Mark Pincus can sure talk a blue streak. Mark Cuban can easily be classified as a chatterbox, both online and off. And Marc Andreessen certainly knows how to keep up his end of the conversation.

In other words, the pantheon of famous digital entrepreneurs is full of blabby Marks.

But Mark Zuckerberg, not so much.

So, when watching “The Social Network”–the movie about the rocky origins of Facebook–a person who has known the co-founder and CEO of the social networking powerhouse even longer than BoomTown has leaned over and said, “The Mark in this movie has said more in 15 minutes than I have heard the real Mark say in the first few years I knew him.”

And how.

If you want to know, although critics are raving over it, it’s like a very talky, very geeky version of “The West Wing.”

The Mark Zuckerberg in the movie, as penned by master wordsmith Aaron Sorkin, is able to parry with top-notch lawyers and deliver perfectly crafted rejoinders one after the next to friend and foe alike.

He can conduct several conversation streams at once–so much so that a soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend remarks that talking to him was like “being on a StairMaster.”

I’d agree with that statement about the real Mark, except that the effort is quite the opposite of being dazzled by wild verbal gymnastics.

In fact, unlike a lot of Internet moguls, it has often been a struggle to get him to be fully articulate about the company, due mostly to a more taciturn, awkward and incredibly precise way of speaking.

When Zuckerberg famously asked Leslie Stahl of “60 Minutes” in a television interview–”Was that a question?”–right after she asked a question, I shuddered in recognition at the exchange.

In that way, he is a lot like the original leader of AOL (AOL), Steve Case, a person who created the first major social explosion online while also being incredibly shy and terse in real life.

Actor Jesse Eisenberg (pictured here) playing Zuckerberg in “The Social Network” certainly has the clipped delivery and often furrowed brow down–but the rest is a dude I certainly would love a chance to interview.

That said, he also plays Zuckerberg as a dour and wary person, also nothing like the real thing.

While I am in no way a personal friend of Zuckerberg’s, I have spent enough time with him to say that he strikes me as someone who generally tries to get along with people and makes a big effort to seem like a regular Joe, despite his fame and, well, billions of dollars worth of stock.

That does not mean he can’t be a bit robotic in tone or that he is not very much in charge at Facebook–indeed, one thing the movie does show is how very much the company is a creation of his single-minded devotion, restless innovation and intense forcefulness.

What I found perhaps most interesting about the movie was that it seems to, in fact, make the very case it is not trying to make.

Which is that, as the movie Zuckerberg says to the trio suing him for stealing the basic idea for Facebook: “If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you’d have invented Facebook.”

Exactly. Because even if Zuckerberg did swipe the kernel of an idea about making a social network about friends from the Winklevoss twins at Harvard University–which seems obvious that he did indeed do– they were still incapable of creating what he created, even if they had gotten bigger head start.

Though hysterically played by actor Armie Hammer (pictured here, who does both of the Winklevii), these two seem more like rich kids with good chins, great bods and not much else.

So too Eduardo Saverin, Zuckerberg’s original partner in Facebook, who got left behind and then diluted out of his stake in the start-up.

While that move by Zuckerberg and his new investors was probably too cute by a half–and they had to pay up later for it–the movie makes clear that Saverin did almost nothing to make Facebook what it was, except write an early check.

In fact, in one scene, it’s clear he does not even know how to use it enough to change his relationship status. This, I believe.

(Also, incredibly, that Justin Timberlake–who plays the devilish Sean Parker–can actually act.)

Finally, there is the part about the impetus for Zuckerberg to make Facebook–which opens the movie–over a bad breakup with a girlfriend.

Again, it would be great for the origins of Facebook to be that interesting, but that trick is only there to provide a good ending shot of Zuckerberg hitting the refresh button.

And, of course, to lay out the big question of whether or not Zuckerberg is an “asshole” or not.

That’s from “The Social Network” and not me, which at the end twists that grand theme again.

Instead, it posits via a woman lawyer–the only truly positive portrayal of a woman in the entire film, by the way–to the Zuckerberg character that: “You are not an asshole, Mark. You’re just trying so hard to be one.”

I am afraid that is not really true either, at least in my experience.

Sure, Zuckerberg has been diffident, has treated some friends shabbily (even recently) and has even been borderline disingenuous once or twice with me.

But that’s not that different from a lot of people I cover in tech and that does not make him that proverbial “asshole” of the movie.

Oh, I sure have known a few of those in my time covering Silicon Valley, but that’s a list I’ll keep for my movie.

Kidding. Sort of. (You know who you are.)

Within the next several weeks, the New Yorker magazine will be publishing big pieces about a pair of digital icons located on the East and West coasts–an assessment of the turnaround at AOL by staff writer Ken Auletta and a profile of Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg by Huffington Post senior contributing editor Jose Antonio Vargas.

For the Zuckerberg piece, Vargas was given a lot of access by the Silicon Valley social networking kingpin, including rare interviews with Zuckerberg’s inner circle and also longtime girlfriend and full-time med student Priscilla Chan.

And Auletta–whose big New Yorker takeout on Google (GOOG) turned into a book that is now being turned into a movie–will be assessing the turnaround efforts at AOL (AOL), which is now being led by former Google exec Tim Armstrong.

The Internet icon has seen troubled times in recent years, including a spinoff from Time Warner (TWX), which should make for interesting fodder for Auletta.

Also in the tech-topic kitty at the New Yorker, sources said: A profile of troublemaking Gawker Media impresario Nick Denton by Ben McGrath, which I am hoping will include his terrific tour of Chinese markets near where he lives in Manhattan’s SoHo.

So, BoomTown was at the Design Center Concourse in San Francisco today for Facebook’s f8 developers conference.

There is a giant logo of an 8-Ball looming over it all, which suggested a questioning mood.

Not at all!

Lots of stuff was announced, including ventures with partners like Microsoft (MSFT). That particular one is called Docs.com, an in-the-cloud effort to smack Google (GOOG).

The staff of the social networking giant showed up in overwhelming force here, stuffing the press into the giant hall’s front rows as if we were prisoners on a United Airlines (UAUA) flight.

Free us, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg!

But, wait! At events like this past, Zuckerberg’s awkward speaking style–a younger version of Microsoft’s Bill Gates–has been painful, so this was clearly an elaborate plot by COO Sheryl Sandberg to torture the media.

Well played, Sheryl (and PR mastermind Elliot Schrage)!

While we waited and were being pummeled with loud hip music like Al-Qaeda detainees at Guantanamo Bay, I might add that it was impressive to see all the folks here–mostly dudes–paying homage to the massive growth of Facebook.

Here we go:

10:07 am PT: Zuckerberg–dressed in jeans and a hoodie and sneakers–ambled onto the stage quite casually without a lot of fuss.

BoomTown was expecting some fanfare–perhaps a brass band.

Like the geek he is at heart, Zuckerberg launched into the details right away, after a cursory nod to his company’s huge surge in size and influence.

He began talking about “social plug-in” offerings, namely a “Like” button that lets you share content from many Web sites without a lot of friction.

It is essentially Facebook’s clever plot to take over the entire Web and its conversation. I am extremely wary.

Let’s all try to remember: Facebook is Google is Facebook is Google. And so on until they both control our every breathing moment on this planet.

Like a nerd version of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”

But, admittedly, it was cool and innovative.

10:25 am: Zuckerberg brought out Bret Taylor, the guy from FriendFeed, which was bought by Facebook last August for $50 million.

It seems worth the dough, since Taylor is a natural presenter with the easy charm that all Zuckerberg’s money will never be able to buy.

He ran through the stuff–social plug-ins, recommendation boxes and a toolbar.

Taylor called Zuckerberg “Zuck” several times. He’s friends with Zuck!

He also is channeling Zuck with the idea that Facebook should be at the center of all things. Either a black hole or a benevolent god, depending on your point of view.

Soon, he moved onto the “Open Graph Protocol,” which he called a “valuable real-time connection” between Facebook and Web sites.

“My identity is not just defined by things on Facebook, but on things all over the Web,” added Taylor.

Things the evil geniuses of Facebook will control!

10:40 am: Taylor moved on to search, always an issue on Facebook, which still feels like it is a giant library with all the books strewn on the floor.

Yet another smack at Google! And Twitter.

He also announced that Facebook is adopting that OAuth open-source standard for authentication.

More divide and conquer.

10:45 am: Zuckerberg returned to intro Docs.com with Microsoft.

Zuckerberg then closed rather awkwardly, although somewhat endearingly, saying okay-that’s-it-you-can-go-now quite abruptly.

Realizing the oddness of the moment, he pulled it back to relate an anecdote about his girlfriend, who is studying to be a doctor.

Although Zuckerberg did not quite land it, it was all about feelings and memories.

“The essence of this is that we have a lot of early memories that, man, the world can be a lot better and we can make it that way,” said Zuckerberg.

Then he made an inexplicable reference to being in heaven and how everything is exactly how we want it there.

Let’s build it, said Zuckerberg, a very mortal–but now a very, very powerful–digital god.

Next up: Press conference with Zuck and more info about his stairway to heaven!

Until Facebook gets us there, though, here’s a video of the Led Zeppelin classic, “Stairway to Heaven,” which always reminds me of slow-dancing in a school gym and forever makes me just a little bit sad for, as Zuckerberg said, feelings and memories long gone by.

Not that Facebook or any Silicon Valley Web company is ever going to be able to retrieve even a scrap of them for real, no matter how many billions of social plug-ins and Like buttons they toss all over the Web.

Still:

[UPDATE: Negotiations between YouTube and music labels are already getting unpleasant: Warner Music's clips are disappearing from the site, and both sides are taking credit for the move.]

Universal Music Group officials told CNET this week that they’re going to make close to $100 million from Internet videos this year–an 80 percent increase–and that most of that will come from Google’s (GOOG) YouTube.

I believe that may be possible–in part because people close to Universal Music Group told me the same thing earlier this year. But I think that those YouTube dollars may not continue to increase at the same rate, whether it’s for Universal or any music label.

That’s because YouTube’s current arrangement with the labels is a money-losing one, people familiar with the company tell me. And that’s unlikely to continue as the company renegotiates its deals with the four major labels–UMG, EMI, Sony (SNE) and Warner Music Group (WMG)–which expire throughout next year.

Here’s how the current deals work: Whenever someone clicks on an official video that’s been sanctioned by the labels, YouTube has to pay the labels either a per-stream fee or a share of ad revenue associated with the clip, whichever is greater. Since YouTube is just beginning to get serious about selling ads next to its content, it’s usually paying the per-stream fee, which industry executives peg at about half a penny per clip.

That kind of deal might have been OK during Google’s go-go days, but it’s unlikely to fly now. And as Google execs start sitting down with the labels, it’s reasonable to think they’ve got much more leverage. While music videos are some of the site’s most popular programming–look at how many label-sponsored clips like Avril Lavigne’s “Girlfriend” are among the site’s most popular offerings of all time–Google doesn’t need their blessing in the way that YouTube did when it was still transitioning from rogue copyright violator to upstanding citizen.

Meanwhile the labels are under great pressure to dig up dollars wherever they can find them because their core CD business evaporates day by day. Universal Music recorded some $4.4 billion in revenue during the first nine months of this year, so $100 million in high-margin video revenue would be a meaningful contribution to the bottom line. But it may be harder to get in 2009 than it was this year.

I can’t show you most of YouTube’s most popular clips here–the site disables embeds for those. But here’s a less-viewed one I do like.