Slashdot Mirror
Lawrence Lessig Reviews The Social Network
Hugh Pickens writes "Lawrence Lessig — author, Harvard law professor, co-founder of Creative Commons — reviews The Social Network in The New Republic. Although Lessig says the movie is an 'intelligent, beautiful, and compelling film,' he adds that as a story about Facebook, it is deeply, deeply flawed because the movie fails to even mention the real magic behind the Facebook story, and while everyone walking out out of the movie will think they understand the genius of the internet, almost none of them will have seen the real ethic of internet creativity that makes success stories like Facebook possible. 'Because the platform of the Internet is open and free, or in the language of the day, because it is a "neutral network," a billion Mark Zuckerbergs have the opportunity to invent for the platform,' writes Lessig. 'And that is tragedy because just at the moment when we celebrate the product of these two wonders — Zuckerberg and the Internet — working together, policymakers are conspiring ferociously with old world powers to remove the conditions for this success. As "network neutrality" gets bargained away — to add insult to injury, by an administration that was elected with the promise to defend it — the opportunities for the Zuckerbergs of tomorrow will shrink.' Lessig laments that the creators of the movie didn't understand the ethic of Internet creativity and thought that the real story was the invention of Facebook not the platform that made such democratic innovation possible. 'Zuckerberg is a rightful hero of our time,' concludes Lessig. 'As I looked around at the packed theater of teens and twenty-somethings, there was no doubt who was in the right, however geeky and clumsy and sad. That generation will judge this new world. If, that is, we allow that new world to continue to flourish.'"
'Nuff said.
...is that anyone can write apps that will suck the remaining privacy we have out of us and sell it to the highest bidder.
that he stole this idea from people that hired him to develop it?
that there exist people that want to see the movie in the first place....
never under estimate how many went to that movie and "saw" bits of themselves in the various characters, trying to justify their behavior to themselves. From the beyond college student dialog to their dress and the speed it appears they act. Oh yeah, I can see where they found people to go see the film
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Of course! Every movie having anything to do with the internet should be an op-ed piece supporting net neutrality. That'll work.
"As I looked around at the packed theater of teens and twenty-somethings, there was no doubt who was in the right, however geeky and clumsy and sad."
Oh please. Get a life.
A trickster hero at best: One who stole fire from the gods, threw golden apples to distract Atalanta, hid under the bellies of sheep, and displayed Medusa's head a a present. There are some cultures who praise quick wit over morality. In the U.S., morality is praised over quick wit. He is not our hero. Let him go to Greece.
I didn't RTFA, but the summary is a mess.
I guess the affect for someone like me
I guess the effect for someone like me
FTFY
There are so many better sites, and better ways of accomplishing social networking. It's just that there are so many lamers who just use the easiest, most popular crap without ever knowing, or caring, that there is far better.
Network neutrality isn't about unabated access to download copyrighted content, it's about keeping the Internet a level playing field. Without network neutrality, big companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple can pay ISPs to put their sites on the premium tier so that you get fast access to them, while poor startups and normal people with brilliant ideas will be relegated to the slower tier. I've even seen concern about ISPs one day offering packages a la cable TV - you can get Google, Yahoo and MSN with the basic package but then you'd have to add a sports/tech/music/etc. package to access those sites. It's not even limited to websites. ISPs could grant you HTTP access with the basic package and then you'd have to add FTP, NNTP, VOIP and other "value add" services". I realize that's hyperbole and possibly FUD but it's not the type of Internet I'd like to use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
This sig is in another castle.
Facebook may be the next Windows -- a dominant, proprietary platform on which everyone else's apps run. Add the absence of end-user control of the applications and data (including privacy), and it's antithetical to the free, open, and end-user controlled Internet on which it's built. How will the next Zuckerberg build his application? Not so easily, since he'll be dependent on the closed, proprietary systems and data of Facebook, doing only the things that they permit and only when, where, and how they want it.
Mozilla helped save us from a closed, proprietary web browser (one reason Facebook could blossom). With that battle won and a proliferation of browsers and Microsoft adopting open standards, they are struggling a bit to find a mission. I wish they would turn to their attention to the next issue of the open Internet, a free and open social network.
Granted I havent paid much attention to this movie but what's the big deal about yet another rags to richers internet story? Bill Gates? The napster guy? Mark Cuban? Google founders? Many people have become billionaires from internet ideas.. what's so special about this one?
did you forget to take your meds?
He used the open internet and tools to make a walled garden. Not exactly a triumph of openness.
No, this is part of the problem with the network neutrality debate. It actually got started after CEO of some big American telco whose name I forget said things like "Why should Google make money by using my pipes? I paid for those pipes, they should share the costs", ignoring the fact that he was already being paid by his customers. ISPs charging companies for priority access to customers purely on the basis of wanting more profit would clearly be both new and bad, thus network neutrality was born.
Somewhere along the way the debate seems to have got hijacked by those you describe, aka "people wanting free stuff", and somehow bandwidth shaping got lumped in too (sometimes). ISPs controlling how their customers use limited, overcommitted bandwidth isn't new nor particularly alarming, as you point out it can even be seen as a feature by others who aren't sitting on BitTorrent 24/7 and want fast access. Also, anyone can buy dedicated, non-overcommitted bandwidth if they want it by renting a leased line from various providers, so it's not even a matter of lacking choice.
The result is quite a mess. The original principles are sound but what the debate morphed into no longer bears much resemblence to them.
Since when do entertainment and profitabilty make for a deeply flawed movie? Focusing on net neutrality and packet priority would have bored the audience and interfered with the arch of the story. Just because something is ethically (and socio-economically) compelling, does not make it good theater.
As a non-hard techie...
They make pills for that now.
Zuckenberg was portrayed as a "hero" ?
When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp. He stole everybody else's ideas, idolized a child molesting drug abuser, and betrayed his best (only?) friend. His only redeeming value is that he was a talented programmer.
Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.
The assumption is just wrong. Most all vendors are switching to torrent downloads. Like World of Warcraft updates for example.... it's more efficient not less efficient. It actually speeds up the internet.
If Comcast can throttle Netflix or Hulu to the point where the streams are horrible just to force you to watch their Cable on demand channels there is a problem.
You mean like ESPN360 / ESPN3, or whatever they're calling it now?
I gotta do this as AC because I already modded.
FYI warning, you're close to flamebait, but I'll at least be American and say you're innocent of that until proven otherwise!
I think you're seriously scrambling Net Neutrality with price of content.
Want to buy an episode of House? Pay Hulu/iTunes/someone $89.95. (Being facetious). Somewhere in that price is their paying for their outbound line.
You're paying ____ for your inbound line to download it from. But that's paying for content. If you have to have it in 12 seconds flat, pay your ISP $150 for a T3 backbone or some such.
If that's too much for a line, we can discuss the Market Condition of line pricing.
But once you've got your line plan chosen, the ISP better not dare capriciously screw with the bitflow.
How can you make profits to pay it, if your traffic can't even reach the consumers because your already established competitors have paid the ISPs?
If all the companies started at the same time, that would be true - the better wins. But after that, the already established company will always win over the startups even if it's worse, simply because it already has money.
In EU law, at least, it's prohibited
Dilbert RSS feed
Good one, claim you are not a troll when trolling.
Guns are only wanted by criminals.
Cars are only wanted by speeders.
The article links net neutrality to Facebook. You link it to copyright infringement, completly ignoring the case of Lessig.
Net neutrality means ANYONE, no matter their status has the same access to the web. That means that if I start a website tomorrow, it will be transported around the web with the same speed as Facebook, the ISP's own home page, Apples iTunes, CNN or someone's homepage.
This means I get the same breaks. This is REVOLUTIONARY about the web. BEFORE the web, the only way to be published big was to publish big. ONLY the largest newspapers could afford to distribute cross country, nevermind distribute globally. With the internet, MY website can be accessed ANYWHERE!
This allows me to compete. Imagine if Myspace had simply been able to buy special access. If ISP's could demand of every website a fee to be distributed like with Cable TV. Can't pay the fee? Then you don't get on their network. How was Facebook to startup then? How can you start a new tv network without millions in backing and the lockin that brings?
How CAN I start a new news network that broadcasts to every home independent of the powers that be if I need the powers that be to pay for the access?
If you don't get this, if you think it is about copyright infringement then you are the person who wanted presses banned because it allowed books to be owned by poor people. Either you are too stupid to get freedom, or you hate freedom.
There is no middle ground in this. You can't put restrictions on who can access a media and expect everyone to be able to use it. Unless of course you think only those with enough money should have a voice.
What the press did for political freedom, the internet is doing a thousand times over. But then, if you take your freedom for granted, or worse are willing to sell it, then I suppose none of this means anything.
Perhaps you are not a troll after all. There are worse things then trolls. People who do not value freedom. A willing slave.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Net neutrality is not about restricting types of content. Without net neutrality firms like ISPs can charge their users for access to the internet and then turn around and say to companies that unless they pay up the ISP will throttle triffic to and from their site. Net neutrality is about companies double dipping, which goes against the point of the internet.
Considering the amount of money many porn sites make, this won't have any effect on them but may shut down other businesses who don't want to pay every single ISP out there for fair access.
And don't be fooled, once it starts becoming common practice businesses will have to pay every ISP.
It's a movie...based off a an actual event but injected with LOTS of fiction and creative juicy bits to make the story interesting and dramatic. The movie isn't flawed because it fails to mention the "magic behind the facebook story," as most people watching the movie don't give a shit about that stuff! It would be nonsense that distracts from the movie.
The openness and magical qualities of the internet was not the plot of the story. The [fictional] movie was about friendship, betrayal, and the abrasive personality of Mark Zuckerberg. Rating the film down because it was lacking an explaination of the internet is stupid, and it seems more like an opportunity to talk about something Lessig cares about.
It was an interesting movie btw. After watching it I went home and Google'd Sean Parker info because I didn't know he had a hand in facebook. I also wanted to find out whether he was as big a douchebag as they played him out to be on the movie.
The problem with a non-neutral network is that it quickly becomes a tool to increase lock-in. If youtube and hulu start paying major ISPs to prioritize their traffic, then the barrier to entry becomes that much higher for the next product which, on a level playing field, could have competed with them.
Mind you, there's another aspect to this as well, which is the whole "double dipping" problem. Because what I, you, and every other ISP subscriber out there are paying for is (at least used to be) a connection that would deliver whatever we requested at the speed we paid for. We're still doing that, but the providers are trying to take a cut from the people on the other side of the connection as well, and that's where we get into problems. See, if I want to go to "watchingpaintdry.com" and stream it 24 hours a day, I should be able to use just as much bandwidth as if I were watching Hulu. Because I paid for it. Because it's good for competition. Because if my ISP limits watchingpaintdry.com to a lower bandwidth in an attempt to extort them into paying them off, they degrade the utility and quality of the service I paid for.
Like Lessig said, the beauty of the platform is its openness. All the ISPs have to do is route bits to your home at the rate you paid for. And because those bits can come from anybody, the platform is incredibly useful as a multi-purpose tool. Except if all they're doing is routing bits, they lose all those money-making goodies like advertisements and service add-ons, and they don't want that. It's greed, pure and simple.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
As a non-hard techie with only a cursory understanding of the issue
I'm glad you voiced you ignorance first. It puts me in "educator mode" instead of "hostile reader".
My real concern is that the proponents of network neutrality just want to be able to have unabated access to download music and movies and porn without paying for them - that there's no real "freedom" issues at hand; it's just people wanting free stuff.
This is an assumption stemming from your ignorance. I don't listen to music except via radio or Pandora (usually only once a week at most). I do own one music CD I bought from a local band, but I don't know where it is. I enjoy playing music, but listening is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. I pay to watch movies, or watch them on TV. I'm not interested in unabated access to download music and movies and porn without paying for them. I am interested in being able to ping things from home, or use traceroute to map my network path to something, SSH somewhere, and use bittorrent for legit purposes. My ISP, which has a monopoly where I live (except satellite), originally prevented SSH when I first signed up until I complained and explained I use it for work. They were also blocking my VPN connection. After a network outage within the last year where I used traceroute and ping to help them diagnose the issue, they disabled ICMP (traceroute and ping). They haven't disabled BT yet, but they probably will at some point. They should just be moving bits between me and the recipients, but they're using the fact that I can't really choose different service to strongarm me in to service that doesn't meet my needs.
Freedom of speech means putting up with soapbox preachers. They're chatty, but at least you can walk down the sidewalk. ISPs without Network Neutrality are like the police blocking off the sidewalk to prevent soapbox preachers from using the sidewalk (along with everyone else).
I just had a Jon Katz flashback! Does he have a new identity now? All the summary needed was a post columbine reference.
You are wrong across the board.
The people who just want free stuff aren't generally aware enough to know about the network neutrality issue. The proponents of network neutrality are concerned about censorship and about companies colluding to harm consumers and stifle innovation in order to defend their own slice of the market.
And also: wtf are you doing on slashdot with internet habits like those? Smells like astroturf.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Oh, you've just not heard from Google and others...
Net Neutrality is about not dinking with traffic- just deliver it.
Net Neutrality is about not interfering with bittorrent traffic- I don't pirate, I get Linux distributions and other things that're a LEGITIMATE use of that protocol.
Net Neutrality is about not interfering with SIP traffic from a competing telecom interest so that the ISP can sell their own SIP or h.323 service.
Net Neutrality is about not interfering with HTTP traffic going to/from Google and all of those others you mention.
It's all of that. And it DOES affect you. You're wrong like you surmise at the end of your post.
The fact that Obama and the Dems promised something along these lines, haven't done much WITH it, and what they've done is much like what they did with Healthcare "Reform", makes for interesting discussion- but that's not really germane to the thread you started here and would just merely start up a flamefest from the liberal and conservative crowd on /. :-D
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You mean illegal downloads, not "free stuff". Youtube is free last time I checked. Net neutrality has little to do with copyright violations, and everything to do with normal websites.
Imagine that now a new (completely legal) Netflix competitor appears that you actually prefer over Netflix. It has more features, or a better selection of certain movies, or cheaper prices.
Yet, if you try to use it your experience will be shitty (slow streaming, high latency) because Netflix has an established player has the money to pay the ISPs' bribes and prioritize itself over their competitors.
This is lead to a huge barrier on entry for new competitors on established sites, and a general lack of innovation, which is the thing that makes the Internet so great.
What if Yahoo could have paid to keep Google unusable? What if Microsoft could have paid to prioritize traffic from IIS servers over Apache servers? What if Apple could pay to squash great services like Spotify for the iTunes service?
Dilbert RSS feed
Network neutrality is not about "free stuff" at all, it's about no discrimination based on source and destination. If a cartel of major ISPs is paid to promote YouTube, say, at the expense of everyone else's video site, small businesses everywhere will feel the sting. And the other big thing here is censorship. Without network neutrality, a Christian lobby, for example, may be able to block or throttle down A LOT of stuff. And, considering how much money they have, you can be sure that the network content will become more similar to the day-time cable.
Your point about wanting to access movies and music without paying for it is without merit. We are all paying for data transfer, and without network neutrality in place, even the free-as-in-freedom content which artists created with the intention of sharing freely will be marginalized, because it will compete with a handful of extremely well-funded commercial offerings.
A car analogy really works here, I think. The internet is kind of like the road system: it is designed from the ground up so that any host can communicate with any other host, as long as they pay for data transfer. Just like the roads are designed so that anyone in the USA can travel anywhere in the USA, as long as they have a car or can afford a bus. Imagine that almost all good roads in the USA are private and that there is no law which amounts to "road neutrality". The road barons would be able to isolate whole states and prevent the workforce from moving to a place with better employment opportunities. In this context, your opposition is similar to saying that we don't need road neutrality because some people would use it to drive to a titty bar. Who cares, there is much, much more at stake: our freedom to express ourselves, to educate ourselves, and our economic freedom.
My real concern is that the proponents of network neutrality just want to be able to have unabated access to download music and movies and porn without paying for them - that there's no real "freedom" issues at hand; it's just people wanting free stuff.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. (H. L. Mencken)
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Zuckenberg was portrayed as a "hero"? ... He stole everybody else's ideas, idolized a child molesting drug abuser ... Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.
Wait, Bill Gates is a child molesting drug user? Whoa!
I guess the affect for someone like me is that most of my internet viewing is something like youtube, netflix, hulu, etc, and whether or not the cost of streaming media should be passed on to me as the end user.
For me the big deal is that my local monopoly is comcast. I can go on hulu and watch a show for free, or I can pay 99 cents to get it on demand. I have a vonage phone that I pay $15 a month for, or I can pay comcast $40 per month for their VOIP phone. I can pay 8.95 per month for netflix, and be able to stream movies and shows on my terms, or I can pay comcast $LARGE_AMOUNT for slightly better TV service ($45 for digital, plus $6 for DVR/HD, plus extra for premium channels).
So, the question is, with all these online services cutting into their profits, is it unreasonable to have a concern that they will use throttling/prioritization to give themselves an unfair advantage over all their competitors?
Gates has gained a few redeeming qualities in his later years. Zuckerberg is still little more than a skillful, lucky douche bag.
No. Zuckenberg is a dick. Did you think he actually wanted to donate 100M dollars to schools? I say he's just trying to take attention away from the movie.
His only redeeming value is that he was a talented programmer.
Sorry if I missed it but what in developing Facebook was, say, "hard" on the level of systems supporting engineering, embedded systems, mathematical computing or search?
Those domains contain the talent.
Hell, even his "idea" was preceded by Friendster, MySpace, etc.
All he really did was cobble together a collection of ideas in a manner that beat the market and did it in a way which showed Wall Street style Ethos (see character attributes in parent post).
And anyone want to see a movie about this?
Net neutrality means a lot of things to different people. To the consumer it means being able to use the service they pay for in any way that the want. If somebody pays for unlimited use of a connection with x speed up and y speed down, and then the ISP tries to impose arbitrary limits or downshifts speeds on some or all traffic based on the individual user or the type of content, that is unethical. The ISP is then failing to render the service it has been paid to provide within the parameters it advertised.
You of course have some personal problem with "piracy", but you see that cannot be enforced without the wholesale compromise of privacy. If you want to limit or eliminate bittorrents for example because of their evil file sharing potential, you then also limit or eliminate one of the primary distribution methods for Linux distributions' install disk images. Should I not be able to download Linux just so you can feel better that somebody can't download copyrighted content? Should all content transmitted be 'inspected' by some internet Gestapo to make sure that the content isn't copyrighted?
The other level of network neutrality is that of content providers themselves and their relationships with bandwidth providers (ISPs). Within this there is the division of a 'positive' traffic agreement such as paying to give a certain type of traffic the highest priority vs. a 'negative' traffic agreement where the payment is for reducing traffic of a certain type to the lowest priority or eliminating it altogether. Conceivably, for example, hulu could pay AT&T to prioritize its traffic above others to reduce the effects its users would feel during peak congestion hours on networks. As a consequence all non-hulu traffic would have higher latency (though probably not too much). Or Vimeo could pay Verizon to downgrade Veoh's traffic, or even to block all their traffic, as a bid to undermine their competition, which could lead to a bidding war between the two companies and Verizon to disrupt/eliminate each other's traffic from that ISP to the detriment of all consumers involved.
You'll note that where network neutrality applies to content providers, file sharing is not involved at all. It's also not about defraying/'passing on' costs. It's about paying for 'premium' treatment or paying to kneecap your competition. Both of which are detrimental to some degree to the broader interests of internet users.
All of that being said, I think you're a dick, a moralist asshole who wants to support a corrupt system of middlemen enforcing an obsolete paradigm of false scarcity. Funny thing is, I'm not even a leftist, I'm a minarcho-capitalist, but intellectual property has no place in a truly free market. A truly free market would allow for people to use their resources in whatever way they can, and if one person can produce another person's idea cheaper and better, the second person should not be able to go crying to the government to make the first person stop. People should be paid to work, not paid 'residuals' or 'royalties' for years based on something they did in a few hours.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
I don't agree with the parent post either, but that doesn't make him a Troll. Learn how to use the mod system.
-- Posted anonymously to protect Karma from aforementioned idiot.
You can talk about ESPN3 all you want...but I want "The Ocho"!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50jVa25gmWs
-JJS
I'm glad you're honest, and you're a real programmer and know how to use traceroute and setup a VPN, that's really awesome. So obviously you know what you are talking about when it comes to net neutrality - because you are like a "network" expert?
You pay for movies, so you're not downloading porn and music, but you're worried about them disabling BT? In best Beavis impression : "Liar...liar...liar..."
I'm all for net neutrality, but I'm against people sucking up the bandwidth downloading their "music". Personally, I think there should be a usage fee. If you want to pull down movies, I'm fine with that, but pay for it. Otherwise there will be trouble. As soon as net neutrality hits, all innovation on the web will be crushed, and we will be at a standstill, like what happened with the railroad and auto industry once these were monopolies.
As for filesharing, that will happen whether or not net neutrality is allowed. Destroying the open internet in an attempt to reduce filesharing is dangerously naive.
The group of people supporting network neutrality and the group of scumbag leechers you referred to may overlap a little, but they are by no means the same.
How would you feel if your ISP decides to restrict or entirely block Google in favor of Bing? Now how would you feel if part of that deal was to filter out search results having anything to do with wrongdoing by Microsoft and by your ISP? What if Blockbuster pays more than Netflix, and you have to pay your ISP for a premium package just to get access to a service that you already pay for?
What about news sites? Suppose Wikileaks (or insert your favorite troublemaking info site here) gets classified as a news source which then has to pay the ISP's to allow access. Now suppose that the big players are paying enough in access fees that the small sites can't afford to compete. Suddenly all those little sources of interesting information either dry up or start charging.
Now let's consider social media like Facebook and Twitter. Heavy usage, heavy access fees. Would you use Myspace or Facebook if you had to pay for it? (I don't use either and would be amused to see the sites die, but not at the hands of net neutrality violation)
-1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
Just imagine such orderly world...
One that hath name thou can not otter
Since about 1995, it's not a big deal to score 1600 on the SAT--a good fraction of 1% of test-takers manages this. In prior years, with different scoring adjustments in place, only a handful in a million would score so high.
None of the programming Zuckerberg was portrayed as having done in the movie required great ability, except perhaps to do it while drunk. The programming required to produce facemash was minimal, however.
The movie omits other Zuckerberg evil antics.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-and-privacy-crimes-2010-3
"...(they) thought that the real story was the invention of Facebook..."
Perhaps the makers of the movie knew what their "real story" was, while some internet talking head (hey! I'm "internet famous!") is simply flogging his personal dead horse?
-Styopa
I expected better from Lessig. I thought he cared about ethics and privacy. Instead we get hero worship and excuses.
...and really, $100M for schools is not an incredibly nice thing for a billionaire to do. It's enough to make him look good, but it's pocket change to him.
This post is wrong but useful. Since it shows what many "non-techies" (including politicians) think net neutrality is.
No. Facebook is the next AOL. As much as I dislike Microsoft, I think to compare them to Microsoft is undeserved flattery.
That's the great thing about this movie as a work of art. The characters were complex and no one was a perfect hero or perfect villain. They were real people, real people with real personality issues and real quirks and real greed. I think that's the key thing here.
Mark Zuckerberg - dick, computer geek, had some vision to make something cool
Eric Parker - dick, computer geek, thinks he's awesome but when confronted he scampers like a scared mouse and then uses paranoid delusions to explain what went wrong without owning up to his own mistakes.
Winklevoss twins and that other guy - all dicks, guys with money who think they deserve a hoard of cash because they are good looking, come from money and have high GPAs. And yet their vision was limited basically to a Facebook limited to Harvard and had no real vision for the features to add to it.
Eduardo - not really much of a dick, nice guy, wanted to help, wanted to help run the business, and in the end got screwed despite being the original funder, but compared to everyone else had no real vision, he was just trying to do as he was taught. Nice guy but if he had had his way, Facebook would probably not be nearly as big as it is.
I loved the characters as characters, but the only character I actually liked as a person was Mark's ex-gf. Everyone else was foolish or a dick. And that's what happened here, a bunch of dicks met at one point, soap opera ensues, and because this was such an explosively good idea everyone thinks they deserve a chunk of money. If you think that any of these characters other than the ex-gf is portrayed as a 100% hero or villain, you have a seriously warped and false sense of black and white and you don't belong in the discourse of this movie.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Without network neutrality, big companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple can pay ISPs to put their sites on the premium tier so that you get fast access to them, while poor startups and normal people with brilliant ideas will be relegated to the slower tier.
So in other words Network Neutrality is about making the network suck for all traffic instead of allowing some producers of content to pay for higher speed pipes for some content, allowing the user in turn to have some higher quality services.
How did you get that meaning from those words? Enderwiggen13's post said the exact opposite of what you interpreted it to be.
Thanks for dooming us to be a technological backwater.
Seriously, are you brain damaged or just mentally ill? I had no idea that the current situation could be considered a technological backwater. Net neutrality is about not letting content providers tamper with the flow of information across the Internet - just like they can't do right now.
It's not even limited to websites. ISPs could grant you HTTP access with the basic package and then you'd have to add FTP, NNTP, VOIP and other "value add" services"
I do that already, I get Comcast Gold Tier so I get better uplink speeds. I LIKE being able to pay more for better access, just as I'm sure a customer who doesn't work with a lot of photographs LIKES not having to pay an arm and a leg for internet access that has speeds way beyond what they need.
Um, no, you're paying for higher speed for all the sites you access, not just for some tier of them. The Comcast service you are paying for is advertised as a net-neutral service.
In your world of network neutrality, forget the cheapest possible plans that might even include some subsidization by content providers. No, instead everyone has to pay at least a higher base level because you wouldn't let the market create a cheaper plan that more people could use.
So poor people out there? If you can't afford an internet connection, take it up with Enderwiggin13 here. He really is your unlucky number...
This is the biggest pile of crap I've read in a Slashdot comment yet.
Internet access is already cheap. It could be cheaper, nobody would argue with that. The problem would be that if there were no rules preventing content providers from paying off ISPs to effectively reduce the performance of their competitors' websites and Internet services, you can be pretty sure that's what would happen across the board.
Unregulated industry is always bad for consumers. Overregulation is bad, but under-regulation has always led to consumer ripoffs and paying too much for shoddy services.
I mean, come on. It was everything I could do to keep the Star-Spangled Banner from playing spontaneously through my speakers when I read that summary. I appreciate that he is an advocate for Freedom with a capital "F" and all that good stuff, but Christ Almighty, Lessig, learn to pick your spots. It's a movie review!
The result is quite a mess. The original principles are sound but what the debate morphed into no longer bears much resemblence to them.
Kind of like every political movement ever.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
That's a wonderful quotation; thanks for bringing it to my attention. Wish I had mod points!
The road to hell is paved with Cat 5 cable.
There's nothing wrong with wanting VoIP (and IM, for people who are into that) for free.
That's understandable, but inhibiting non-pirate commercial use of the net is a terrible price to pay, just to inconvenience pirates. Net-neutrality debate isn't about whether or not people pay for content; it's about whether or not they pay extra for all content, whether it's pirated or not. If you want to set up a situation where pirates end up paying an extra dollar per n gigabytes of pirated content, you're going also going to cost non-pirates an extra dollar when they download n gigabytes of non-pirate content. Nobody against net neutrality has proposed a way to keep this from happening. Just how badly do you want to restrict access?
Car analogy time: some people speed. They go 85 MPH when you would prefer they not exceed 55 MPH. So you pass a law that prevents engines from being able to move cars faster than 25 MPH. You have solved the problem, but you've done it in a horrifically destructive way. Just how bad do you want this, that so much collateral damage is acceptable?
you can't put a price on cool. Damn I miss the .com days. So sick of business getting cheap.
-Xen
We're talking about two different things here. You're talking about the end user's connection. Net Neutrality is about the content providers' connection.
I have no problem with tiered bandwidth plans. I play online games and stream movies and TV shows over Hulu and Netflix so I gladly pay for the top tier service to have the most available bandwidth. My parents check email and read the news online so they have the basic tier. There's no need for everyone to have a 30/10 Internet connection.
To quote SaveTheInternet.com
"Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination....The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression."
Since you cite Comcast as the example, they just bought NBC. Without Network Neutrality, what's to stop Comcast from throttling the ABC and CBS websites unless they pay for top tier service? The lack of neutrality undermines competition and traps us in a system where a few powerful corporations control the content we see and hear. When was the last time you heard independent music on a radio station that wasn't in a college town? ClearChannel decides what music you want to hear and then puts it on repeat.
The success of the Internet itself and the countless success stories that have arisen from the Internet are because of the unfettered access it gives you to the rest of the world. Anyone can create something and share it with everyone without a corporation deciding to charge them or even prevent them from sharing because it doesn't agree with the corporation's viewpoint.
This sig is in another castle.
"but I honestly WANT some of those people to have more restricted access."
That's very interesting considering the fact that after reading your poorly constructed comment, I want you to have more "restricted access."
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Okay, so Zuckerberg can start a business and control it how he wants to and that's all wonderful and freedom-like, but the guys who started the businesses that made Zuckerberg's business possible in the first place (the ISPs, etc.) can't?
Lawrence Lessig doesn't make sense.
People don't want to see a hollywood take on the creation on how a student became mega rich and created a piece of software they use every day. They want to watch a 2 hour lecture on a subject they probably wouldn't care about even if they knew what it was about.
I know I was angry when the Lord of the Ring movies didn't at all explain how Tolkien's orcs and elves were inspired by other stories and folk lore! Where was the explanation of how he created Elvish? These films were completely impossible to enjoy without all this background information that gives context on how it was possible for the books to have been written!
Seriously, every time there's a Facebook story on /. so many hours of potential productivity are lost to bitching. Why not use that time actively helping an alternative to what so many of you apparently despise? And if you don't care about or use social networks at all, rest assured that the millions who do by and large don't care about your sanctimonious complaints.
That's hilarious. You think I give a damn whether or not my get-stuff-for-free bittorrent download takes 1 day or 2? I'm not watching it in realtime anyway! It's the pay services (realtime streaming) that will be hit hardest by double-billing since they're the most sensitive to performance. I'd say you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, except that the bathwater remains. All that net-neutrality prevention will accomplish, is harm business. The pirates won't notice much, since performance is a secondary consideration when you're not streaming. Meanwhile, your netflix and hulu price has increased, and you got nothing for the price increase. Heh.
If you want to inhibit piracy, you should want net neutrality most of all, so that it becomes easier for legit businesses to compete with pirates. Setting up a situation where costs are higher, just makes things less competitive with get-stuff-for-free, not more competitive.
Seriously, if you're arguing against net neutrality, I think you're full of shit when you say you want to restrict free downloaders. I bet you run an ad-supported movie torrent site and you don't like how some users are leaving for Netflix, and see neutrality prevention as the way to accomplish your goal.
"If a cartel of major ISPs is paid to promote YouTube, say, at the expense of everyone else's video site, small businesses everywhere will feel the sting." - Should we outlaw Akamai then? I think what you've described is precisely what they're doing, with edge servers closer to the user, and dedicated racks in major ISPs.
When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp. He stole everybody else's ideas, idolized a child molesting drug abuser, and betrayed his best (only?) friend.
I agree, they went pretty easy on him.
Since about 1995, it's not a big deal to score 1600 on the SAT--a good fraction of 1% of test-takers manages this. In prior years, with different scoring adjustments in place, only a handful in a million would score so high.
None of the programming Zuckerberg was portrayed as having done in the movie required great ability, except perhaps to do it while drunk. The programming required to produce facemash was minimal, however.
The movie omits other Zuckerberg evil antics.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-and-privacy-crimes-2010-3
didn't zukerberg want to call it facesmash b/c of his girlfriend, cause somebody is selling it at facesmash.com
You pay for movies, so you're not downloading porn and music, but you're worried about them disabling BT? In best Beavis impression : "Liar...liar...liar..."
Because no one on /. downloads Linux isos via BT. I can see why you posted anon: you knew you were being stupid. You don't seem to believe that I don't want what your media masters want me to want.
However, I am not a lawyer nor do I understand the telco business, and am thus totally ignorant in most matters (except setting up SSH), but like any Slashdot poster, feel I can wing it and contribute to the intelligence of this discussion.
I'm glad you described yourself by pretending I said something that I didn't. Too bad you think knowing how to use SSH means you're a programmer.
As soon as net neutrality hits, all innovation on the web will be crushed, and we will be at a standstill, like what happened with the railroad and auto industry once these were monopolies.
This statement doesn't make any sense. First, they're not monopolies. Second, innovation in those fields hasn't stagnated. Third, networks _are_ close to monopolies right now. Fourth, innovation is starting to be stifled on the 'net right now via those monopolies (for clarificaction, I wasn't talking about my ISP blocking SSH incoming, but instead SSH outgoing. I wasn't able to use SSH to connect to other sites.) Fifth, Net Neutrality is the cure for that stifling of innovation; the removal of monopoly abuse.
This is what net neutrality is all about. (Direct image link here.
I get on because I'm a Sci-fi fan, into a handful of other "geeky" stuff, and I parse the lingo. Plus, halfway decent political and religious debates.
I mostly get the network neutrality argument now, at least from the proponent side.
"Lessig mentions The Social Network to direct attention to his own pet project." Seriously, I agree with the guy's opinions, but that was pretty shameless.
What Lawrence Lessig seems to be championing is the idea that creativity is dead. Actually, by its very nature creativity is now impossible.
You see, just like the folks looking at the US Patent office in the 1890s, everything that could possibly be created has already been created.
Sure, you can have "mashups", remixes and somewhat unique ways of revisiting the creative works of yesteryear and these are going to count as new things for younger people. But the basic idea that someone goes out and creates something "new" is foreign to these people and thought to be impossible. Everything is just the rehashing of what has alread been.
Well if you believe that, you need to understand that it is fully within your power to create and nurture that world. Insure that creative works cannot be treated as something worthy of compensation, because obviously they are just rehashing old stuff. Whether it is software, movies, music or books paying for the author's time and thoughts is silly and wasteful according to this philosophy.
Oh, and make sure whatever sort of a job you have doesn't involve the slightest bit of creativity.
Yes, except in an interesting twist there it's *ESPN* charging the ISP for the privilege of carrying the content.
The car on the road analaogy would be more like this:
Net Nuetrality: You travel on a toll road and pay per mile. You go anywhere you want.
No neutrality: You travel on a toll road and pay per mile, but before you get on, they check your destination. If you're going to Kmart, they let you on the freeway. But if you're going to Walmart, they charge you extra, and send you into stop-and-go traffic down the side streets.
(Yeah, I know, you probably shouldn't be going to either of those chains.)
Do you understand what Akamai is doing? They are caching and mirroring, so they are not speeding up a few donors at the expense of everybody else. They are speeding up what their customers want, at their customers' expense, without slowing down other transactions, which is great.
Somewhere along the way the debate seems to have got hijacked by those you describe, aka "people wanting free stuff", and somehow bandwidth shaping got lumped in too (sometimes).... The original principles are sound but what the debate morphed into no longer bears much resemblence to them.
The debate has not been 'hijacked by people wanting free stuff', the telcos are deliberately muddying the waters in order to prevent the public from clearly understanding what is at stake, and preventing the government from playing his role regulating the industry.
The people you cite as hijackers are not the one controlling the PR firms and the lobby money. Follow the money.
documentaries exist, to fill in the missing information(or all the correct info). This isn't the first case of this;
Takedown - Freedom Downtime
Lords of Dogtown - Dogtown and Z-Boys
Devil Wears Prada - The September Issue (don't even worry about this)
Who is really surprised this is what the studios turned out?
Plus we have the entire freaking internet to do research, but most of the people who saw the Social Network have probably forgotten that the rest of the internet exists, and that doing quality research is relatively simple.
I was thinking the same thing, but considering the high praise it's receiving from movie critics, there is apparently good reason to see this movie.
$1000M / $100M = 10% =/= pocket change
Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.
Be fair, though. However he earned his money, Bill Gates as an individual has done at least eight metric shit-tons more good in the world than Mark Zuckerberg ever has.
Breakfast served all day!
You forgot your <sarcasm> tag for the humor-impaired moderators.
Free Martian Whores!
It's simple. If ISPs can prioritize traffic for money, they will become video service for whoever pays the most. They'll *call* it Internet service, but that will merely give them an excuse to not actually *deliver* Internet Service: they'll stuff actual internet traffic into whatever dribs and drabs are left over. If the other end isn't paying, too, it will be severely throttled regardless of actual network conditions.
They say they need to charge for "priority access" (or whatever the nom du jour) to deliver video streams reliably. That means that if Netflix pays for priority access, Netflix's video streams will be delivered to Netflix's standards. And that means that if everyone in your neighborhood is watching Netflix (in 1080p, at 50Mb/s), your ISP can deliver it.
And that means they have the bandwidth available. Why should Netflix be the only company paying if anyone else can use that bandwidth free? Ergo, you won't be allowed to use it except to get to Netflix (or whoever else is paying for access to you). And how will Netflix and whoever else cover what they're paying for this premium service? That doesn't even require guessing, does it?
No service that needs as much bandwidth as decent video will ever be allowed to operate over the real Internet (outside their "premium VoI" channels).
Any amount of thought will lead you to realize that these people had nothing to do with producing the media we're discussing. Giving them extra money doesn't help those who did produce the media -- actual productive people -- at all. Companies elsewhere -- profitable, fast-growing companies -- deliver more bandwidth more reliably and less expensively than here, and their service is constantly improving. Media is just bits. There aren't any "expensive bits", there is no "cost of streaming media".
So these guys' entire actual argument is that people who don't give them money are bad people.
Bad people don't give them money. Good people give them money. You don't give them money, therefore you're a bad person. If you don't want to be a bad person, give them money. Don't talk to anyone who doesn't give them money, or you're a bad person too.
================
Some affluent-and-well-educated-sounding person is likely to arrive soon talking about "latency" or "jitter" or "packet loss" or something similar that really means "technical-sounding gobbledygook you don't know enough about to understand it doesn't actually apply to the situation at hand". Every bad symptom except insufficient bandwidth can be covered by a one-time delay of maybe three seconds for startup buffering. It isn't an issue.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Zuckenberg was portrayed as a "hero" ?
When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp. He stole everybody else's ideas, idolized a child molesting drug abuser, and betrayed his best (only?) friend. His only redeeming value is that he was a talented programmer.
Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.
I think it's important to recognize that this is a dramatization and not a real-life account. He was portrayed that way because it makes a move interesting, but doesn't seem to be the real story.
Is there some drama about the creation of facebook? Sure. But we have to remember that this was a creation of a computer nerd with computer nerd friends. Think about your most dramatic experience coding with friends...
The lawsuits didn't come until he was successful. Who isn't going to be sued by people when they become filthy rich?
Since you cite Comcast as the example, they just bought NBC. Without Network Neutrality, what's to stop Comcast from throttling the ABC and CBS websites unless they pay for top tier service?
Because customers would complain and get DSL if those sites were unusable.
And of course there would be the lawsuits from ABC and CBS, and them dropping channel delivery to Comcast...
That's why despite concerns, there has never actually been a problem that network neutrality would have solved. The closest we got was the Comcast torrent deal, but even that was not Comcast throttling specific traffic but instead FORGING traffic that had the side effect of screwing with your torrent speeds.
Lets wait until there's a real problem before putting controls over the network that can only do more harm than good. What you think is network neutrality is not in fact what they are planning to put in place; what you are saying network neutrality is is what people want it to be, not what it will be.
The success of the Internet itself and the countless success stories that have arisen from the Internet are because of the unfettered access it gives you to the rest of the world.
Agreed, and since nothing is in fact threatening that why are we trying to fix something that ain't broke? Regulation is a foothold into which lobbyists WILL place controls over what you can do with your network.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He was portrayed that way because it makes a move interesting, but doesn't seem to be the real story.
Then what's the point? Why do a movie about a real person or event, and then make half of it up? Why not just do something original and let a documentary filmmaker take over. Maybe Michael Moore could- oops, no wait... bad example.
I never watch these docudrama films because I know there's loads of crap that never happened. I knew this one would be blown way our of proportion when I saw the "Punk. Prophet. Billionaire." tag line on the billboards. Prophet? WTF? Is he the Messiah, too?
I even predicted to a friend that there would be a line like "Our time is now" or "This is our time" because every movie like this has a line like that. And I was right. Ooo! Now I'm a prophet, too! :-P
In America, people who have money are greater than people that don't.
Zuckenberg has money, so people will see him as a hero, regardless of the actions that produce the wealth.
If you want to be a good American, idolize people with money, and then do anything you need to do to get more money for your self.
I won't cover what others have said; by now you must be aware of what network neutrality is. However --
As a non-hard techie with only a cursory understanding
First, your understanding is far less than cursory, and second, what are you doing at a nerd site?
My real concern is that the proponents of network neutrality just want to be able to have unabated access to download music and movies and porn without paying for them
What do you have against "free"? You seem to have bought into the meme that "free" means either "worthless" or "stolen." That is not the case. There is far more free music (music that the artist wants you to have for free) than there is "paid for" music, and more excellent free music than even good paid for music. There are free movies; check out Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning, a hilarious full length parody of Star Trek and Babylon 5. It's better than any B movie you ever paid $10 to see, and it's completely free. It's just one example, and there are more. Porn has been free forever. And believe it or not, there are free operating systems like Ubuntu and Red Hat and FreeBSD that are better than Windows but don't cost a dime. And WTF do you mean by "without paying for them?" Doesn't your ISP bill you monthly for your network access? You ARE paying for it.
I guess the affect for someone like me is that most of my internet viewing is something like youtube, netflix, hulu, etc, and whether or not the cost of streaming media should be passed on to me as the end user.
Effect, not affect. And to furthuer your education, you, the end user, should bear ALL the costs of your downloading, at rates you and your ISP agree on. YouTube should not pay to deliver the videos to you; you're paying for the bandwidth already, and if your ISP want to double dip he's a thief.
Free Martian Whores!
Without network neutrality, big companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple can pay ISPs to put their sites on the premium tier so that you get fast access to them, while poor startups and normal people with brilliant ideas will be relegated to the slower tier.
There is nothing stopping this right now besides antitrust, but I still don't see it happening.
I've even seen concern about ISPs one day offering packages a la cable TV - you can get Google, Yahoo and MSN with the basic package but then you'd have to add a sports/tech/music/etc. package to access those sites. It's not even limited to websites. ISPs could grant you HTTP access with the basic package and then you'd have to add FTP, NNTP, VOIP and other "value add" services".
To a limited extent some of that exist or has.Some web providers used to offer discounted e-mail and browsing only packages (often they had time limits as well). Many ISPs also block ports when a really bad worm or exploit relies on them and few others are using them. Most ISPs will also start blocking certain protocols if they suspect a PC is spreading an infection or spam. Some also allow for "network wide" parental controls for customers that want them. Basically DNS listings are redirected on these to block sites similar to how the host file or a filter can do it locally. Some throttle bittorrent during periods of high demand. I favor this since the alternative is paying more for access so that better connection speeds can be reached or enduring a far slower connection when gaming. I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of these "non-neutral" actions so long as I, the customer, can be made aware of them. I am far more concerned about the prospect of regulation of the internet. The cure seems likely to be far worse than the disease. Anti-trust laws are sufficient to stop anti-competitive practices.
The Gospel according to lolcat
I'm still waiting for ESPN8, "the ocho"
I think it's important to recognize that this is a dramatization and not a real-life account. He was portrayed that way because it makes a move interesting, but doesn't seem to be the real story.
Maybe my point was not clear. I was just surprised to read that Zuckenbert was being protrayed as a "hero." It seemed to me that Zuckenberg was being portrayed as an asshole.
Since when are "heros" known for conniving, betraying, stealing, and generally being obnoxious, condescending, smarmy, little weasels?
Maybe I'm giving away my age, I grew up during "John Wayne" type hero era. I grew up thinking of heros as honorable, self sacrificing, that sort of thing. Not little pukes like Zuckenberg's portrayal.
"When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp."
That's the movie I want to see! Are we talking about the same movie?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Mod me down. Who fucking cares about this shit movie and whether it resembled the truth whatsoever. *YAWN*
I Googled but couldn't find any info.
Who was this "molesting drug abuser" and who was his friend?
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
Be fair, though. However he earned his money, Bill Gates as an individual has done at least eight metric shit-tons more good in the world than Mark Zuckerberg ever has.
Gates has also done at least eight metric shit-tons more harm in the world than Mark Zuckerberg ever has.
But then, Zuckerberg is a lot younger.
"When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp."
That's the movie I want to see! Are we talking about the same movie?
I'm beginning to wonder. In the movie I saw, Mark stole his ideas, did not come up with any new tech ideas, he vindictively stabbed his best (only?) friend in the back. He, and every guy in the movie, treated woman as objects, or worse. Practically every word out of his mouth had a sneering, condescending, tone to it. I can not think of anything he did, or said, that was kind, or caring. I can not think of anything he did that showed any genuine integrity or honor.
I left the movie thinking I had seen a story about a spoiled, smarmy little prick. Now I'm told it was the story of a hero for our times?
I remember when people like Rosa Parks were considered heroes for our time. Now, we would have more respect for somebody who mugged Rosa for her bus fare. After all, there is more money in mugging. And money is what makes "heroes" right?
I Googled but couldn't find any info.
Who was this "molesting drug abuser" and who was his friend?
Sean Parker. At least that is the way Sean was portrayed in the movie. Remember Sean getting caught with the cocaine, and underage girls? And, it was hinted that was not Sean's first time.
Thanks.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I can't wait for this movie to pass from public memory. I'm sick of the world sucking Zuckerberg's dick. He's an asshole.
Intelligent, Beautiful and Compelling but still Deeply, Deeply Flawed.Honestly, reviews like these suck. Why not just say unequivocally that the movie simply sucks!
Of course, at Zuckerberg's age, Gates was likewise yet to reveal those "redeeming qualities", so perhaps a little patience might be in order. In fact, with that recent $100 million charity donation, Zuckerberg is probably ahead of Gates's schedule.
The mbt sport shoes are usually released to sandals or fitness shoes. But in reality, there are also mbt shoes that are shoes-type. The mbt sport shoes are still pay attention on the quality that they offer with their other mbt shoes and products.The womens mbt sport shoes that make your body work hard without you putting more energy into doing what you possibly do every day – walk. Whether you are a regular walker who trains every day or a casual slow walker, you want to be comfortable and feel and see the results.
http://www.mbt-shoes.com
Wow. Thanks for the encouragement to convince me to consider your opinion.
Seriously, I'm not "a dick." I'm honestly seeking to understand the issue because I'm automatically suspicious of whatever the hard left tends to push (which is net neutrality) AND I'm suspicious of its opponents (big business). So I'm looking to find what the real truth is.
"Free" was a bad word choice - I was going more for probably whatever the true definition of "Piracy" is, with people downloading content that they SHOULD be paying for.
My opinion as both content creator (I hold registered copyrights) and content consumer is that no noncommercial use should be considered infringing. Copyright in the US was originally begun to protect authors from commercial publishers. Want to give copies of my stuff away? Go for it, it doesn't cost me a dime or deprive me of a dime, and gets the work into more eyeballs. More eyeballs equal more sales. Want to sell it? I want a cut; a BIG cut.
The problem isn't people getting free stuff; free sells. The problem is people making money off of what doesn't belong to them. I consider the people who sell counterfeit DVDs out of their trunk to be pirates, but not the people who are seeding P2P.
Free Martian Whores!
http://bux.to/?r=RRRRR_132 http://www.awsurveys.com/HomeMain.cfm?RefID=RRRRR_13 register and earn money
There's no need for everyone to have a 30/10 Internet connection.
Oh but there is. It's beneficial for ISPs to make everybody need the most expensive plan. Want to view the news, fine. Want to check email? Sorry, that's only on the most expensive plan. You don't use it a lot but you pay top dolla'!