David Gans (tnf) Mon 21 Aug 00 10:29
It's an interesting time to be a creative person. Intellectual property law and digital reality are colliding and diverging in various ways. The WELL is the online home of some people with a lot to say on these matters, and I thought it would be interesting to get a discussion going here in the INKWELL. I've invited three people in particular to join in here: SCOTT ROSENBERG is managing editor and technology columnist at salon.com. He's been a WELL member since 1990, an amateur musician, and a Napster user since last December. Here are the columns Scott has written about Napster: <http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/02/04/napster_swap/index.html> <http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/03/30/napster/index.html> <http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/07/27/napster_shutdown/index.html> <http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/08/07/breaking_law/index.html> ADAM POWELL, CEO and co-founder of angrycoffee.com, is a writer, Web developer, and musician. He has published over 30 articles for Webmonkey and Wired News and designed and produced Web and software interfaces for Wired, Healtheon/WebMD, Hitachi, LEGO, America Online, Greenfield Online, and Logitech. As an employee at Wired Ventures from 1995-97 he was Production Manager of Webmonkey, Web 101, Netizen, and The Rough Guides. He has continued to write for Webmonkey, penning the eight-part Adam's Multimedia Tutorial as well as two-thirds of the MP3 Package. In 1996 he created Fillet, a popular ezine for lovers of food and wine, and the recipient of numerous awards. During an 18-month stint at Phase Two Strategies, a high-tech public relations firm in San Francisco, Adam was the resident Internet expert, advising and developing for all 16 clients. In 1999 he was the Technical Producer for www.myhealtheon.com and my.webmd.com. He launched www.greenrocket.com in January as an umbrella for an Internet audio community and a consultation firm. Adam has spoken as a panelist for Jupiter Communications, South by Southwest, North by Northwest, the SF Internet Music Mixer, and Geekapalooza. As a professional musician, he is in his 12th year and plays with Resin. Wall Street Journal cover, Industry Standard, CNET, it's all there! <http://angrycoffee.com/press/index.html> MIKE GODWIN is currently a law-and-technology reporter for American Lawyer Media, specializing in intellectual-property issues. He's the "IP Land" columnist for AMERICAN LAWYER magazine, and chief correspondent for IP WORLDWIDE magazine. He is also the author of CYBER RIGHTS: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age. He was staff counsel for the Elecronic Frontier Foundation for many years.
David Gans (tnf) Mon 21 Aug 00 10:33
This subject is of particular interest to me as a songwriter and performer and as a record producer. I make music available on the web to promote my career as a performer, but I worry that it's going to be hard to make a profit on a studio CD if copying is so easy -- and so culturally acceptable -- that my audience doesn't feel compelled to buy a legitimate copy. Last week, a compilation I produced was released by Arista Records. It's a collection of Grateufl Dead songs performed by other artists, including Bob Dylan, Patti Smith, Elvis Costello, the Persuasions, et al. Has it shown up on Napster yet?
Dave Waite (dwaite) Mon 21 Aug 00 11:23
Napster seems to have caught most of the public off guard. The decision, which I understand is still being fought, seemed to come quickly and decidedly. Was the issue that easy for a lower court ruling? Do you think it will stick?
Declined To State (jrc) Mon 21 Aug 00 12:08
And is ultimately a foolish and losing struggle?
blather storm (lolly) Mon 21 Aug 00 13:10
Is this the beginning of the complete transformation of the music business into something that provides a more direct connection between artists and listeners? Or is it just that the artists now get not only to be ripped off by the labels, but by their fans also?
Michael R. Walsh (mrw) Mon 21 Aug 00 13:12
One thing for sure: if artists start making even less money than they do now, there'll a be a whole lot less art to pass around in very short order.
The salon stopped responding (rocket) Mon 21 Aug 00 14:10
Hi everyone. In order: <tnf>, I ran a bunch of searches and it appears that your GD cover album has not yet been sucked into the various hacker collectives accessible via the web. I uninstalled Napster long ago, so I can't speak for that network. <dwaite>, this question is probably best handled by Mr. Godwin. <jrc>, the struggle to suppress p2p (peer-to-peer) networks is neither foolish nor necessarily bound for failure. Remember, the interests of the big 5 have already squashed round 1 of mp3 piracy -- in 1998 thousands of cease-and-desist orders were filed, rendered the previously effective "search for|grateful dead, .mp3|" a useless coil of dead links. Napster was a response to the first salvo, fired by the RIAA's backers. It is the return fire, not the shot heard 'round the world. <lolly>, this is business as usual already. mp3.com has been annexed by the labels: they can't carry major label content in the my.mp3.com service and they have to pay an estimated $100 million out to the big 5 just to keep their doors open. Napster will be shut down, most onlookers agree. My own company, angrycoffee.com, has not been the target of record label wrath because it's completely legal, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me if we did after Napster is ordered to pull the plug this fall. Gnutella and Freenet are not ready for prime time. Sluggish and reptilian as they are, the major labels have finally realized that there is money in file sharing. They hold all the cards, as in their command are the copyright documents as well as a legal arsenal capable of crushing all competition, provided the right precedent (Napster). The key questions that need to be answered now: 1. Who is going to sell the kids their mp3 subscriptions? 2. Will all the other players be the subject of lawsuits, or will they purchase licensing agreements from the major labels?
The salon stopped responding (rocket) Mon 21 Aug 00 14:38
I just read Scott's new article in Salon. Mr. Rosenberg states: "(Napster) doesn't feel like theft; it feels like a great big communal swap meet, where anyone can explore the enthusiasms of like-minded fans. " This is Napster's argument, in a nutshell. Hank Barry used the word "share" 7 times in his introductory statements to the congressional hearing last month. But how do the artists feel? Not the fans, or pundits, or columnists, all of whom have little reason to look this gift horse of free music in the mouth. We have a lot of professional musicians here -- artists who make their living from record sales. Do you agree or disagree with Scott's statement?
Declined To State (jrc) Mon 21 Aug 00 14:43
Perhaps I should be more clear. i was speaking in a logner context. the nature of information delivery has changed. It did not use to be fungible; now it is. One format is all formats, or vice versa. How could an injunction prevent on off-shore site, or a site per day, or a million sites opened on the same day. How can it prevent the swapping and sampling that goes on one level of visibility down from Napster? I understand *why* it's a problem; I just do not see that the p-roblem has a real solution.
David Gans (tnf) Mon 21 Aug 00 14:57
Jon's point is a good one. What Scott wrote -- "(Napster) doesn't feel like theft; it feels like a great big communal swap meet, where anyone can explore the enthusiasms of like-minded fans." -- is an accurate portrayal of the attitude out there, I think. That's the problem: the whole concept of intellectual property is up for grabs today. In the "jam band" subculture I work in, I have observed a striking inversion of values. People trade tapes (actually CDs more often these days, of course) of their favorite performers' live shows, but have little or no in- terest in those bands' commercial output. In other words, they cvalue the thing they can have for free and do not value the thing that costs money.
Brian Slesinsky (bslesins) Mon 21 Aug 00 14:58
The thing about computers is that we tend to get used to the idea that they will enforce the rules for us. When filling out a web form, the computer checks it for errors. In computer games, the computer acts both as an impartial judge and as the laws of physics for the game. But if other kinds of behavior can be controlled through laws and social taboos, it seems to me that unauthorized copying can too, provided that a large enough majority of the public feels strongly enough that it really is wrong.
The salon stopped responding (rocket) Mon 21 Aug 00 15:04
I see, <jrc>. It is very difficult to stop p2p networks when there is no one to sue. A distributed network means you can't unplug it at the source and you can't call up anyone to tell them about your lawsuit. These facts prompted lots of people to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to shut down a true p2p network. This is not true. It's difficult to run a business when you can't tell anyone who you are. p2p networks need money to operate. So, for all the talk of you-can't-shut-us-down, the reality is that no one really cares about these hackers; they are far too busy building THEIR OWN system. Then they sue everyone else. The best service will be expensive to maintain and build. The best service will therefore be a legimate one, with lots of loot to smooth out the rough spots, and it will win, becuase it is going to be easier to use than Freenet (which just doesn't work very well) and everyone is going to know it. Yes, geekier types will go renegade. But I think it's safe to assume at the point that Napster 2 is going to be run by a corporation, flush with cash, with record labels on board. (BTW,I seriously doubt Napster 2 will be made by Napster). Is that reply more to your point, Jon?
The salon stopped responding (rocket) Mon 21 Aug 00 15:08
(2 eloquent slips)
Chip Bayers (hotwired) Mon 21 Aug 00 18:20
<rocket> wants us to ask "How do the artists feel?" The ones who make their living selling recorded works probably feel pretty good, since their Q1 2000 sales were up 8% over Q1 1999, all while the Napster phenomenon was taking off. Dismissing fans because they have "little reason to look this gift horse of free music in the mouth" also ignores the fact that copyright law exists _primarily_ to benefit consumers, who have been explicitly granted the right to trade music and other intellectual property with each other for private, non-commercial use.
blather storm (lolly) Mon 21 Aug 00 18:27
I agree that the likely outcome will be business as usual, with the labels co-opting the p2p distribution system somehow. Artists will continue to get screwed.
Wagner James Au (wjamesau) Mon 21 Aug 00 18:36
Likely the case, unfortunately. A Net-savvy, indie musician put it to me best: "We were *this* close to breaking free from the major labels, and then Napster came along and fucked it all up for us."
doing 'n somethingness (jleft) Mon 21 Aug 00 18:46
I'd like to interject into this discussion the fact that we're just now seeing the emergence of the wireless device revolution. We are very close to the ability to "beam" a file (.mp3, etc.) around as easily as a Palm business card. It will take a few years for this to reach critical mass, but given that these devices are going to be out and about, their portability is going to make song-swapping a natural activity. It's not the wholesale, centralized downloading of Napster, but it will make an impact.
Scott Rosenberg (scottros) Mon 21 Aug 00 20:25
My observation about Napster "not feeling like theft" was offered not as a defensive argument but as an observation both of my own experience using the service and of how it seems to me other people use it. Whether an artist believes that it is theft, or a court rules that it is theft, is pretty much besides the point -- *if* the issue is, as Brian suggests in #10, just how much of the public believes that Napster is "right" or "wrong." When many millions of people do something that the law says is "wrong" it is usually a sign that the law is somehow out of sync with something -- popular behavior or mass beliefs or technological change. Some of the important things to keep in mind here are: (1) The fate of Napster-the-company is completely irrelevant. To whatever extent Napster Inc. tries to "monetize" its service, the company is likely doomed. The more the company moves into revenue streams, the more it moves onto the turf of the record companies -- and justifies their complaint. (2) For those who believe that peer-to-peer trading of music files is inherently illegal and a ripoff of money that artists should be receiving, the question is, how far are you willing to go to enforce your views? Shutting down Napster is one thing. When it becomes a matter of hunting down individual users of Gnutella or some successor software; when the targets of lawsuits shift from VC-funded startup companies to individual music fans; when a significant number of musicians have begun to shift to their own model of online distribution -- at one of these points I think it will become manifestly obvious that the strict-constructionist copyright position is not about protecting artists' income but about trying desperately to save a dying business model. (3) What I find most interesting here, and almost never commented on, is my own usage pattern of Napster -- which, anecdotally, seems to be shared by a lot of others. I find Napster useless in obtaining music from artists I know I love; I already have (and have paid for) all their official releases. What Napster is great for is finding obscure live tracks, out-of-print B sides and the like. If the record companies would package this stuff, engineer it well and issue it on CD I'd pay for it -- but they're not doing so. So the obscure tracks by They Might Be Giants, Frank Black, Eno, Elvis Costello, whoever else I might be looking for are suddenly within my grasp. Does this reduce anyone's income? Hard for me to see how. Incidentally, I started using Napster late last fall, I think December, and at that time finding tracks by any of the above artists (with the exception of TMBG) was pretty much impossible. The growth of the Napster user base has been so extraordinary that today there's tons of the most obscure stuff available on it. If it shuts down, I don't doubt that its successor technology -- whichever turns out to be easiest and most lawsuit-proof -- will grow at twice this speed.
Rafe Colburn (rafeco) Mon 21 Aug 00 20:42
One thing Adam mentioned above is that Gnutella is unready for prime time. I'd agree with that assessment, I downloaded it the other day just to see what was up, and I wasn't all too impressed. I've used Napster once or twice, and I found it much, much easier to use than Gnutella. I could find a song I was looking for, download the song, and listen to it. I was never so fortunate with Gnutella, but I didn't try very hard. My question is, how long is that going to be true? Gnutella is open source software, and it already has many, many users. There are people working actively on improving it. Is there any reason to believe that it won't be refined into something that works really, really well? Besides, software like Gnutella is pretty simple. Future products will probably be released that are even better. For example, AIMster is pretty cool in that you can share only with the people on your AIM buddy list (I haven't tried it yet). You can find a list of Gnutella clients here: http://gnutella.wego.com/go/wego.pages.page?groupId=116705&view=page&pageId=11 7731&folderId=117728&panelId=119597&action=view (what a ridiculously long URL) Some of them are bound to turn out to be pretty good.
Wagner James Au (wjamesau) Mon 21 Aug 00 23:01
> how far are you willing to go to enforce your views? Shutting > down Napster is one thing. When it becomes a matter of hunting > down individual users of Gnutella or some successor software; > when the targets of lawsuits shift from VC-funded startup companies > to individual music fans; when a significant number of musicians... Scott, have you read a precis of the Parc Xerox study on Gnutella? It suggests that the vast majority of Gnutella song files are made available by a *fraction* of its users-- several hundred, by their estimation. Which further suggests that shutting down these several hundred iextreme copyright violators and prosecuting them to the full extent of the law would effectively break the back of Gnutella. If the study is accurate-- and it's difficult to fault Parc Xerox's credentials-- wouldn't that give your slippery slope a very large plateau? > When many millions of people do something that the law says is > "wrong" it is usually a sign that the law is somehow out of sync > with something -- popular behavior or mass beliefs or technological > change. I think you're ignoring another explanation: that the software's ease and anonymity allows them to disregard any moral or legal implications of using it for behavior which would otherwise appear very much immoral and illegal. But your larger implication here is disconcerting: do you *really* think that the law should adjust with the demands of popular behavior, or mass belief? If a mass of Los Angeles citizens believe it doesn't feel "wrong" to loot stores, should we adjust the law to suit them?
Rafe Colburn (rafeco) Tue 22 Aug 00 06:49
The free rider problem is extreme on gnutella right now, but I imagine that the great majority of Napster users are free riders as well. Even so, the network still seems to work. The number of people using Gnutella is miniscule compared to the number of people using Napster. When Napster is gone, and all of those users migrate to Gnutella or some other product that follows Gnutella, is there any reason to believe that the people who are sharing music now will stop, because they like Gnutella less, or something?
Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Tue 22 Aug 00 09:35
I think Rafe is quite right about the extent of free-riderism among Napster users. So I don't think the Xerox Parc statistics about Gnutella, in and of themselves, give us a reading as to the effective success of Gnutella or similar systems. Dave, I don't think the issues raised in the Napster case were as easy as Judge Patel makes out. And obviously the Ninth Circuit has its own doubts, at least at this point. One of the things I think you see happening in Patel's courtroom is that the judge's perception of the defendants more or less dictated how she was going to come out on the law. (You see something very similar happening in the New York case about DeCSS, the program that decrypts movie DVDs.) That's not how it's supposed to work in the courtroom -- the judge is supposed to be above his or her likes or dislikes of the parties -- but as a practical matter this happens all the time. I think <mrw> is right to say that if the outcome of Napster and similar technologies is that artists get paid less, we're all going to be a lot poorer for it. What's remarkable to me is how much art we get these days given how little artists are paid under the current setup! There are monstrous inefficiencies in most of the content industries -- from publishing to music to movies -- that digital distribution ought to help reduce. What I'd like to see is a way for artists not merely to get paid from digital distribution, but to get paid *more* -- to benefit from the new efficiencies. I want to see that benefit designed into whatever system the music companies sign on to. A point of comparison: It's increasingly standard in book contracts that the author receives the same percentage of royalties from e-book sales that he or she receives from sales of the paper version. Yet the marginal cost of production when it comes to e-books is a much smaller percentage of the book's price. Who reaps the benefits of the efficiencies of digital distribution in that case? Maybe the reading public (if the overall pricetag is lower), and certainly the publisher. But the creator is left out in the cold. And few writers have the bargaining clout to insist on anything different. I've written a couple of articles recently in which I express the wish that we could get all the parties with something at stake in this development into a room and hash out something both workable and equitable for everyone. You know -- have a public-policy colloquium. The adversarial nature of the debate about Napster thus far has done no one any good. I'll try to post one of my upcoming columns here in a subsequent message.
Scott Rosenberg (scottros) Tue 22 Aug 00 09:47
I think Rafe is right that Gnutella's ease-of-use problems are not a long- term issue. As long as Napster is available the pressure is off making the alternatives easy-to-use. But Napster was developed with fairly scant resources. If it vanishes you can bet Gnutella or whatever successor emerges will undergo some *very* rapid development cycles toward usability. As for the Parc study, I haven't looked at it closely, but it seems to me the results reflect a classic early-adopter environment. If/when the millions of Napster users migrate to gnutella or the equivalent, surely the more widely distributed pattern of usage that characterizes Napster will migrate as well. James asks, "do you *really* think that the law should adjust with the demands of popular behavior, or mass belief?" Simple answer: yes. We call this democracy, I think. Looting in LA is a very poor analogy to Napster. Look, if 20 million Americans were out there looting we'd call it a total breakdown of society. Looting is ultimately contained and dealt with by our existing law because the vast majority of Americans (a) believe it is morally wrong and (b) do not engage in the practice themselves. Using Napster is not violent, it doesn't deprive the other party to the "trade" transaction of use of the property, and it does not create a public disturbance. I think, James, you have very much misread the way people *feel* when they use Napster. It's not about furtively doing something that you sense is wrong but you go ahead and do anyway because you feel you can get away with it. It really does feel like a big global swapmeet in which you get to trade stuff and exchange enthusiasms with people who are passionate about what you are passionate about. I know that doesn't do much to console the industry people or the artists who feel that they way of doing business that they've known all their lives is being undermined. They're right, it is. But unless they can somehow convince the typical Napster user that what he's doing is truly wrong -- "It may feel good, but it's bad for you!" -- they need to come to terms with this somehow.
Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Tue 22 Aug 00 09:52
This is a draft of a column that will be published in American Lawyer magazine in, I think, October. --------- Tuned Out The record labels may crush Napster in court, but they remain deaf to the desires of their most desirable customers. By Mike Godwin Is it possible that, in their efforts to suppress free music trading on the Internet, the music companies and individuals who are suing Napster may win every legal battle but lose the war? Certainly from a legal standpoint the situation has never looked good for Napstermost trial-court judges whove heard copyright infringement cases against Napster or other MP3-distributing companies have come down on the side of the music-industry plaintiffs. Unlike my former colleague Roger Parloff (Headnotes, September) Ive never thought the legal arguments raised by Napsters opponents added up to a slam dunk. But lets suppose, for the duration of this column at least, that they do. What then? The music industry, with a fistful of winning verdicts in its pocket, will still have a handful of problems on the Net. The first is that theres a sizable, established market for downloadable music, thanks to Napster. Its unclear whether much of that market will abide by the record labels ludicrous pricing policies for online sales. Sony, for example, is charging $2.50 to download a single track. At that rate, the Dixie Chicks 13-song album "Fly" would cost more than $32. I can buy the CD itself from Amazon.com for less than half that (shipping included). Its hard to see how Sonys pricing strategy makes sense even in the traditional music market, much less in the new market for Internet-based music distribution. When you are so far out of step, youve created a perverse incentive for users to go elsewhereor, just as likely, to snag music for free from Napsters likely successors, Gnutella and Freenet. Both of these tools allow distributed file-sharing much the same as Napster, but without relying on centralized directory servers like Napsters. They create a special problem for would-be music-industry plaintiffs: Its not clear whom to sue, and even less clear what can be gained in court even if you find a likely defendant. (We may take it as a given that the archetypal slacker MP3 trader is himself judgment-proof.) Both Gnutella and Freenet are freely distributed on the Internet. All they require is a raft of technofriendly volunteers with extra hard-disk space to become a fully operational alternative to Napster. Parloff argues in his recent column that neither of these decentralized file-sharing systems is likely to reach Napsters popularity, but some of his arguments sound to me like whistling in the dark. Ive experimented myself with Gnutella and Freenet, and find myself easily imagining tools like these taking the place of Napster, especially if theres a widespread perception among Internet usersincluding the army of volunteersthat Napster was unfairly crushed by the music industry. Whats more, I see the potential for third-generation file-sharing tools that combine Napsters efficiencies with, say, the built-in anonymity features of Freenet. When it comes to ways of improving these distributed file-sharing systems, the only limit is the inventiveness of programmers. I wouldnt bet against them. In short, I think its likely that even if the music companies win in the courts, they stand a pretty good risk of losing where it counts, both in their pocketbooks and in the hearts and minds of music buyers. But perhaps we should look beyond the question of picking the winning side in the ongoing struggle between the content industries and the Internets cheerful file sharers. Instead, shouldnt we try to find common ground between music makers and music lovers? Lets start by looking at a parable about how music lovers really think (I call it a "parable" although it actually happened). A couple of months ago I asked folks in an advertising forum on the WELL, a conferencing system based in the San Francisco Bay Area, if any of them knew the source of the haunting music in the background of the television ad for the "vapor edition" of the Volkswagen Beetle. Someone helpfully pointed out that the song appears on the album "Blue Wonder Power Milk" by the band Hooverphonic, but couldnt remember its name. That was enough of a clue. I went to Napster, downloaded a bunch of songs from that album, and recognized "A Renaissance Affair." I liked that single a lot, but not the rest of the album. (Unsurprisingly, Volkswagen used the best song for its ad.) Now, its already hard to characterize this example as a lost sale. I wouldnt have bought the album on the basis of one song. (I no longer buy records on teenage impulse.) But get this: I told a friend about the song and the album, and she went out and bought it via Amazon. Her purchase would not have occurred but for my visit to Napster. So, Napster was what made that particular sale possible. Now, Im not saying that all instances of copying via Napster put money in the pockets of the artists. But some of them do. In the absence of sound independent statistical research, anyone who claims that Napster creates net lost sales for artists is just voicing a religious conviction about music copying. More importantly, the implication of this parable is that a basic assumption of record labelsthat we wont buy the cow if we can get the milk for freemay be simply wrong. My friend the record buyer could have asked me for my copies of "A Renaissance Affair" and the other songs on the album. She could have gone to Napster and found them herself. What she did instead was spend money for musiccontradicting the paradigm of music consumers that the record companies seem to have embraced, and affirming instead the notion that, for some of us at least, good music is worth paying for, even when we can get it for free. I think my friend is typical. Music lovers dont begrudge seeing that music makers get paidthey embrace it. Its these consumers that ought to be informing the public-policy debate about sharing music on the Internet. Some music-company leaders have stuck their necks out the possibility for a rapprochement between Napster-like companies and the music industry. "I think we can all work in harmony," says Val Azzoli, co-chairman and co-CEO of the Atlantic Group. "I would even pay Napster to be a distributor. But my beef is not getting paid." Azzoli is onto somethingthe best outcome of all the current strife would be for the record labels to find a way to work with the technologists. But not everyone is as flexible or as farsighted as Azzoli. The consensus in the music industry is that the best and only strategy is to sue choice targets and scare everyone else into compliance with the music industrys particular and restrictive view of copyright. Entertainment lawyer Helene Freeman of Dorsey & Whitney has classified this attitude as "an intractable problem." Says Freeman: I believe the record industry is ideologically committed to litigation." What they ought to be committed to instead is collective problem solving. Its time that the music companies, consumers, and technologists sit down and hammer these issues outto talk to each other outside of a courtroom. And the time for such a forum is nowbefore the music companies discover that winning every legal battle has only hastened both the loss of control of their music and the loss of the hearts and minds of music lovers.
The music's played by the (madman) Tue 22 Aug 00 11:12
I would just like to say that the consitution is a great example of how the laws in this country do _not_ necessarily reflect the mass opinion of the people. After all, the majority of this country still believes that gays are leading immoral lifestyles. Let's lock 'em all up. In short, I agree with Au here. There are a lot of laws that come into existance against the majority view. Some good- anti-discrimination laws, for instance. Some bad- look how many laws are bought outright. Mickey's copyright. The DMCA.
Benjamin Brewer (bbrewer) Tue 22 Aug 00 13:06
Just my opinion on things in regard to the gnutella/napster freeloading. Many of the people sharing files are the ones with a decent internet connection - they allow others to use the extra speed that they are not using at the time. My prediction: As broadband use hightens, content will be more evenly distributed throughout these 'rogue' networks.
Members: Enter the conference to participate