Download - Future of the Internet – And how to stop it.

268
Notes to Pages 77–82
about a century ago it came to refer to a new class of materials capable of being molded
in a soft or molten state, then hardened. See OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. revised
2005) (“plastic: adjective . . . [of substances or materials] easily shaped or moulded:
rendering the material more plastic; relating to moulding or modelling in three dimensions,
or to produce three-dimensional effects: the plastic arts; [in science and technology]
of or relating to the permanent deformation of a solid without fracture by the temporary
application of force . . . from French plastique or Latin plasticus, from Greek
plastikos, from plassein ‘to mould’); see also Lawrence Lessig, Social Norms, Social Meaning,
and the Economic Analysis of Law, 27 J. LEGAL STUD. 661 (1998).
9. GNU, The Free Software Definition, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
(last visited May 16, 2007). This definition should not be confused with Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms. See Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States,
Annual Message to Congress (“Four Freedoms Speech”) (Jan. 6, 1941), in 87 Cong. Rec.
44, 46–47 (1941), available at http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.phpflashtrue
&doc70&pagepdf.
10. Cooperative Linux is an example of a free, open source method for running Linux on
Microsoft Windows. See coLinux, http://www.colinux.org (last visited May 16, 2007).
Conversely, Wine is an open source implementation of Windows on top of Unix. See
WineHQ, http://www.winehq.com (last visited May 16, 2007).
11. The Free Software Foundation is working to change its licenses to prohibit bolting a generative
system inside a non-generative one. See Free Software Found., GPLv3, http://
gplv3.fsf.org (last visited May 16, 2007) (discussing the rationale for the new provisions).
12. For a general discussion of objective affordances, see James J. Gibson, The Theory of
Affordances, in PERCEIVING, ACTING, AND KNOWING (Robert Shaw & John Bransford
eds., 1978). For a discussion of subjective affordances, see DONALD A. NORMAN, THE
PSYCHOLOGY OF EVERYDAY THINGS (1998), which defines “affordance” as “the perceived
and actual properties of the thing, primarily those fundamental properties that determine
just how the thing could possibly be used.” Id. at 9. For example, a “chair affords (‘is
for’) support and, therefore, affords sitting.” (emphasis added). Id.
13. See, e.g., LAWRENCE LESSIG, THE FUTURE OF IDEAS: THE FATE OF THE COMMONS IN A
CONNECTED WORLD (2002).
14. See Brett M. Frischmann, An Economic Theory of Infrastructure and Commons Management,
89 MINN. L. REV. 917, 918–19 (2005).
15. Tim Wu, Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination, 2 J. TELECOMM. & HIGH
TECH. LAW 141, 145–47 (2003).
16. See, e.g., CLAYTON M. CHRISTENSEN, THE INNOVATOR’S DILEMMA: WHEN NEW TECH-
NOLOGIES CAUSE GREAT FIRMS TO FAIL xiii–xvii (1997); Rebecca Henderson, The Innovator’s
Dilemma as a Problem of Organizational Competence, 23 J. PRODUCT INNOVATION
MGMT. 5, 6–7 (2006).
17. See Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 766 F. Supp. 135, 139–40 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (discussing
the nature of CompuServe’s involvement in running the forums).
18. See ADVANCES IN BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS (Colin F. Camerer, George Loewenstein &
Matthew Rabin eds., 2003); Christine Jolls, Cass R. Sunstein & Richard Thaler, A Be-