Burning Man grabs participant's content for itself

uncloned · August 13, 2009, 14:36:18

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/snatching-rights-playa

QuoteIn 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. Most have the entirely reasonable expectation that they will own and control what is likely the largest number of creative works generated on the Playa: the photos they take to document their creations and experiences.

That's because they haven't read the Burning Man Terms and Conditions.

Those 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. 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.

maleek · August 13, 2009, 21:29:10

These kinds of ToC seems to be a virus flooding the Internets and now apparantly the "real world". Private interests capitalizing on the commons and also restraining cultural expressions.

Sam_Zen · August 14, 2009, 00:43:55

Just disgusting.

uncloned · August 14, 2009, 00:53:37

crap like this is written into the terms of almost every music site.

when some song released on soundclick or garageband becomes really big there will be trouble.

Sam_Zen · August 14, 2009, 01:32:27

Don't panic. Their claims are almost always based on silly bluff.
M$ tried the same with copyright on every mail written at Hotmail. Ridiculous of course.

Louigi Verona · August 14, 2009, 04:59:37

Most of these things would not stand up in court.

uncloned · August 14, 2009, 05:07:14

yes, assuming the court was fair.

this is not always the case unfortunately

Louigi Verona · August 14, 2009, 05:35:14

It is funny that theoretically a lot of people seem to be very much against these things, but in practice we encourage the same kind of proprietary thinking. And when Tassel of Blue has released her music with an insulting license, not a lot of people even noticed the problem.

uncloned · August 14, 2009, 05:51:41

I think the difference is she created the content and can restrict to high heaven.

But burning man is in effect stealing control of content they did not create.

Louigi Verona · August 14, 2009, 07:26:20

If you look deeper, there is no difference at all.

Harbinger · August 14, 2009, 23:14:50

Quote from: "Louigi Verona"It is funny that theoretically a lot of people seem to be very much against these things, but in practice we encourage the same kind of proprietary thinking. And when Tassel of Blue has released her music with an insulting license, not a lot of people even noticed the problem.

I was going to send you a PM, but i want everyone to read this. My apologies beforehand to uncloned for hijacking this thread, but this idiot's opinion has been bugging me (and Yjana) for a long time, and since he keeps bringing it up, he will be answered.

As far as the subject at hand, unless the attendees were told AHEAD of time that no pictures or audio could be recorded (and if there were, they would be the property of the entity that held the event), then the holders of the event don't have a legal or moral leg to stand on.

But it seems Mr Verona is drawing a comparison between Tassel of Blue's No-Sharing policy and this one held at this event. It's NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Everyone knew before downloading ToB's album the Terms of Agreement -- or rather TERM (singular) of Agreement: simply don't give it to anyone else. ToB believes that this is the same as claiming it as your own so you can give it to whomever you want. She is not giving you anything; she is SHARING it. Only idiots, potheads, and the retarded can't distinguish these two very different concepts.

But there is an even bigger issue here: Louigi, you (and others) have constantly shown a blatant disregard and disrespect for people and their right to own what's theirs. It's not yours, you have no claim to it, and you have no moral authority of any kind to back you up. All you own is what's in your brain; you don't own the object (unless it was given to you, whether or not for monetary exchange), you have no claim to its transmission (unless it was publicly transmitted, or otherwise privately transmitted to you or an object that can store the transmission), and you don't get to come up with your own morals on whether or not someone has a right to their art (or can restrict you from what's not yours) and then demean them for not abiding by your standards. If you didn't make it, or it wasn't given to you, IT'S NOT YOURS.

What's worse is that you denigrate other people for holding on to something they actually HAVE a claim to. What's "insulting" is that she's FORCED to spell out this request into some sort of legalese, PRECISELY because people like you think they can do whatever they want with stuff that wasn't given to you. She's the first to admit she has trust issues, but it's only because of people like you, whom she has no trust in. And neither do i.

As i understand it you've caused problems elsewhere as well. I have so little respect for you that i don't even listen to your music anymore, even though it may be very good. Your opinions to me are worthless now, because they show a lack of respect for other people and what's theirs. Your beliefs smack of socialism, which takes away people's individuality and personal ownership. And as someone who was raised in an environment of respect for others (and what's theirs) as well as individual liberty and expression, i and most Americans find your opinions backwards and failed.

I'm sure you want to nitpick away at things i've said, but if you have a disagreement, LV, let's talk about the big picture, which is the overriding principle of right to self-expression and individual ownership. And don't bother PMing me, say it here.

Uncloned, if you don't like us threadjacking your post (no matter who you agree with) or if you don't like the tone of my post, send us to a new thread, and i apologize for the intrusion. Obviously LV's idiocy would make itself known here, even though there is a big difference between someone controlling knowledge and someone claiming rights to a single work.

uncloned · August 15, 2009, 00:43:55

Honestly I think you two should talk it out and find middle ground - or at least understanding.

I post items like this for people to discuss them so please have at it.

My position:

1.

Burning Man is claiming ownership of something they do not own. I'm surprised their lawyers did read the part of the (US) copyright act that says that the creator is granted copyright at the time of creation.

2.

I think you and Yjanna (spelling?) have every right to place *any* condition you wish on what you create.

I have in my time made preview version of material I was working on for friends and colleagues to receive their opinion. These files were clearly marked "do not distribute" and of course I asked for the listener not to distribute.

On the other hand - posting a preview you wish to control distribution of on a well known international forum could be considered a dubious move.

Also to be considered is the fact that not every condition you may place on your work is actually to your benefit.

3.

What I really object to is technological attempts to control distribution that cripples what I bought. Especially bad are the Sony root kits that install silently when you play certain CDs.

A case in point is that I'd like to get rid of our VHS tapes. I have a combination VHS DVD recorder... but it prevents me from copying certain VHS tapes to DVD - it comes right up on the TV - you can't copy copyrighted material. This is stupid. This sucks. It is unfair. They want me to buy another fricking copy!! It is not like I'm going to sell that DVD I burn. But fair use be damned - I'm prevented.... (I have a way but its not pretty)

So please discuss

Sam_Zen · August 15, 2009, 00:46:32

Edit : this post crossed the previous one.

Hm.. and again Hm..

I understand, and accept Harbinger intrusion in this post.
First because the subject of the topic isn't that heavy as an issue, so 'anywhere it goes..'.
Second, because Harbinger is reasoned by the "insulting license" remark by LV.
Which was not directly relevant to the Burning Man topic.

I haven't denied Tassel of Blue the right to make any restrictions about using the works.
Let's not forget our common idea here : Personal rights about personal things.

The free will to decide to share some expression will also mean the freedom to and/or describe some restrictions about the use.
Rules which, in this freedom, aren't restricted to the officially established ones. One can set one's own.
If another one thinks, it's a ridiculous setting, don't nag, but accept it, and regard the consequences.

I just want a reasonable discussion about this, without flaming elements.
This apart from the fact, that I have my zen-doubts about the 'ownership' of a song or a performance.
If you want to 'own' a song, don't publish it.

Edit : in fact, don't even record it.

uncloned · August 15, 2009, 01:01:10

Quote from: "Sam_Zen"

Edit : in fact, don't even record it.

don't even think it! :evil:

g · August 15, 2009, 01:46:08

About Burning Man

I don't see it as that bad, it's a closed event and basically they say they don't let you take pictures or shoot film to use commercially or do stuff to harm their image. It's worded in a clumsy way, but I don't think they mean to possess the copyright of any and all things.

There are a lot of rumours about things like these, such as facebook owning all images, myspace owning all music and et cetera. I think it's good that people read terms and conditions, but as far as I know there still hasn't been a case where this has actually happened.

About Harbinger vs Louigi Verona

While I agree with Louigi in some ways, I believe he could be a little bit more diplomatic. Personal attacks are not the way to change the world.

On the other hand... "Your beliefs smack of socialism, which takes away people's individuality and personal ownership. And as someone who was raised in an environment of respect for others (and what's theirs) as well as individual liberty and expression, i and most Americans find your opinions backwards and failed."

I sincerely hope most Americans have a more nuanced view of the world than that.