If you had the chance to watch a movie on cable or satellite TV before it came out on DVD, what sort of trade-offs would you be willing to make? Would you pay more to watch it than a DVD rental or even a movie ticket? Would you accept having to watch the movie in one sitting, with no breaks for phone calls or snacks? Would you lose interest if you couldn’t record the movie to watch again later?
These are the sorts of questions the market typically answers, but that’s not how it necessarily works in the entertainment industry. This week, seven consumer advocacy groups urged the FCC not to let the studios conduct the experiment they proposed in early video-on-demand releases. The reason: the MPAA wants to deploy an anti-piracy technique that, in the advocacy groups’ opinion, would give the studios too much control over the technology used in homes.
The chemist and the institute came together through InnoCentive, a company that links organizations (seekers) with problems (challenges) to people all over the world (solvers) who win cash prizes for resolving them. The company gets a posting fee and, if the problem is solved, a “finders fee” equal to about 40 percent of the prize.
The process, according to John Seely Brown, a theorist of information technology and former director of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, reflects “a huge shift in popular culture, from consuming to participating” enabled by the interactivity so characteristic of the Internet. It is sometimes called open-source science, taking the name from open-source software in which the source code, or original programming, is made public to encourage others to work on improving it.
The approach is catching on. Today, would-be innovators can sign up online to compete for prizes for feats as diverse as landing on the Moon (space.xprize.org/lunar-lander-challenge) and inventing artificial meat (www.peta.org/feat_in_vitro_contest.asp).