear to be conforming to the morals of others

vs.

but to not actually conform to the morals of others

Which are you saying is the bad part?

I'm going to go out on a limb and make an assumption. I am going to assume that you are not saying the latter is a bad thing. If that is what you are saying is bad, well, then you already understand from the inside why we don't feel entirely comfortable appearing to reject the morals of people who feel that way. But let's assume that is not what you are saying.

So you are saying that the problem is people "deciding it is important to them to appear to be conforming to the morals of others."

I agree. That is a problem.

And if you were far enough outside the social norm, and lived in a community that was sufficiently restrictive about social norms (which comprise at least 50% of this country), you would understand why not everyone feels free to be themselves. I wound up moving to San Francisco, where I can mostly be myself much of the time. But even here there are things that are not OK. There are people I work with and am friends with who only grudgingly accept that I am a Burner, and who definitely do not understand. They are good people, but they have a different view on morality than I -- much like I am a good person but I have my own views of what is morally unacceptable (the RIAA, patent trolls, etc). Should we choose to square off and reject each other? I think that is a path toward lack of understanding. I'd rather be friends with them, try to understand them, and have them try to understand me. I think it is happening, and I hope it is spreading further and deeper, but if you think we are, from coast to coast, at the end of moral prejudice, well, I think you are deeply misinformed.

Re:You Are Clueless

[jay2003]

When you take a picture of a non-public figure on private property without consent where the subject matter is primarily that person, you do not have full exclusive rights to that photograph -- it is not "yours" in the legal or moral sense.

You've undermined your own argument. Since you are correct that such photographs can not be used for commercial purposes regardless of whether the they are taken on private or public property, draconian usurpation of copyrights is not necessary.

Re:You Are Clueless

[indiechild]

Well said.

Re:You Are Clueless

[DerekLyons]

People keep saying it's a public event in a public space. No, it is not. It is a private event on leased land.

It's an event advertise to and open to the general public, it's a public event. Period. If you believe otherwise, you're deluding yourself.
 

When you take a picture of a non-public figure on private property without consent

 
Burning Man doesn't take place on private property, it takes place on public lands.

Re:You Are Clueless

[YesIAmAScript]

The problem is the hypocrisy.

Simultaneously wanting to flout society's norms and then pretending you don't. Because, as you see, the behavior hasn't changed from a few years back, it's the recording of it that has.

If you could lose your job over what you do at Burning Man (and I really hope this isn't the case), then perhaps you should stop and consider which is more important to you, your job or doing this behavior. And then once you make your decision, live with the consequences instead of trying to blame someone else for your behavior.

I think it's great you want to be friends with people who are unlike you. But I don't agree with your decision that a great way to do so is to deceive them about how you are. It's this kind of thing that allows bigots to say "well, all my friends are decent people and that's because none of them are (gay|perverts|Democrats)".

Re:You Are Clueless

[Bob9113]

If you could lose your job over what you do at Burning Man (and I really hope this isn't the case), then perhaps you should stop and consider which is more important to you, your job or doing this behavior. And then once you make your decision, live with the consequences instead of trying to blame someone else for your behavior.

That is fine for me, living in San Francisco, where I do not risk my job. And it is great for someone who is free to move to somewhere that is more accepting. Many people do not have that ability -- for many reasons. Still others don't even know that they would enjoy such liberty if they had it. Many do not even realize that they are subjecting themselves to moral inhibition, because they have never seen a culture where people do not.

The procession from being morally... let's say devout for lack of a better term, to being morally liberated starts with seeing what moral liberty is. If one is living in a morally devout culture and has been raised morally devout (as I was) it can be impossible to see beyond ones perspective without exposing oneself to alternative culture. Simultaneously, if one is living in a culture which inhibits moral liberty, one cannot expose oneself to it without facing significant short-term risk. That is, unless one chooses to do so surreptitiously.

Would it be better for our society to universally accept moral liberty? Of course it would. But the path to that end is paved with giving more people the opportunity to experience moral liberty -- without having to make significant sacrifices in their lives in the short term to do so.

Re:You Are Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

You Are Clueless. FTW

Allow me to be the first to ask

[Anonymous Coward]

Pardon me, but what the fuck is Burning Man?! Is it a bunch of LARPing faggots?

It's Not That...

[Nom du Keyboard]

'In fact, there are but two essential reasons we maintain these increased controls on behalf of our community: to protect our participants so that images that violate their privacy are not displayed, and to prevent companies from using Burning Man to sell products. We don't remove images from pages...

It's not that you don't remove images from pages for your stated reasons, it's that you could. I prefer situations where it simply can't happen at all. Too often I've been burned otherwise by promises of, "Oh that will never happen with this legislation..."

Re:It's Not That...

[FlyingGuy]

At some point you have to trust those that manage and produce this event.

I personally know most of the LLC members, I have drank with them, broke bread with them, Sheltered with them, argued with them. Some of them I like, some of them I don't particularly like. Some of them tend to make their own rules even when it has the distinct possibility of being detrimental to the event; however, these are the people that put this event on year after year and like I said, I may not care for some of them, they have never, to my knowledge, never, ever issued a take down notice to any participants web site. They have gone after and vigorously so, those who would take from the event to further their riches at the expense of both the spirit and intent of the event.

And yes I have been the camera police ( Black Rock Ranger from 1998 to 2002), and I have insisted that some people get a press pass for their gear, it is simple, there is no fee, you just have to register and abide by the rules.

What about the books about Burning Man you might ask? All are done with participants knowledge not by some asshat with a huge zoom lens sneaking around the event to take pictures of someone taking a shower in their camp or just being themselves but also happening to be unclothed.

In short, yes they have the legal power to enjoin you from publishing the photo's you take, but is has never been abused, not in almost twenty years. Until they do misuse or abuse that, they get a pass from me.

Mod Parent UP!!!

[Cassander]

Thanks. I thought I needed to make that post.

BTW, what's up with most of the posts from burners being ACs? I've never thought of Slashdot as an environment where one needs to be secretive about liberal counter-culture affiliations... quite the opposite actually.

I've only been once, back in '01, and I loved it. (Even if it was basically impossible for me to do anything other than sit in a shade structure and drink water when the sun was out. The night, of course, is another story.) I would go more often, but it requires both time AND money, and I find it difficult to actually have both of those things at the same time.

Absolute liberty and absolute anonymity?

[Dr_Ken]

Good luck with that. You want an event open to everyone and who are also free to do (nearly) anything but you still have an expectation of anonymity and privacy? How are you gonna manage that? This just isn't possible IMHO. Just face it BM has morphed into a commercial event these days just like Lollapalooza and Coachella or the Newport Jazz festival have. (For you students of anarchist political theory please note that this how a state entity evolves into being.)

Re:Absolute liberty and absolute anonymity?

[FlyingGuy]

You can be as anonymous at Burning Man as you want to be, you don't want them to know your name or anything else about you? Pay cash for your tickets, go through the gate and get your ticket torn, no one will ask your name, no one will ask for identification (unless you are obviously a minor), you can drive into the event, find a camping spot and set up your rig, It takes a lot to get on the organizations radar. Some examples: Come to the event to sell drugs and that will get you at minimum tossed from the event, and at worst a very long prison sentence in Nevada where even marijuana is still a felony. Other then the cardinal rule of Do not interfere with anyones immediate experience it is pretty much wide open, hell you can drink/drug yourself into a stupor, be passed out naked in the blazing sun and the event will haul your ass to the med tent, get you buffed up and sent back out into the event to do it again, rinse and repeat.

Burning man is wrong here.

[Anonymous Coward]

100% completely dead wrong.

Everything that they claim is wrong with the world is wrong with their policy.

They are claiming ownership of every photo taken at burning man? That is the most over broad grab of copy righted material that I have ever heard of. It goes so far beyond MPAA and RIAA that it is insane.

And we are supposed to just trust that they won't over reach on their already insane policy? No. Hell no.

Just make it easy on yourself. You made a mistake. Recant and give everyone back their copy right again.

so are there any cool festivals near D.C.?

[ClioCJS]

Feel free to email me and let me know. I'm fucking bored.