EFF Says Burning Man Usurps Digital Rights 439
Hugh Pickens writes "In a few weeks, tens of thousands of creative people will make their yearly pilgrimage to Nevada's Black Rock desert for Burning Man, an annual art event and temporary community celebrating radical self expression, self-reliance, creativity and freedom, but EFF reports that the event's Terms and Conditions include 'a remarkable bit of legal sleight-of-hand.' As soon as 'any third party displays or disseminates' your photos or videos in a manner that the Burning Man Organization (BMO) doesn't like, those photos or videos become the property of the BMO. BMO's Terms and Conditions also limits your own rights to use your own photos and videos on any public websites obliging you to take down any photos to which BMO objects, for any reason; and forbidding you from allowing anyone else to reuse your photos. This 'we automatically own all your stuff' magic appears to be creative lawyering intended to allow the BMO to use the streamlined 'notice and takedown' process enshrined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to quickly remove photos from the Internet giving BMO the power of fast and easy online censorship. 'Burning Man strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit,' writes Corynne McSherry. 'Unfortunately, the fine print on the tickets doesn't live up to that aspiration.'"
the BMO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the BMO (Score:5, Insightful)
Bah - BM does not need your puny advertising.
Media control makes sure that Black Rock City does not turn into a venue for the "girls gone wild" film crews. It's also part of the framework that allows BM Org to function on behalf of people when private footage ends up being used in such a manner.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite. They can choose which pictures to leave up or take down. They're free to claim whichever photos they like, and encourage the dissemination of the ones they do. This is not what copyright is for.
There's no significant financial benefit in owning these pictures, so I can only agree with the summary: this is for censorship and nothing else.
Re:the BMO (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you do digg searches on BM photos, you'll see they hardly ever exercise discretion.
There are many BM participants that plainly don't want the world to see them nude, or having what's a potentially lascivious time. That's their right and a good protection to have fun without the PTA burning you at the stake. Here, the EFF has crossed the line. Imagine all the people in the Human Carcass Wash being exposed for the world to see. That's not what BM is about: outing behavior that's otherwise 'just fine' at the event.
People have more freedom at BM than the 'default world' and should have the right to protection, and the event should be able to control it. Privacy trumps someone's right to masturbate or express other moral outrage to pictures of strange things at BM.
Re:the BMO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Burning Man: Ren Faire for Anarchist Wannabes (Score:5, Informative)
It's not FEDERAL LAND. It's leased from the BLM.
It's not walking around the desert naked-- it's private leased property.
The land underneath is BLM. The area is leased and is private.
Ridiculous is fine when you're with people that have consented to whatever. But you're incorrect in comparing BM to RenFests. They can do whatever they want, just like it were a nudist camp--- because the lease provides nexus of control to the BM organization. Even the Pershing County sheriffs will walk by, gawk, then walk on-- unless someone's obviously in trouble or violating the law by doing illegal drugs, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are plenty of privately-owned, privately-occupied cabins on Forest Service land. By your argument, anyone can break into them any time, because they are "public". The same would apply to a privately-owned vehicle on a public street.
Re:Burning Man: Ren Faire for Anarchist Wannabes (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, no. Saying the argument holds no water doesn't make it so.
It's private property for purposes of the event. You must buy or be granted a ticket and comply with the terms. Go on, pay some money and ask a real lawyer. I lease my office. It's the same as if I own it. You get to come in if I say it's ok-- otherwise you're trespassing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
PS: How can I delete it when the authorities haven't planted it yet?
Re:the BMO (Score:4, Informative)
Except, of course, the fact that it is not a public event. You have to buy a ticket to go, which makes a private event on land that is leased from the government.
Furthermore, one of the conditions of use by the BLM is that the entire event establishes a perimeter fence and controls access.
Think about this for a sec (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, if someone takes pictures which could "let the word out" this enables the organizers to take down those pictures and control the information, so the cops aren't up everyone's ass every year. This has worked for the last five years, and as a result it's fine and encouraged to smoke pot and drop acid all weekend long, even in front of event security (they do it too). I don't know if this is the same reason Burning Man does this, but it would make a LOT of sense.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I wouldn't think that hallucinating security personnel would be very effective.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't like it? Don't go to Burning Man (Score:5, Informative)
Burning Man implements a Temporary Autonomous Zone [wikipedia.org] (TAZ):
One of the essential supports for a TAZ is to ensure participants that their temporary experience - which can greatly differ from normal life - be temporary, rather than permanent. People do all sorts of crazy stuff at Burning Man. That self-expression is easier because they know that photographs and videos of their experience will be handled in a particular manner - for example, not taken and turned into a motion picture.
If you don't agree with BMO's photo and video terms, then you don't understand the concept of a TAZ.
Re:Don't like it? Don't go to Burning Man (Score:5, Insightful)
Very well put. Wish I had mod points for you because this is the most important point.
The biggest irony here is that the EFF talks about protecting privacy.. and BMO's policy here is to protect the privacy of participants.. not to stifle creativity.
Out of all the things the EFF could be focusing on, this is the least important 'threat' to anyone's digital rights that I can imagine.
Can I get my donation for this year back?
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine it has more to do about protecting attendees from having unwanted photos posted all over the Internet.
But whatever, I'm not psychic, and don't know any Burners involved behind organizing the event, but this is just a guess.
I'm sure they don't need increased advertising of their event, everyone knows what they're about and word of mouth is doing just fine.
I personally wouldn't care if there's a photo of me smoking a joint at an event like Burning Man, but I imagine for some other people this could
Re:the BMO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And do you really trust this organization to just "do the right thing" no matter how much profit is waived in front of their face if they decide to say "we don't like that movie of yours, so you're forced to take it down... oh, and in 6 months, we'll be releasing it nationwide because we don't like it so much..." That's the problem with "good intentions" defining a contract... they can be worked around so easily.
Re: (Score:2)
No, wikileaks.
Re:the BMO (Score:5, Funny)
Burning Man, indeed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bman is founded on principles of enjoying oneself and being free without concern that people will take photos and 'out' folks for recreational activities.
Let's assume (I don't know) that BM has an exclusive lease to the area. Because if they don't, other people may legitimately be there, and take whatever pictures they want, and do whatever is legally possible to do with them. In a public place, your privacy rights are rather limited.
Then the simplest (and least abusable) solution would be to ban cameras
Likely to protect the Event Itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's a bad thing?
Re:Likely to protect the Event Itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Likely to protect the Event Itself (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it should not (and does not) matter what their 'reasons' are.
they are trying to own and control YOUR photos.
this has to be stopped. bad precident to let corps take your rights away like this.
I would not go to this in the past; but now, I FOR SURE won't even consider giving them my money.
Burning Man is about creativity? (Score:4, Funny)
Protest (Score:5, Funny)
Protest by setting fire to something. People will notice then.
Re:Protest (Score:4, Interesting)
A few years ago an old-time participant set fire to "the man" a couple of days early. The organizers decried it as criminal vandalism and reported it to law enforcement.
The hypocrisy was thick.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'll read about the arsonist that did it, you'll get more insight into what actually goes on at the event, and what the symbol of "The Man' means to people at the event.
Yeah, it was fun to see The Man burn twice, but more ironic and paradoxical than hypocrisy. That guy was uniformly vilified by the participants, as well as the organizers.
Who owns the property this event is on? (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL, but....
In the Nevada desert? State owned property? Then I doubt they have a legal leg to stand on. However, if it's on private property, then they can probably stipulate what gets done with the photos. Stupid? Yes. Legal? Maybe.
Photographers, print this out and carry it with you at all times: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm [krages.com]. It was written by lawyers who do actually know a thing or two about photography and the law.
-S
Re: (Score:2)
Total bullshit though. People keep fighting for the "rights of the artist" but I have yet to see anyone actua
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even if it's private property, the most they can do is kick you off and forbid you from coming back on. They can't confiscate your camera/photos nor can they tell you how you can and can't use those photos. They certainly can't suddenly claim copyright ownership on your photos. BMO is claiming rights that they simply don't have.
Re:Who owns the property this event is on? (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, no. It's a leased space for the time of the event. Their legal basis is court-tested in Nevada and California courts. The ticket is key; it's a contract just like the one you get when you park your car in a garage.
Bah, It's been that way for aa few years now. (Score:5, Insightful)
I stopped going to burning man years ago when it became a commercialized corporate mess.
Burning man today is not what it was 10 years ago.
today it's a brand to be protected, an event to sponsor.
Bleh.
Re:Bah, It's been that way for aa few years now. (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I'll get off your lawn now.
Same as any organised event, e.g. Beltane (Score:2)
Same as with any organised event, I've been along to and involved with the Edinburgh Beltane since 1991 (it started in '88) and people have always said the same thing "it's not what it used to be". Problem with organised events is that it boils down to somebody taking the rap if things go wrong so rules get put into place so no organiser gets personally sued when an idiot throws petrol on a fire (with the usual consequences), or deals have to be struck with the authorities to let some shape of event go on (
Re: (Score:2)
You should start your own event. Burning burningman.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The correct name would be BurningLumpy.
Problem was the event attendees took it literally. I was chased around for 12 hours by naked painted people with gasoline and torches...
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. There are no sponsors, there are no logos (except humorous art logos). It's still a gifting culture. The only thing that's really changed is the limitation on firearms and pets. I kind of like not hearing the sound of AK-47 clips at 2am above the sound of various drum cultures.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it on par with what Woodstock 99 was? Cause that was a crazy commercialized corporate mess. Maybe more like Lollapolooza?
Is it even valid? (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you know you've agreed to the waiver if you haven't read the waiver? Surely if you buy tickets over the phone, (unless they explicitly ask you whether you agree to the waiver) neither party can reasonably expect that you've read the waiver.
And that's assuming this clause is even valid, which I think seems unlikely.
In the spirit of individuality (Score:4, Insightful)
Burning Man isn't a sacred rite. It's a bunch of people who get together and decide to be goofs for a week. Nothing is stopping you from doing the same. I might even join you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe Smouldering Man (TM)??? A bit more evocative, too :)
copyright, patents, intellectual property (Score:5, Insightful)
is less about rewarding creators and more about corporate control of OUR culture
at this point, i am leaning towards "fuck you" to creators, as long as our legal system has an inability to differentiate between corporate distribution channels and actual creators
creators: i'm sorry your grandchildren can't live off your one hit wonder. i'm sorry you won't be a billionaire for "inventing" shamwow. but you can still get a great job as a respected engineer and you can still get great money from touring. sorry, thems the breaks: get to work like the rest of us dumb shlubs
the original idea that guided the creation of the notion of intellectual property: rewarding creators, has been completely corrupted as a way to reward distributors. the legal goon squads make sure actual creators get less $, and consumers fork over more $. in a preinternet world, distributors were necessary, but this is a scenario the internet has destroyed. now distributors are just unnecessary parasites. its called disruptive technology for a reason. it has disrupted the technological grounds upon which the rewarding of distributors works. all that remains is pushing the stake into the vampire's heart
intellectual property has betrayed its philosophical underpinnings, and we, the people, who are supposed to be the ones in charge, now have a duty to do our best to ignore, and/ or detroy intellectual property, since the legal system, which is supposed to serve us, serves corporate masters beholden to nothing but more cash for less reason
intellectual property law is still effective across the land because of legal goon squads, but philosophically, it is defunct, and you should ignore it... at the peril of the legal goon squads, but not at the peril of your conscience. it is at the peril of your conscience that you continue to believe in intellectual property
Re: (Score:2)
is less about rewarding creators and more about corporate control of OUR culture
True, and sad. Funny how the constitution stipulates that "authors and inventors" have a temporary monopoly, and not lifetime ownership that they can pass on to their decendants or sell to a publisher. If you're not an author or inventor, you're not supposed to hold a patent or coyright in the US. Too bad the constitution has become meaningless, making almost every law on the books meaningless.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sure creators have already leaned towards "fuck you" themselves. I'm sorry that you can't get everything at a price that you want, when you want, and how you want, but you can still just buy the damn thing, or not. Sorry, them's the brakes: pay for the work of others that you use.
The original idea of championing individual rights has been completely corrupted by greed and affluence. The hoard of self-justifying pirates make sure that the actual creators get less $, and consumers fork over more $.
Piracy
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
wow,the last surviving subscriber to columbiahouse (Score:2)
i thought columbia house went the way of my simple minds cassette tape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_House [wikipedia.org]
little did i know its still alive and kicking
http://www.columbiahouse.com/ [columbiahouse.com]
well, i guess some people like getting their mail by pack mule rather than truck too
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how does the internet affect CDs coming in my mailbox?
It may not if whomever is sending them to you sees it as a viable business model to
do so. If, however, after watching their sales drop year over year as people turn to
digital distribution the vendor you purchase from decides to call it quits you will
either have to find another distributor or join the majority of people who have switched
to digital distribution.
The internet will not automatically make delivery of physical media obsolete and gone
forever; customers and business viability should decide that. Unf
Not enforceable in/from a public place (Score:5, Insightful)
Whilst there are probably a dozen practical and legal reasons why this probably isn't enforceable, the one that immediately springs to my mind is that Burning Man is taking place in a Black Rock Desert [wikipedia.org], which is government-owned and criss-crossed with historic trails open to the public. There are likely to be large areas of Burning Man which are visible from these public areas, and thus, according to Kantor's Legal Rights of Photographers [kantor.com] (PDF), open to photographer to take photographs from as they see fit, without restrictions.
Re:Not enforceable in/from a public place (Score:4, Informative)
Nope.
The area is leased to the organization. As a leaseholder, they can encumber you by the terms of the ticket. Your argument doesn't hold water in this controlled-access event. There's a perimeter fence that would thwart even really cool telephoto lenses. There are even NOTAMs for flyers that would like to buzz by.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope for you too.
It doesn't change the fact that it is a public place (bars, pubs, restoraunts are has controlled access too, but they are public places in same time). As if you have got your camera into the concert where cameras are forbidden, get home and publish photos of naked soloist, thought luck for management and PR, but you OWN pictures you made.
And as some slashdotters already mentioned, this right can't change ownership automagically just because someone doesn't like it. However, you COULD have p
Good Luck Enforcing That (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, BMO. Any pictures that I take are mine. You can get stuffed if you don't like them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
this is like the many stories of rent-a-cops telling photogs that they can't take a pic of this or that building.
or mall cops who tell you you can't shoot inside the mall.
the most they can do is tell you to stop and escort you out.
they CANNOT ask to see your photos (ie, you are not compelled to give them any views)
they CANNOT ask to have your memory card (only police can do that and even then, its iffy)
they CANNOT take ownership of 'all photos you take'.
they can ask you to leave (early) but they can't take
Protecting the image? (Score:2)
They wouldn't want those DMCA powers in order to take down pictures of people engaged in activities like ... drug taking. A friend who went to a Burning Man festival said that most people he encountered there seemed to be whacked out on Ecstacy.
Wait... (Score:2)
I've been using this since 1986. Do I get to sue BMO?
--
BMO
They really _can't_ do this (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1: Buy tickets by phone
Step 2: Take pictures they don't like
Step 2a: Publish them
Step 3: When they complain, bring up 17 USC 204a: "transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. "
(once again, no profit)
Re: (Score:2)
If the EULA/ToS for the event is listed before purchasing, I can see the argument that purchase of the ticket constitutes a signed agreement, especially if the EULA/ToS is printed on the back of the ticket. It's weak, I will admit it, but it seems plausible that would be an acceptable defense.
Poser bullshit and Lawyer Ball in the Desert (Score:2)
!story (Score:4, Interesting)
Good Reason For It (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a good reason for it. Burning Man permits all sorts of non-standard behavior, including nudity. For people to feel comfortable in such an environment, photography has to be limited. For the most part this is not a problem -- real Burners ask before taking a person's picture. But there is a bad element that goes to Burning Man; the tourists. They generally arrive on Thursday or Friday, camera in hand, and start snapping pictures.
Those pictures do two bad things: They inhibit people from acting freely, and they present the wrong image of Burning Man. It is not about nudity, but the daffy ducks with their cameras would make it look like it is; as they walk right past some of the most inspiring art in the world to snap a picture of a person who chose not to wear clothes that day. Keeping those pictures -- which misrepresent the event and are widely reviled by Burners -- off the Internet is a good thing.
I am a hard-core supporter of the EFF, but this time they are wrong to judge. Burning Man is a community with certain standards. Making sure Black Rock City remains free -- in both the legal and the psychological sense -- is one of them. Much like the GPL or anti-trust laws, sometimes freedom is best served by restricting behavior that inhibits freedom.
Re:then the tourists aren't a problem to you eithe (Score:4, Interesting)
don't like that? then don't get nude.
Do you not see the inhibition to freedom implicit in that statement?
Nope. Freedom doesn't mean "I get to do whatever the hell I want and bugger the consequences." It means "I get to make the choice to do it or not."
Sign on BMO entrance (Score:2)
But if you actually were _going_ to the playa... (Score:3, Insightful)
...you would pretty thankful that BMorg's totalitarian, authoritarian, rights-usurping power grab on federal land is in place. Most folks that are up there are happy to have a safe space to get their freak on, and safe means not having to worry about some local TV station looking for titilating footage pointing their lens in your direction. Does that take away some of their rights? Sure it does. But it's a decision the the community made collectively, and one that is integral to maintaining the unique character of the event.
TFA seems to imply that one can't take photos on the playa without BMorg tracking you down and hitting you with a DMCA take-down notice, which is patently false. Everyone takes photos at Burning Man, everyone goes on to post most of them all over the web. BMorg's policy is targeted toward commercial content.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm no BMorg fan-boy. They're a bureaucratic and self-important bunch, but on this one they're right.
Burning Man jumped the shark when... (Score:5, Insightful)
[ ] Inherently over the shark right from the start--every counterculture is doomed to devolve into authoritarianism.
[ ] left Bay Area
[X] charging admission
[ ] mentioned on Malcolm in the Middle
[ ] guy burned the man prematurely and got in legal trouble for it
Maybe It's Not As It Seems... (Score:3, Insightful)
I was under the impression that some of these stringent rules were put in place to protect participants, rather than limit their rights. IE, the organizers want people to be able to walk around naked without ending up on "Girls Gone Wild: Burningman Edition!" and use drugs without the possibility that their "crimes" may end up on the evening news.
Re:So go and just don't do anything (Score:5, Funny)
How about having everyone wear a V mask [wikipedia.org] as a sign of protest?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
America needs you, Lawrence Welk [wikipedia.org], now more than ever!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Horrible" is maybe too strong a word in this case, no? What's the matter are you opposed to the goatse man's right to self-expression?
Well let me tell you something, Mr. Man, you may not realize this, but at Burning Man 2004 the entire event's grand finale was every attendee striking that very pose.
At least I think that's what happened. To be fair, I had dropped some of the brown acid, which I later heard may have been ...(wait for it...) tainted.
[G
Re:In Soviet Russia... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you're gonna call Stalin 'Joe' - you should call Corynne 'Cory' and Benito 'Ben' :P
...quotes put YOU into someone's mouth! (Score:2)
"Gravity strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit" - Zack Newton
"Slashdot strives to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit" - Mandy Taco
"Our individuality, creativity and free spirit strive to celebrate our individuality, creativity and free spirit" - J-Dog_666
Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian (Score:5, Funny)
Whats the matter, did the BMO organizers ban you from carrying your handguns and wearing your white supremacist t-shirt again?
Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian (Score:4, Funny)
You don't really understand Godwin's law, do you?
You Godwin's Law Nazi!
Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian (Score:5, Funny)
Like most liberal fantasies, it rapidly devolved into an authoritarian group usurping natural ownership and dictating rules galore.
Unlike most conservative fantasies, which start that way.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Do you WANT the terrists to win?
Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between Liberals and Conservatives ....
Liberals pretend there are no rules, but make lots of rules to cover shit they don't like.
Conservatives makes lots of rules, and pretend to not have any rules.
See, they are different!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have never seen a liberal deny the need for rules, they deny the need for rules which only protect people from themselves or enforce a moral stance not everyone has.
A conservative on the other hand wishes to use rules to enforce his moral stance on everyone regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with that stance.
Don't confuse Democrats for liberals or Republicans for conservatives either... neither one fits either bill.
Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian (Score:5, Insightful)
I could point out that the phenomenon your referring to isn't a feature of a liberal system, it occurs despite of your political lean, but...
It always amazes me how people throw things into one of two buckets "liberal" and "conservative". One of the buckets is good and one is bad, depending on the person. How about instead of using inconsistent terms like that we get right to the point, call the categories "us" and "them". Remember you don't have to think about it too much, ignorance is a plus when putting "them" down.
Heh, heh, heh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Go back about a century and "conservatives" were setting up the national park system and "liberals" were all for industrialization and free enterprise.
Re:Heh, heh, heh... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A century ago the conservatives were conservationists, protecting the wilderness from those progressives who wanted to cut down the trees and rip up the hills for their mines and smokey factories.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
the phenomenon your referring to isn't a feature of a liberal system, it occurs despite of your political lean
Be careful, I was modded "troll" for saying the same thing [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian (Score:5, Insightful)
You would have been better off just saying "Power corrupts"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What the heck is "natural ownership?" Copyright is a government creation, not a natural right.
Anyway, BM "devolved into an authoritarian group" only once it sold out and lost touch with its "liberal fantasy". Once I saw Verizon running ads about "keeping touch on the playa" in a burner rag, it was pretty clear that the co-option was complete.
Some of the local burns retain
Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian (Score:5, Interesting)
Like most liberal fantasies, it rapidly devolved into an authoritarian group usurping natural ownership and dictating rules galore.
"We automatically own all your stuff" isn't the only BMO rule totally contrary to the events original spirit.
More specifically, I'd say it is about "freedom", and when people are free to be themselves, you end up with the group devolving or evolving to whatever the average person in the group is really like at heart. So if you say to a bunch of nuns, "be free!", they'll probably spend the day in prayer. But if you say it to a bunch of people who believe "the system is bad", then often you get social drop-outs who couldn't organise anything more complicated than just... well they become a gang of thugs who wanna just live impulsively. And if there's some proportion of people like that who go to BM, then that's what it will devolve to.
Are There Sharks in the Desert to Jump? (Score:5, Insightful)
...because my impression was that Burning Man had become a parody of itself (and, by extension, the whole Mondo 2000 era) years ago. Like, Turn-of-the-Century years ago. These aren't "creative people" making an annual pilgrimage, these are Marketing Execs and guys who view the pre-bubble dot-com era the way today's high school pop music fans view 80's synth-pop bands and narrow ties.
"Burning Man" ?!? Christ, why does that even get any ink here?
Re:Another liberal dream goes totalitarian (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism started out as an absolute do-whatever-you-want-just-don't-share-with-anyone free-for-all.
Like most conservative fantasies, it rapidly devolved into an authoritarian group usurping natural ownership and dictating rules galore.
"We automatically own all your stuff" isn't the only feudalistic rule totally contrary to the system's original spirit.
That was fun!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd still rather have the societal freedom and market regulation of the "liberal" philosophy over an unregulated market and/or social conformity of other philosophies. The fact that we have no philosophy of organization that is immune to the flaws of people is no
Re: (Score:2)
Look at Las Vegas, going in a (more) family friendly direction proved successful. I can't say I blame them, though I can't also not call them assholes. The scary part is looking back at your own childhood and realizing how much of it has a gold sticker of approval and a trademark attached.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Burning Man started out as an absolute do-whatever-you-want-just-don't-kill-anyone free-for-all. Like most liberal fantasies, it rapidly devolved into an authoritarian group usurping natural ownership and dictating rules galore. "We automatically own all your stuff" isn't the only BMO rule totally contrary to the events original spirit.
I'm struck by how much this statement also applies to the nearby /. story about the current state of Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As someone who is going there for the third time this year, I strongly recommend that you try to change your attitude.
Don't get me wrong, if you ignore this advice, it won't bother me one bit. I don't need you to have fun in order to have a good time myself.
Let's be clear - there are plenty of things that are wrong with Burning Man, including your example of the double-standard of what is for sale. The physical environment is terrible. The heat during the day is intolerable, and it can get freezin
Re: (Score:2)
The people I met were mostly IT geeks. Really.