Here's some clarification from Driscoll's Mars Hill: 

http://blog.marshill.com/2011/10/22/clarification-on-some-rumors-that-have-been-on-some-blogs/

This is a weird situation. On one hand, people have a right to defend their intellectual property. Just because they are churches doesn't make copying any better, not does it exempt Mars Hill from being able to protect that.

According to the link above they do acknowledge that they should have made a phone call first to discuss before sending a cease and desist, but I think the rest of this story is being overblown. It was just a cease and desist. They haven't dragged them publicly through years of court hearings, or sued for a crazy amount of money, etc.

Would people be as upset if Rob Bell was doing the same thing? I feel like they would just relatively dismiss the whole situation. Yes, Mars Hill's administration probably could have handled it slightly better, but there's no reason for anyone to jump down Mark Driscoll's (considering he's probably not responsible) back about this.