If I buy a ticket to an event, e.g., a Rolling Stones concert, the band is rehearsed, the sound man rings out the monitors, the back-up singers are union scale, and I am "consuming" a product that has been entirely composed by the professionals earning the money. They pay rent on the venue, hire necessary services, and so forth, all to put the talents of the performers on display. And the performers are paid. I just have to pay my money, sit there, and suck it in
If I buy a ticket to Burning Man, the "show" is provided mostly by me and my fellow ticket holders. The "venue" fees are paid to the BLM, and BRCLLC also provides significant venue infrastructure, and they are also the decorator, promoter, parking lot attendant, security staff, and union-scale heavy equipment operator. But the VALUE in the event is derived differently. Certainly BRCLLC puts alot of work into "framing" the activities of the event in such a way that people know what to do, but it is WHAT THE PEOPLE DO which ultimately infuse the value into the event. That value is translated into an ability to sell tickets for money.
Cynically, I have called it "tricking" people into entertaining each other, and taking a fee. Suspense of disbelief. Good times. One day everyone will stop and look around at each other and say, "Hey! We're out in the middle of the frickin' desert!" And that will be the end of Burning Man.
But seriously, what I'm saying is that since the participants infuse value into the event, they feel that they have a right to understand where the money goes. They suffer from the delusion, cultivated in them on purpose (and with their consent), that the event belongs to THEM. Recognizing this, BRCLLC does hold itself accountable to them to a higher degree than "normal" via the Afterburn Report. The John Law suit will likely push more of the private business dealings of BRCLLC into public view.
I have to say, however, that Marian really nailed it in her reply. John, Larry, and Michael will come to a settlement about their dealings, they have known each other for a long time, and things will sally forth. It is not in the best interests for any of them to overexploit the "brand" they co-own, since doing so would tarnish the "brand" of the event which preaches non-commodification, thus diminishing the value of their "brand," in a big negative feedback loop. To the degree which the logo/name DOES make money, I think those three should split the proceeds.