Clarification of Decommodification

Burning Man’s recent announcement of a “successful transition” to a non-profit, implied that this transition has now been completed. The Reno Gazette Journal said “completed“, SFist said “fully transitioned“, and the Huffington Post called it “official” and said “the new nonprofit will unify the two entities, solidifying its cultural stronghold”. Burning Man founder Larry Harvey said “the truth is…we’ve surrendered all rights of ownership”.

decommodification a_lack_thereof_thumbWe (and others) raised the question “wait a minute – how does Decommodification, LLC fit into the picture”? This privately held for-profit company is independent of the non-profit Burning Man Project and its wholly owned subsidiary Black Rock City LLC, which operates the festival. Despite controlling the “crown jewels” of Burning Man, its trademarks and other intellectual property, it was not mentioned by BMOrg in their announcement. They also neglected to mention the transfer of the Gerlach properties from Black Rock City LLC to Black Rock City Properties LLC, and the recent formation of yet another private company controlled by the founders, Gerlach Holdings LLC.

The subsequent Internet discussion has prompted Larry Harvey to come forward to share further information about what is actually going on. It seems that, in fact, the transition has not been fully completed, and won’t be for at least three more years, when the transfer becomes subject to a unanimous vote of the six founders:

I will address two lingering perplexities. It has been asked if we intend to reveal the financial records of Black Rock City LLC. The answer is yes; that too will happen at about the same time as the Burning Man Project reveals its information—these two entities will then become a clean well-lighted suite of rooms thrown open for inspection. But I cannot guaranty that even this amount of disclosure will satisfy everyone. Even then, I suppose that some will look for skeletons in closets, or search for sliding walls that might conceal a dungeon.

So let me make one last comment regarding Decommodification LLC, which is viewed by some as a sort of sinister outbuilding that is separate from both the event organization and the Burning Man Project. My fellow founders and I are the sole members of this entity whose chief property is the name “Burning Man”. This too will be transferred to the non-profit in three years time, unless the partners elect “not” to do so by a unanimous vote. This arrangement is designed to force our hand.

The Burning Man event organization has used this trademark power to protect our community’s culture from being exploited. We have done this very diligently over several years (it is a right of ownership that must exercised, or it will perish). Furthermore, we have not relied on licensing this intellectual property as a source of revenue. The reason for this 3-year interval is that even we do not invest blind faith in the new non-profit’s workings, and we want to be perfectly sure that it can be relied upon, in the face of temptations that arise within any organization when dealing with power or money, to pursue the policies that we have practiced.

I want to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion. Regardless of divisions of opinion, it certainly shows that people care. Such discourse will be very helpful when we roll out the entire agreement that governs this transition. It has taken my partners and I four full years, as we’ve confronted stacks of documents written in densely worded legalese, to gain a grasp of what all of this means and how it will function. So I suppose that, when this veritable elephant of information is made public, there will be those who grasp its tail, others who will seize its ears, and still others who will locate a mole on its butt (and then perhaps suspect that the entire creature is cancerous).

This certainly will be a lot to digest, and we plan to develop a very extensive Q & A document that will help interpret it. The issues and concerns that have arisen here, and those that will surface in future discussions focusing on the operation of the Burning Man Project, will help us to create this guide, and whether your initial response is thumbs up, or thumbs down, or somewhere in between, you are all a part of this

This is kind of an important detail to the story! To paraphrase: “we’ve transitioned to a non-profit, except for the actual assets. We put those into new for-profit companies that we control independently. We may transfer them in three years based on a unanimous vote”.

Would they have admitted this without our questioning? Well, they’ve had four full years to, and they haven’t said anything before.

We give Larry and his co-founders the benefit of the doubt that soon we’re going to see a new level of financial transparency from BMOrg, as well as transparency about what their “hundred year plan” is. It would be a shame if Burners had to wait another three years or more to find out what is really going on with the future of our culture.

52 comments on “Clarification of Decommodification

  1. Pingback: BMOrg’s Next Response | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  2. Pingback: The Great BMOrg Cash-Out of 2010-2017, $35-47 Million: an Updated Estimate | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  3. Pingback: BURNILEAKS: Bullying the Burners [Update] | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  4. Pingback: How Much For That Ranch In The Desert? | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  5. Pingback: Where Does Your Ticket Money Go? | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  6. Pingback: Private Concierge Service [Updates] | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  7. Pingback: Home Is Where The Man Burns | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  8. Pingback: Burnier-Than-Thous Ruin It For Everyone [Updates] | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  9. Pingback: Art World Rocked By Burning Man’s Latest Move | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  10. Pingback: Intel Inside SiMan | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  11. Pingback: Don’t Sneak In | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  12. Pingback: You Think You Made That Art Car? It’s Ours | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  13. Pingback: The Art of Giving | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

    • The transfer of ownership and the unanimous vote are related. The transfer is not guaranteed. The founders have a way to back out of the deal. This is not a done deal at all, and we don’t know what will happen in 3 years and if the vote will be unanimous or not. What’s your point?

      Like

      • lol… My point is that you say in the article that it requires a unanimous vote to transfer ownership and that is the exact opposite of correct. Seems more than a tad significant difference.

        Like

      • The transfer is subject to a unanimous vote. What would you prefer I say, “the transfer is NOT subject to a unanimous vote”? That would be the exact opposite of correct.

        Like

      • uhhh…. why don’t you say that “the transfer can only be prevented by a unanimous vote.” i mean it’s not like you’re stupid. You know the difference here. It’s just that it sounds a lot worse the way your words misleadingly frame it, which supports the narrative you like.

        Awful. Saddening. Thumbs down.

        Like

      • I have no idea what can or can’t prevent the transfer. If you have the documents, please share them. All I know is that the founders can prevent the transfer, if they so choose, by voting against it unanimously. And this is just from little snippets of information gleaned from the Interwebz – it is Decommodification, LLC, and The Burning Man Project (501c3), and the Founders who are being obstruse abstruse here.
        Your interpretation seems to be that this “transfer unless voted otherwise” clause means that the transfer is a given, that the founders will vote against their own self-interests in the future. I have seen no evidence to support this conclusion, but I’m open to considering it – if you have either evidence or a logical argument supporting it.

        Like

      • And trust me, I don’t like the narrative of “BMOrg are keeping all the money for themselves in tax shelters, suing Burners, and kicking the veterans who have built the party out to make way for virgins”. I would love to be telling the opposite story. I am writing my interpretation based on statements they have made, and things that actually happened.

        Time will tell if I am completely wrong, and BMOrg actually prioritize the Burner community over themselves.

        The whole idea that we can’t know now, that everything has to be non-transparent and “coming soon” over a period of almost a decade, is telling in itself. Also the $7 million in accounting and legal fees are quite eyebrow raising, if this is all in the name of charity.

        Like

  14. Pingback: BREAKING! BurniLeaks: The New Scalpers | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  15. Pingback: Profit Grows, Donations Shrink: 2013 Afterburn Analysis | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  16. Pingback: Support Mid Burn Art [Updates] | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  17. Pingback: Canada Draws Battle Lines for Burner Culture | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  18. Pingback: Temple Debacle Highlights Hypocrisy | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  19. Pingback: The Great BMOrg Cash Out of 2010 to 2016 – $28 Million to $45 Million, Est. | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  20. sfscribe transmits very deserved kudos towards your way, burnersxxx.

    http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2014/03/10/burning-man-well-not-exactly-least-not-yet

    =

    sfscribe
    How have Harvey and those around responded to these same temptations in recent years? Well, we don’t know, because they are refusing to say how much money they transferred to themselves in salaries and lump sum payments … ‘

    sfscribe
    ‘UPDATE: Goodell confirmed our basic understanding of this transition, confirming that the transparency in the LLC’s finances and the payouts its six board members received won’t be disclosed to the public. “There’s no need to go back, everything is going forward from January 2014,” she said in response to our question about fiscal transparency after telling us, “At the end of 2014, the financials for the 501(c)3 are revealed, and any attaching subsidiary finances.”‘

    =

    They have revealed to us how much money they transferred to themselves of salaries, by appearances, it is over $16 million of 2010 through 2013. In consideration upon the statement, ‘There is no need to go back …’, there is a need to go back, the most able predictor of future actions of people is to examine their past actions, and the Project is to purchase their Decommodification LLC in three annums.

    =

    By appearances, it is over 16 million of salaries. In 2010, payroll was $7,282,000 with solely 30 employees, and six LLC members as Senior Staff. Unless, the employees, upon averages, received over $100,000, the six LLC members received over $4 million. The maths of the payrolls of 2011 and 2012, by appearances, are the same maths.
    Please, prove this to be wrong.

    Stated upon afterburn reports

    Payroll –
    2009 $2,858,000
    2010 $7,282,000
    2011 $7,103,000
    2012 $7,787,787

    Employees –
    2011/01/28 30

    http://sfpublicpress.org/news/2011-01/burning-man-organizers-eye-move-to-redeveloped-mid-market-street-arts-district

    2014/3/2 over 50 employees, Burning Man blog

    Outside Services: Independent Contractors (edit – temporary office and events workers, DPW, and others)
    2009 $161,000
    2010 $231,000
    2011 $973,000
    2012 $855,312

    Outside Services (legal, consultants, accounting)
    2009 $1,274, 000
    2010 $1,468,000
    2011 $1,601,000
    2012 $855,183

    Artists (edit – including the temple)
    2009 $362,000
    2010 $453,000
    2011 $591,000
    2012 $681,930

    Total Expenditures
    2009 $12,317,000
    2010 $17,515083
    2011 $20,668,000
    2012 $22,111,580

    =

    I fail to discern the manner upon which Larry Harvey’s role within BRC LLC, and Marion Goodell’s role within the Project meet the laws and regulations governing a California 501(c)3 nonprofit in regards towards ‘self-dealing’. All actions effect profits, upon which payments, at present, and in three annums, to their Decommodification LLC may be based, even if they, perchance, may use independent consultants to determine the specifics of the payments. The Project is purposed to bring Burning Man to the world, alternatively, in other terms, to promote the Burning Man brand. Perchance, might a person well versed in this area of the law care to expound upon this subject?

    Like

    • thanks for the maths. Scribe’s a champ – we would love to hear the contents of those interview tapes he has.

      If you assume that the outside services costs in 2012 are “normal”, and the previous years’ costs were inflated because of the advice required over 3 years on the transition: then it looks like around $1.8 million was spent on advisory fees creating this structure. Ay carumba! It could be even more if they were still paying for advice in 2012, which it seems like they were. I’ve done much bigger and more complicated transactions for way less than that, and I still thought I was being ripped off by the lawyers and accountants.

      There may (should) be profit distributions that have come from the LLC to the partners that own it, above and beyond the $16 million in extra salaries you’ve identified.

      Isn’t it funny how the more you question BMOrg, the more the story changes. At first they told us “we’ve completed our transition and given up ownership of everything and we’re going to be fully transparent real soon and let the light shine on all these transactions”. Now it’s actually “we haven’t completed the transition, we still own the IP and real estate, transparency’s at least a year away, and even then no-one will ever be able to see how these transactions went down”.

      Let them have the money, built from the community’s labors and investment…but why do we have to endure the lies, half-truths, exaggerations, number fudging, and disinformation?

      Like

      • This brings to me no joy, only it only brings to me sadness. The Project board needs many discussions towards going forward.

        scribe brought new facts to the discussion, and confirmed what has been stated here. Good of him, and of you, for the reporting upon this rubbish, of their massive 2010 through 2016 cash out, while insisting upon their retaining of control of the awesome crowd sourced party.

        A clarification, the 2013 salaries, perchance, might have been gained, for taxation rationale, within the final lump sum payments, as opposed to within salaries. The final lump sum payments of, by appearances, nearly all cash and property upon the ledger, solely would have been $4 million larger. Notwithstanding, they might not even pay taxes upon this rubbish, in consideration of their ‘gifting’ the BRC LLC to the 501(c)3 Project.

        Outside service costs, costs were imposed for a large permit negotiation, with the BLM. I had not considered profit distributions of a normal matter of course from the LLC.

        Much obliged, again.

        Like

  21. Pantsless, you don’t get it. Decommodicication LLC owns the IP so that it can lease it to Burning Man Project. The chances of them doing that are 100%, as it has already been stated by the owners. The 3rd party is all in the family. It might not be illiegal, but it smells bad.

    Like

    • You are correct rocketgirl. Larry said “in the past they haven’t relied on” this licensing revenue. This just means it hasn’t been as significant to their cashflow as the $25 million+ party revenue. It doesn’t mean they’ve never earned it (they have), or they don’t expect to earn it in the future (they do – read the ticket conditions).

      Licensing the IP to third parties is one thing (money); using it to dominate the culture is another (power). In the past they have done both, I expect that to continue and expand over the next 3 years. The idea that they’ve put maximizing power above maximizing licensing revenue, does not make them saints in my eyes – quite the opposite, in fact.

      How does a Regional get to use the Burning Man name? Re-license from BRC, or direct license from D-com? Presumably BRC LLC and Burning Man Project both have to pay license fees to D-com.

      Like

      • What was the result of John Law’s lawsuit? I actually don’t know. He felt that as a founder he deserved some of the revenue from licensing the BMan logo? Or he wanted them to stop selling it. Or both… right?

        Like

  22. Pingback: Chronicle: Burning Man Now “Mainstream” | Burners.Me: Me, Burners and The Man

  23. BURNING MAN PROJECT BOARD MEMBERS

    The sale of BRC LLC to the Project was purposed towards, under your ministry, returning Burning Man to the Burning Man community. Please do so by involving Burners and respecting Burner voices upon policies and decisions before they are made, as usual in any town or community, query any town mayor upon methods, of which there are many.

    The current organization leadership has not listened towards Burner issues of their decisions. Since Mr. Harvey is fond of stating a government needed to be formed after the sad events of 1996, and they stepped forward to become the government, consider this a petition for redress of grievances of their governance. While Burners have a wonderful Cacophony of voices, some top issues of contributors to the Burning Man community are of appearances to be

    1 tickets – please, labor harder to distribute tickets into the hands of Burners and contributors to Burner culture, restoring more of Burner culture to the playa

    2 law enforcement – please, labor harder to protect us from law enforcement. Mayor Bill DeBlasio, of NYC, upon ending Stop, Question, and Frisk stated, to great public acclaim, ‘We will no longer break the law to enforce the law.’ Please labor with law enforcement agencies towards the same goal, in opposition to current policies of Stop, Intimidate, and Threaten. Please, communicate with Burners towards whom are the good cops, of which there are many, and the reportage upon the bad cops

    3 reduce the ever expanding rules book. Each annum, it becomes more difficult towards contributing more than pitching a tent or minimal theme camp, with rules upon sharing food, sharing alcohol, fire, mutant vehicles, sound, theme camps, art projects, and many other pages of rules

    4 respect of Burner voices. Please, listen to the issues of the 10 o’clock and 2 o’clock sectors, the seven thirty sector, esplanade camps, other theme camps, volunteers, fire troupes, and other contributors towards the throwing of the party upon the playa and of Burner culture off the playa

    5 fairness. Please, direct more of the funds towards the artists, volunteers, and other contributors, in opposition of directing funds towards the hands of the very few.

    6 restore the basic principle of Burner culture, ‘There are no Spectators, only Participants’

    Like

  24. Just learned that it was Danger Ranger Michael Mikel who programmed the “Dead Man’s Switch” into Decommodification LLC. This appears to be “transfers to non profit in 3 years unless all 6 directors vote unanimously against it”

    Like

    • I heart Danger Ranger, he was, of appearances, very honourable in his dealings. sfscribe, in his personal blog post of http://sfscribe.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/man-on-the-move/ elucidates upon the background of how these decisions came to occur.

      Much obliged, again, burnersxxx, for permitting me to comment upon your blog, and for your labors of reporting upon the transition.

      I believe I comprehend what might be their response towards, as Dr. Baron von Realz, Esq said, of the illegalities of “self dealing” within a 501(c)3 nonprofit, between their roles upon the nonprofit 501(c)3 Burning Man Project, BRC LLC, and their ownership of Decommodification LLC, but they must state the disclosure themselves, and, if so, the disclosure will present even further queries.

      Perchance, I ponder whether it was Danger Ranger, whom insisted upon the setup whereupon the Burning Man event was to transition to the control of the seventeen member Burning Man Project board in recent months, and preventing Larry from retaining controls of the event and of the Project, without performing a song and dance routine through massive legal impediments, towards their Bait and Switch?

      Like

  25. I believe the founders of BM have the right to ensure they properly fund their retirement. Good on them for the joy they have brought all of us. After all, they can’t make a living from being benevolent.
    We are a community, but I think we should also afford the founders their legal rights to transition assets and other matters in due course and if that’s 3 or 4 years, so be it.
    I would like to understand how these eventual changes are going to affect the experience of our burn.

    Like

  26. It was nice of Mr Harvey to share his thoughts with us, Mr Harvey and the other BRC LLC members led Burning Man with considerable honour up to about 2010, their labors were amazing, but, there are relevant points he did not communicate.

    2011/4/5, scribe, SFBG – ‘Yet Harvey and the other board members, such as Michael Mikel and Marian Goodell, insist that the board plays an important role in shepherding the event and the culture that has grown up around it, which is why they plan on waiting three years to turn control of the event over to the new nonprofit, the Burning Man Project, and another three years after that until they liquidate their ownership of the name and associated trademarks and are paid for their value’

    Of the last line, ‘until they liquidate their ownership of the name and associated trademarks and are paid for their value’ Perchance, might someone much more knowledgeable than myself expound upon the valuation of the name ‘Burning Man’ and the associated trademarks at present time, and the projected valuation of the name, ‘Burning Man’, and the associated trademarks three years into the future? Please take into consideration of the stated goal of the Burning Man Project is to spread awareness of Burning Man culture, in other terminology, the brand name, throughout the globe.

    Please expound upon these valuations in consideration of the event on the playa, perchance, might gain $4,000,000 of additional profitability each annum due to the cessation of paying salary to the six founders of Black Rock City LLC, in addendum to the potential increase of ticket fees of regional events towards market price in the future?

    Like

    • Of discussion of the Burning Man Project revealing it’s financial information, of which Mr Harvey did not state the rationale of releasing the financial information, Dr. Baron von Realz Esq. Says in a comment upon the Burning Man blog, while stating, ‘I am not an expert’ -

      ‘Non-profit LLC’s disclosure would come in the form of federal tax returns, a IRC 501(c)3 organization must make its three most recent federal tax returns, its status application and its determination letter available for inspection by the public. IRS forms filed by the charity with IRS and with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts, are public records. IRS regulations require charities to make these records available for inspection by any person.’

      This is the information of which we will be gaining. Perchance, California 501(c)3 laws and regulations might mandate further disclosures.

      Like

    • Dr. Baron von Realz Esq. also says in his comment upon the Burning Man blog,

      ‘ … I am not an expert but my understanding is in California One very critical restriction is that the assets of a public benefit corporation must be irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes, and cannot be distributed for private gain. By loading up debt obligation and then collection on that debt would be a form of private gain and would be illegal. Also the director would have to remain “disinterested” loading up a non-profit with debt could be view by the attorney general as “self-dealing” and if so would be illegal. … ‘

      The queries I presented, with much trepidation and sadness due to the potential impact, in the comments upon the 5th of March Decommodification, Incorporated blog post, in regards to inherent conflicts of interest, and, as Dr. Baron von Realz Esq. says, which is of applicability to the following queries, the ‘director would have to remain “disinterested”‘, and of the illegality of “self dealing” –

      ‘With Larry Harvey, Marion Goodell, and Harley Dubois being managing members of Decommodification LLC, the holder of the Burning Man name and associated trademarks, , and Decommodifiaction LLC to be sold to the 501(c)3 Burning Man Project at the completion of the six year cash out, presumably for millions, should proper ministry by the Burning Man Project board, by California 501(c)3 laws and regulations, dictate the removal of Larry, Marion, and Harley from the board and operations roles of the Black Rock City LLC? If the Burning Man Project board does not retain sufficient autonomy to perform this action, how could the Burning Man Project board possibly retain sufficient autonomy to prevent Larry, Marion, and Harley from influencing Black Rock City LLC employees or upon issues of Black Rock City LLC defense of Decommodification LLC owned trademarks, thusly increasing their value?’

      ‘How does proper ministry of a California 501(c)3 nonprofit permit Larry and Marion to travel the world as Burning Man ambassadors, increasing the value of the Burning Man name and trademarks owned by their Decommodification LLC, which is to be bought by the Burning Man Project, while being members, and presumably employees, of the Burning Man Project 501(c)3? Is not the Burning Man Project purposed to increase the Burning Man brand awareness, to bring Burning Man to the world? Larry may issue stated disclosures of his talks and interviews being personal, not by his role upon the Burning Man Project, but there appears no arms length separation, or, whichever similar legal words are utilized, people nevertheless, believe him of the Black Rock City LLC and the Burning Man Project.’

      Perchance, comments by people knowledgeable of the legal requirements of California 501(c)3 non-profit corporations of these matters?

      Like

      • An edit upon the first query, it was of intention to be penned, in sadness, as follows –

        ‘With Larry Harvey, Marion Goodell, and Harley Dubois being managing members of Decommodification LLC, the holder of the Burning Man name and associated trademarks, (edit – deletion), and Decommodifiaction LLC to be sold to the 501(c)3 Burning Man Project at the completion of the six year cash out, presumably for millions, should proper ministry by the Burning Man Project board, by California 501(c)3 laws and regulations, dictate the removal of Larry, Marion, and Harley from the board and operations roles of the Black Rock City LLC? If the Burning Man Project board does not retain sufficient autonomy to perform this action, how could the Burning Man Project board possibly retain sufficient autonomy to prevent Larry, Marion, and Harley from influencing Black Rock City LLC employees (edit – deletion) or upon issues of Black Rock City LLC defense of Decommodification LLC owned trademarks, thusly increasing their value?’ (edit – in addendum – the directions of BRC LLC board members, of matters of natural course, have impact upon the profitability of BRC LLC, and, thusly upon the valuation of the Burning Man name and associated trademarks, which will thusly effect ‘paid for their value’ to the owners of Decommodification LLC.)

        Like

      • Above, upon first reading of Larry’s comment in regards towards licensing the intellectual property, I removed two remarks from the query. His comment appeared to lead towards the belief they were not utilizing the intellectual property of Decommodification LLC as a source of revenue. But, upon pondering his comment further, it became apparent, his comment was carefully penned in past tense, not in present tense, nor in future tense. It appears, by this reading, Decommodification LLC, perchance, may have plans to gain significant revenue from the name, trademarks, and logos, perchance, imposing levies upon the regionals for the use of the Burning Man name and trademarks, and, perchance, imposing levies upon BRC LLC for utilization of the Burning Man name and trademarks. In conjunction upon, ‘And that’s when the six board members will officially cash out’, people may form their personal maths.

        Larry’s comment upon the Burning Man blog, of the nonprofit transition -
        ‘… Furthermore, we have not relied on licensing this intellectual property as a source of revenue. …’

        sfscribe’s blog, 2011/4/6, transcribed of a talk by Larry –
        ‘… In about three years, depending on how the new nonprofit forms up, the LLC will turn over management of Burning Man, while holding onto control of the logos and trademarks for another three years after that, Larry said. And that’s when the six board members will officially cash out.’

        I fail to comprehend the manner upon which this does not represent a ‘self-dealing’ conflict of interest, which is of illegality within a California 501(c)3 nonprofit organization.

        Like

      • without seeing the actual documents, it’s hard to say what’s really happened. I suspect that all the deals were done some time ago, from one private LLC to another, approved by all members of each. This is fine, as long as the purpose of the transaction was not primarily tax avoidance. It would mean that the 501(c)3 inherits a fait accompli of pre-signed contractual agreements and doesn’t have to do any further “self dealing”.

        You do raise a good point about conflict of interest: that the potential is there to use the activities of the non-profit (which they appear to still control) to increase the value of the IP owned by Decommodification LLC, which in turn increases their buyout price in 3 years. The whole thing seems like a conflict of interest minefield! If it goes the other way, and BMOrg 2.0 is a disaster and the founders don’t get the price they want so don’t transfer in 3 years….what then? Does Decommodification LLC sue the Burning Man Project, or Black Rock City LLC, if their actions have adversely affected the value of their private property?

        We’ve also heard rumors that someone offered to buy Burning Man in the last couple of years…if a number was attached to that offer, it might help them to determine/justify the “market value” of the IP at the time of transfer. Presumably they’re expecting it to be much higher in 3 years, after continued ticket price hikes, population cap hikes, and global activities as they roll out their new web site, new educational platform, and the rest of the “soon you will know” 100 year plan.

        Like

    • The rationale of penning these comments –

      I am solely a typical Burner whom has attempted, with my best efforts put forward, to contribute towards the throwing of the crowd sourced party. Many thousands of awesome Burners have contributed far more than myself towards the throwing of the event on the playa and towards awesome Burner culture. I strongly heart the awesome event, I strongly heart awesome Burners, I strongly heart awesome Burner culture.

      I, formerly, was a die hard supporter of the organization, until I came upon the realization of decisions being purposed towards the six LLC members becoming minted, as opposed of decisions being purposed towards the best ministry of Burning Man towards the benefit of the Burning Man community. From 2009 to 2010, the organization payroll raised from $3,200,000 to $7,200,000, with solely thirty employees to move to the Market Street HQ in early 2011, signifying, by my maths, the six LLC members gained over $4,000,000 of salary and benies per annum. Afterwards, the ticket lottery, of which thousands of Burners provided warnings, falling upon deaf ears. Then, the raise in revenues from $12,000,000 per annnum, of which, in appearances, the six BRC LLC owners were able to pay themselves the aforementioned $4,000,000, to revenues of $24,000,000 in 2014. Of which, the same infrastructure is built, with the exception of more toilets, only one man is built, and the grants to the awesome artists, including the temple builders, have been less than $1,000,000 per annum. They have decided to sell the tickets over the Internet to whomever is willing to pay the market price, as opposed to laboring hard towards getting the tickets into the hands to contributing Burners, long time Burners, and contributors to Burner culture. Then, the vehicle levy this annum, they didn’t even let Burners provide their two bits in advance of their decision. And then, the selling of BRC LLC to the Project, in appearances, for nearly all cash and property upon the ledger. The announcement of the selling of Burning Man to the Burning Man Project promised increased communications of their decisions, but solely after the decisions are made and final. And now, we have come upon the realization of three more annums of profits are to be directed towards the BRC LLC members for the name Burning Man and the associated trademarks. All the while, stating, ‘If you don’t like what we’re doing, don’t come.’

      All the while, making decisions from the top down, while excluding the Burner community from participating and giving their two bits upon policies and decisions that effect the event and effect the Burner community. They did not even wish to inform us that the Burning Man HQ in the city was moving. The culture on the playa has changed due to their decisions, with 40% newbies each annum, resulting in three of each four people on the playa venturing there two or less times prior. Solely, 13.2% of people on the playa ventured more than four times prior, the culture on the playa has changed towards middle class conformity, in due of their decisions purposed towards them becoming minted.

      Like

  27. I’d like to know which one of these privately held companies will be receiving the extra one and a half million in parking fees this year and which one of the privately held companies owns the towing service that will haul away the thousands of cars parked along the highway unable to gain entry in the event.

    Like

  28. Speaking only to Decommodification LLC, it doesn’t matter who owns the trademarks unless they’re planning to license them to a third party for some other use.

    The chance of the current owners doing this is nil, and the controversy that would ensue would be the biggest since John Law tried to take their control away. Except much bigger, because there are a lot more people watching now.

    Like

Share your thoughts with us

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s