John Law Sues His Former Burning Man Partners
John Law, one of the original three owners of the Burning Man event, contacted me to let me know that he is just filed suit against his two Burning Man partners Larry Harvey and Michael Mikel, after Michael initiated his own legal proceedings and demand for arbitration. In 1997 Paper Man LLC was formed between the three original owners in order to own and control the name and service mark “Burning Man”, which is at the center of this dispute.
This is a statement from John Law regarding this lawsuit from his blog, which he recently launched in order to have a public voice regarding this issue.
Here is John Law’s complaint (PDF or HTML) that was filed in San Francisco on January 9th, 2007.
Here is a PDF of Michael Mikel’s demand for arbitration.
Full Disclosure: John Law is one of Laughing Squid’s business partners and a close personal friend, but that relationship is independent of his legal involvement in Burning Man. I met John in 1995 through the San Francisco Cacophony Society and in 1999 he was involved in the formation of Laughing Squid LLC (Laughing Squid’s current business structure) along our third partner David Klass. I’m a big supporter of Burning Man. I attended the event for 8 straight years (1995-2002) and I plan on returning again in the future. The bottom line is that I am staying neutral on this issue. I’m good friends with the three people involved and hope they find a amicable resolution to this situation.
Here’s the original Burning Man service mark that was owned by Larry Harvey, John Law, and Michael Mikel. It was registered on September 12, 1995, canceled on July 20, 2002 and then later assigned to Paper Man LLC in 1997.
Here’s the current Burning Man service mark that was assigned to Paper Man, LLC in 1997, allowed to expire, and registered again to Paper Man, LLC on February 10, 2004.
For more background on John Law’s involvement with Burning Man, check out Brian Doherty’s excellent book “This Is Burning Man”. It provides some great insight on what really went down during the volatile 1996 event and it’s aftermath, which lead to John leaving the organization.
Coverage & Discussion
“Does Burning Man Belong to Everyone?” (John Law)
“Legal battle between Burning Man founders”
(Mark Frauenfelder, Boing Boing)“Burning Man Partners in Legal Battle: Founders Split” (Digg)
“News Flash: BM Founder John Law sues Burning Man” (Tim, Tribe)
“John Law Sues His Former Burning Man Partners”
(Isotopia, Burning Man ePlaya)“A Fable” (John Law)
“Burning Man’s dirty laundry gets an airing”
(Daniel Terdiman, CNET News.com)“Who Owns Burning Man? John Law Sues Ex-Partners” (LAVoice)
“Burning Man co-founder sues to put name, logo in public domain”
(Marcus Wohlsen, Associated Press)“A Hot Court Fight” (Dan Mangan, New York Post)
“Suit sparks debate over Burning Man” (Mary Anne Ostrom, Mercury News)
“Burning Man Responds to John Law Complaint”
(Marian Goodell, Burning Man)“BM responses to Law suit” (Jim Graham, Tribe)
“Burning Man’s copyright Nazis” (Paul Boutin, Valleywag)
“Burning Man at legal crossroads” (UPI)
“Onward” (John Law)
“It’s so empty, it’s full” (Kevin Evans, Tribe)
“John Law Sues Burning Man!!!” (Danger Angel)
“The Smoking Gun” (John Law)
“Heart Burn” (Jessica Bennett, Newsweek)
“Burning Man Belongs to the People, Man” (Brian Doherty, Reason Magazine)
“Burning brand” (Steven T. Jones, San Francisco Bay Guardian)
“John Law speaks” (MetaFilter)
“Burnt Man” (Matt Smith, San Francisco Weekly)
“Burning Man dispute heats up with suit” (Meredith May, San Francisco Chronicle)
“The Burning Man trademark controversy” (Chris Messina, FactoryCity)
“Trademarking a Brand Name to Douse Burning Man?” (William Lozito, Strategic Name Development)
UPDATE 1: There’s a really good comment thread developing on John’s initial blog post. It’s a great place for feedback if you have any for him.
UPDATE 2: Andie “Actiongrl” Grace responded on behalf of Burning Man on the Tribe thread.
UPDATE 3: John has updated his blog with a second post that addresses some of the questions being asked about this case.
UPDATE 4: The story has hit the AP Wire.
UPDATE 5: Marian Goodell, Director of Communications for Burning Man, has posted
an official response to John Law’s complaint.
UPDATE 6: In addition to the PDF of John Law’s complaint, I have also uploaded an HTML version.
UPDATE 7: John Law’s attorney I. Braun Degenshein is quoted in the New York Post article.
UPDATE 8: There is a humorous thread on Tribe where people are suggesting alternate names for Burning Man.
UPDATE 9: Kevin Evans made a great post on Tribe that gives a really good historical insight into how Burning Man moved from Baker Beach in San Francisco to Nevada’s Black Rock Desert, as well as how “art” became one of the primary focuses of the event. Over the years I’ve often told people about Kevin’s significant contributions to the desert beginnings of Burning Man and now it is great to finally see it in his own words.
UPDATE 10: John Law just posted his “Smoking Gun”, a PDF of Michael Mikel’s demand for arbitration.
UPDATE 11: Newsweek has published “Heart Burn” an article by Jessica Bennett about the “Burning Man” name dispute and lawsuit. In the article she interviews Brian Doherty, senior editor of Reason Magazine and author of “This Is Burning Man”. On the same day the San Francisco Bay Guardian published an article, “Burning brand” by Steven Jones.
UPDATE 12: There is even more coverage on this issue from both the San Francisco Weekly and San Francisco Chronicle.
UPDATE 13: Chris Messina weighs in with an excellent analysis of the “The Burning Man trademark controversy”.
Leaving a comment? Please see our Comment Guidelines.
on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
It’s a shame, really, mean it.
—————————————
And this may be the link to the USPTO filing info:
http://tinyurl.com/t8ekd
or a different view of similar data
on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
i hope this isn’t the beginning of the end. i know and love all 3 of them. ugh.
on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Couldn’t they have just bartered over this dispute??
on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
This is a cross post from John Law’s blog…
The narrative on Law’s blog seems to suggest that the “organizers†want to create a sideline merchandising business from the trademark logo and name of the event. I’ve always thought that would be a bit crass, considering all the propaganda about non-commodification. Protecting the logo and name was supposedly to keep them from being exploited by outside groups like pornographers and trinket peddlers. If the “organizers†were to develop and promote a product line, it would put them on the level of pornographers and trinket peddlers, to my view.
But that assumes intent, about which I can only guess. I don’t think the “default†legal world parses the issues the way that we do– to own copyright is the only way to protect a “brand†from outside exploitation. The event has become a different sort of entity than it was, but its success is built on the foundation of what it was. While I respect the “organizers†for wanting to protect the image they project into the world, I would be dismayed if they started selling those damn disposable Bic (R) lighters with the Burning Man logo on them.
on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
That pretty much goes against everything Burning Man stands for. I won’t believe it until I see it.
-Otto
on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Yeah, Larry et al would never exploit their participants for financial gain!
How much are tickets now…?
on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Burning Man has burnt out and joined the banality of all other trademarked, copyrighted and patented Disneyfied mainstream American culture. Time for all the artistic tweaks who make life interesting to start up a new event.
on Tuesday, January 9th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen! Presenting Cirque de Burn!
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 12:26 am
agreed - burning man lawsuits? pathetic.
keep the memories - but ditch the event. let these fools battle it out over the dead carcass that is burning man.
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 5:59 am
As both a Burner, a panner of a regional burn and …*gasp* a Lawyer I have to say this might well be one of the worst ideas anyone has ever had regarding Burning Man. Moreover, I think MR. law is being somewhat disingenious here. In his public statement he talks about wanting to Cancel the BM trademark to make it “Belong to the people” but in the Actual complaint he filed with the court, what he’s asking for is far different. There he’s asking that the Mark be returned to a Limited partnership that he, conveniently owns 1/3 of and that BRC be prohibited from using the BM name with “paying appropriate licensing fees”.
To me this sounds a lot less like “making it free for everyone ” and a lot more like “I want a piece of the action”. I think Law, who parted ways with BM just before it blew up big feels a little bit like Pete Best (the guy who left the Beatles while they were still in Berlin) and now wants to turn the clock back.
Sad that it’s come to this but Burns happen in the real world and when a lot of money starts getting involved people do strange things.
(and for the record, I Don’t believe, based on my own crunching of the numbers that ANYONE is getting rich of BM. Yes tickets cost a lot and attendance is up; but a gig like this takes millions to put on (the BLM alone probably get 1.5-2 mil in fees)
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 9:36 am
I find the whole BM thing unoriginal since the San Francisco Art Institute from the years 1979 to 1985 would hold a big burn on industrial beach where we as students would dig a hole 50 by 50 and dump all of our old paintings and model furniture. It was huge and we stopped in 85 when we all graduated. There would be 500 on the beach burning stuffed clothing to represent theman etc. I wonder often who stole our idea and made it a business but ask anyone who went to SFAI during those years. We called it wild bill’s birthday party and usually it wa sheld at the end of summer. And now they are fighting over the rights to something that was a pure event created by real artists.
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 10:10 am
I think the whole idea of burning things on a beach is unoriginal. We were burning ceremonial fires on the beach back a long time before all of you. We’d dig a hole and drop all our sacred wood in it and have a spiritual ceremony. I often wonder who stole our idea. We stopped burning things on the beach when the Europeans came. And now you all are fighting over the rights to something that was a pure event created by real natives…
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Maybe there’s a larger possibility here — that you’re all a bunch of idiots. “Ohhh, we burned a bunch of crap in a pile before you did..” who cares, blah blah blah…
And to the self-righteous “native”, your homies in Mexico were also yanking out about 20,000 beating hearts per year in order to appease the Gods… you’re not in the position to brag about much of anything, Chief Burning Junk.
My hope is that this stupid event caves in on itself as it rightfully should. The thought that spending hundreds of dollars a person to go attend some faux “tribal” Ecstasy fest in the middle of the desert constituting a social movement of sorts is stupid. The world won’t be any less rich without it. Sorry, Bay Area tech-dorks” but maybe you can live out your Mad Max fantasies in the “real thing” in our nascent post-Peak Oil reality.
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
And so it ends like everything else in America…with a bunch of old white guys suing each other.
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
That’s a pretty smarmy artists v. native-american turn in the conversation, who can claim ownership of these rites? To do so is again egoism, please drop your claims of propriety, you don’t own nuthin’. I’m an artist and native american, and a member of at least a half-dozen other lineages and there’s no point, really, in claiming them. If the vitality is sapped, if it’s dead, like I’ve heard countless times for the last 5-6 years, let’s create something new. It’s our world, we are alive now and we can make it happen. Not the inertia of our forefathers (and mothers) or even ourselves when we were younger.
Come on, keep it real. Keep it now and keep it friendly, geeze :)
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Interesting. If I read it right, John wants to protect Burning Man by placing it in the Public Domain. Without getting into the details of the matter, would Burning Man truly be better protected under the Public Domain rather than in the hands of some group or organization (an LLC, a non profit, etc.)?
I seriously doubt that being in the Public Domain would serve Burning Man. In fact, I think it would totally undermine the values that the BMan community seeks to promote and protect.
The problem with things in the Public Domain is that anybody can do anything they want with them. Any person or company can take the Burning Man name and logo, slap it on a T-Shirt, Soda, or SUV and sell it. Anyone can throw an event and call it Burning Man, even if the event has little to do with BM in actuality or in Spirit (this has already happened in some regions). Shit can - and I think would - get co opted and warped very quickly this way.
Burning Man needs to be protected by some structure that gives the BM community the right to protect the BM name and image (and by extension, the event and community itself). The LLC structure may not be the right one. Perhaps a non-profit is the right one. Perhaps a corporation where each ticket bought is a share of stock* would be the right one.
I trust John’s intentions - that his goal is to keep the event as community-owned and controlled as possible. Putting it in the Public Domain will actually undermine that. I hope (and expect) that this action is not the end game, but is part of a discussion that will help ensure BMan lives up to its core values**, including de-commodification and self-reliance.
*I wonder if this could really be done. It would be a totally whacked culture jam. Using the structure of the Corporation to directly encourage democracy, participation, and mass-freakosity. It would be great.
**Yup, this opens up a whole other can of worms. The 10 principles currently espoused seem pretty good.
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
My ancestors shat on your lakebed 200 million years ago, Iron Eyes Cody.
Since they’ve been printing tickets & visitor guides, BRC-LLC has asked you to obey “county, state and federal laws” and that “you must comport yourself, with regard to these laws, as you would in any municipality”. Tort law must be given its due as well, I should think.
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Interesting reading, indeed.
Lots of predictible point of views. Perhaps the only ones founded on the gravity of this planet are Bob Stahl’s and the attorney’s.
I have the same belief as I had the first time I attended BM in 1995. That I will attend till it is no longer of interest to me. What is happening now is not only NOT suprising, it’s just what happens. It will resolve. And it still looks as though it is of interest to me -which I am glad of because I know the day will come when it isn’t so any longer.
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
“To me this sounds a lot less like “making it free for everyone †and a lot more like “I want a piece of the actionâ€. I think Law, who parted ways with BM just before it blew up big feels a little bit like Pete Best (the guy who left the Beatles while they were still in Berlin) and now wants to turn the clock back.”
I think it’s a lot more that he just doesn’t want a single person to own it. I mean, come on, why do this now? He’s owned a third of the name for ten years almost. Just now he’s noticed that they are making money? Come on man. As John says on his blog, if this was about money, he could have simply done some back room deal with either BRC or some giant corporation and sold off his control of the name, and you wouldn’t have even heard of it or of John.
He started his suit because Larry and M2 were already infighting over who owned the Trademark for some reason. Go look at John’s blog, his second blog post especially.
He also left Burning Man for very, very good reasons. This isn’t someone who simply got out for some silly reason and now wishes that he hadn’t. He got out because of his principals and the death of a close friend that happened at Burning Man in ‘96. At least that’s my understanding of it, I met John after this in ‘97. I know it’s easy to judge others from the vantage point of a keyboard, but read more about the situation and history first if you really want to understand…
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! I just got and email regarding the ‘right to the burning man name’ issue. Can you people stop with the catty bullshit and just let the people who have helped make your event the incredible thing that it is and who poor their fucking heart and sole into a once year event that helps them believe that there is a better existence out there for us all. Don’t kill this for the people who still believe in this. Drop this bullshit with the assholes who think Burning Man is dead. We are sick of these self-ritious douchedags who claim that Burning Man is dead. It’s not dead, it’s different. It grew, like everything else on this planet. Everything changes. You can either change with it or fuck off! If you decide you want to fuck off, then do it, but keep your mouth shut and let the people who still belive in it, enjoy it!
on Thursday, January 11th, 2007 at 2:01 am
This seems to me to be something that started out as ideological disagreement among friends, which festered slowly over a few years - and then developed into a Major Spat among Big Egos. It has degraded into a Big Pissing Contest, magnified by the Big Egos involved (Harvey, Micheal, Law) and unfortunately, lawyers. John is of more than commendable stature, as are Larry and Michael - I have (as most do) the *highest* regards for all of them as individuals.
As a ‘movement’, this devolved interaction of the ‘founders’ becomes a lesson for the greater communities Burning Man has spawned. One of these lessons (or questions) is, “What/Who do you identify with?”, and/or “What the fuck are you doing the rest of the year?”, or “How are you making a living knowing what you have learned?” ? ?? ???
What more the recent discussion has spurred (through vocalized discontent, blind faith in the event, hero/idol worship, blog dissent, etc.) is of much greater gravity and learning opportunity for the ‘movement’ upon which these communities thrive. I don’t think this is so much about identity rights, or even money or corporate/intellectual property. I see it as another upswelling of discontent and growing pains in response to the greater (like it, dislike it, believe it, or not) corporate/manufactured culture, identity, and management structure formed in the translation of this beautiful experience into greater society.
“Mainstreaming Pains”, if you will. A “Mainstreaming Abortion” we may need.
In trying to capture *and* produce this essentially Pagan connection with the Universe through an experience anchored to one week our of the year, the production of this event has taken on an almost unquestionable theocratic bureaucracy. A c**t of personalities, perhaps.
Questioning, discussing, and perhaps taking even legal action upon this major edifice is part of the greater shift to the next level. The next level being a strength in our connection and community building event production, decentralized manifestations of beauty, and becoming what we need to be - in time of climate change, global upheaval, war, peak oil, etc.
I find myself thankful for the work that John - and Larry and Michael! - have done and are doing by evolving through this situation in such an open way at this moment in history. It is an evolution we must all consider, and participate in - or else we poison the ‘movement’ for future generations and cultural iterations.
I also find this to a *most* worthy discussion to be happening in the Year of the Green Man, aka the Year of the Pig. A time to dig down to the roots, devour all the shit, and get hog wild with changing of what exists and needs to be reformed. Leaping Ahead in a more connected and as a team and as intertwined communities, to a greater and impending pressing future. And yes, perhaps the Last Year.
So What? Why should you care? Do to not be attached to the outcome, legal or otherwise. What you crave/need/desire to create will survive, and thrive!
I hope this deeper meaning, questioning, and strive for evolution reaches the outer most realms of society this phenomenon of Burning Man has enabled, created, and connected.
my (almost 10 years of experience in this scene adding up to nearly) $0.02,
teiwaz
on Thursday, January 11th, 2007 at 6:47 am
All this statement really proves is you actually shelled out money to Mel to watch Apocolypto, and you aren’t afraid to let people know about it.
Care to address the actual issue?
————————
comment by Jonathan
on Wednesday, January 10th, 2007 at 11:52 am
And to the self-righteous “nativeâ€, your homies in Mexico were also yanking out about 20,000 beating hearts per year in order to appease the Gods… you’re not in the position to brag about much of anything, Chief Burning Junk.
on Thursday, January 11th, 2007 at 11:36 am
well…. If you read the complaint it sure sounds to me like Harvey and Mikel are surely making some big bucks off of BM. I figured. It was too unlikely that all that money was going back into the event. That much money!! And Harvey sounds like a… well, not so pleasant a guy who pretty much pissed off Law, who started the whole thing and well, JL left the pack. I mean who wants to be around people that don’t like him or who are mean to you all the time!? eh?
then you have these guys, Harvey and Mikel making all this money and about to open up a big can of money making and that is where Law steps in and says, yo! Not without me getting a cut you ain’t!
So, there you have it. I think they should do whatever they want with it. Sell it, make money, whatever. But common, share the wealth you guys.
As for myself. I would love to keep it for us all. I think we all should keep the opportunity to sell BM merchandise if we want to make it! I like the private domain way!
But seriously… I don’t think that is what John Law wants. He wants money!
And Harvey is becoming an ass!
just my two cents…… but WHAT DO I KNOW!!! I just read the complaint, I don’t know ANY of these guys.
: )
on Friday, January 12th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
“It’s so empty, it’s full†A small piece of history and a commendation for John Law.
Labor Day weekend, 1989. I, with my roommates P. Segal, Dawn Stott & a mutual friend Cindy attended a wind sculpture event in the Black Rock desert sponsored by Planet X pottery in Gerlach Nevada. We hauled a lightweight mobile canopy bed (our sculpture) on top of a tiny sedan out to this remote, inhospitable area. The surreal local combined with mobile sculptures was both incredible and inspiring. That weekend was one that had a great & lasting impact on my life. I never wanted to leave. The desert attracted & stirred me, & I knew I had to go back.
Dawn once said “it’s so empty it’s fullâ€.
When I returned to the Bay Area & started my final year in art school, I rallied a few friends & schoolmates around the idea of planning a Labor Day weekend trip to the Black Rock desert. I had been reading Hakim Bey’s “Temporary Autonomous Zone†& his ideas struck a chord. At that time I was into the youthful notion of destroying parts (if not all) of my artwork as a meditation on impermanence & the importance of flexibility. These concepts fused into a plan of generating a “creative incident†in the Black Rock desert with a central theme, the ritual destruction & immolation of both structures & artwork (a lager manifestation of the “meditation on impermanence & the importance of flexibilityâ€). For an impoverished, young & naive art student, this vision seemed far too grand & expensive to accomplish alone. I decided to present the scheme to my good friend John Law (whom I had met through my involvement in The San Francisco Cacophony Society) and that was when the idea for “Zone trip 4, Bad day at Black Rock†was officially hatched as a cacophony event. I approached this individual because I sincerely considered he was (& is) person of great veracity & he would respect and lend a hand in my somewhat delusional concept. I was correct in my impulse & the event was to happen. Along the way, a few months from the target date of the Zone trip, I attended the Baker beach burn of the Burning man. Fortunately, (via the intervention of both the San Francisco police & fire departments) the monolithic figurine was not razed. Amidst chants of “burn it anyway!†and pagan-like drumming, a few of us cacophonist including Miss P. & Dawn thought it would be a great idea to invite Larry & his man along for our strange ride out to the Black Rock. If anything, he had the biggest, most expensive & elaborate piece of firewood that would make a glorious conflagration. It was a magnificent, awe-inspiring weekend. I would return and participate for the next 4 years, 1995 being my last year. (In all, 6 years every Labor day)
The event morphed from a Cacophony event into Burning man. In my opinion, it eventually got too big, supercilious & aloof. It had lost its soul (For me at least) & I felt a profound need to no longer contribute or attend. A year later, after the disastrous 1996 event, John and a few other key participants would renounce. In following years, other members of “the old guard†would trickle away for (I believe) similar reasons. This is not to diminish the importance of what others have contributed & experienced in the years since. The event is what one makes of it & I know countless have had their own, life changing occurrences in that desert. Since 1996 I’ve silently watched in admiration as numerous fresh & astonishing examples of creativity debut on the playa. I’m delighted to know that so many have had that same “feeling†I did Labor Day weekend so long ago.
This is severely circumcised history of my experience, but I feel I needed to regurgitate further the early conception of that desert “art†festival. A more concise history may be found in Brian Doherty’s “This is Burning manâ€.
That said, I wish to wholeheartedly express my support of John Law & his decision to go forward with his current legal actions. In the 20 or so years that I have know this man, he has been a wonderful and loyal friend, part of my family (he was the minister at my wedding) and an individual of great integrity. He has brought countless invaluable, “eye opening†& enriching experience to my life & the life’s of many others. In short, I would not be who I am today without him. For that I am forever grateful.
-Kevin Charles Evans
January 12, 2007
on Sunday, January 14th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
A couple of things here: First I see “Cult of personality” becoming a cache phrase in every post regarding this issue. Very, very few of the posts I have read on any of the forums regarding this issue has been in direct personal attack or defense of any of the 3 parties involved. I see a lot of approval and disapproval for the ideas that each of the 3 parties express, but no (or very little) hero worship on any side. People are not speaking out to hold JL, LH or M2 as gods…they are speaking out on the issues themselves. You’ll find a lot of “Great to see you take a stand John” and similar, but most go on from there to state why they are in personal agreement on the issues, not the figurehead. Not to say that there is not a lot of speculation as “Who is to blame” for such a great disturbance in the Force…but even the most emotional seem to stay pertainant to the issues at hand rather than smearing people personally.
And there is that. You worry about the future of Burning Man…stop worrying about “What this says to the world about our community” and start worrying about this wound that is ailing us all. Love brothers and sisters…Love to JL, LH, M2, and all who are suffering through these growing pains. They have each showed us Love for many many years…let’s not forget that now.
As for who owns the idea of standing naked and purified before our Brother Fire, gathered in an undifferentiated mass of Love, Understanding and Vision…well…Woe to the man who thinks he can tame the wild Spirit which we have worked so hard to keep in the face of worse than this ;)
And above all else, remember that that is what is at the core of Burning Man. Burning Man is the culmination of a half million screams. Every year tens of thousands of people make their way to the desert to drop to their knees and at last let go of the shattered pieces that were once their lives in one soul searing scream…and allow the healing energy we create together to rebuild those pieces with a little meaning. A scream that holds all of the pain, hope fear, anger, hopelessness, despair, and frustration that is what it means to be Human. Trademark that.
Life (TM)
Love brothers and sisters. That’s what began this. And that is what will fix this.
Love and Respect
The Storyteller
on Tuesday, January 16th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Party in the desert or not, any LLC venture demands that some person(s) are legally responsible for what goes on. That’s a big responsibility I surely do not envy. Tensions will inheritly ebb and flow. If the big burn isn’t jiving anymore, there’s a gajillion regionals that are (on a lesse scale) just as fantastic to endure.
Change is the only constant - AnnaMaul93
on Tuesday, January 16th, 2007 at 11:50 am
who goes to Burning Man anymore ?
you lived, you learned, and hopefully . .
on Saturday, January 20th, 2007 at 8:24 am
As a four year burner who is thinking that I have been too evangelical about the burn and need to take a year off to see if my world remains the same; I am going to a small get togeather with some friends out in a private part of the desert this year to see if it works just as well.
I just saw a microsoft commercial that has a dad with piercings talking to his teenage son about which tatoo to get before they go to burning man, and the son wants to just be left alone.
This ahows that even hip cool events can become refined, pasturized and processed and have all the nutrients taken out. It may have become BURNING MAN LAND and now requires a corprate stamp and an E ticket.
on Friday, February 9th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Sounds to me like this is just a way for them to “get out†of doing burning man. It is getting pretty big and seems to me that the original intent is getting buried under all the requirements they need to meet.
“You sew me and I’ll sew you and we’ll all have a beer on the backporch, thank you very muchâ€.