Innovation is everywhere
An editorial comment.
We've read for years about the dire state of innovation. That content owners who lock up rights will ruin the ability to create new, innovative works in the future.
The mash-up seems to be counter to that trend. Mash-ups are now so common that
even lawyers are doing them. If laywers are engaging, can it really be that controversial and tough to do?
Now some will argue that this is an isolated case; that the mash-up original content owners are enlightened and enable this behavior; that this is not truly innovative (just building on others' content); or that this is just in applications, not in the creative content that they want.
Some of these may be true. But there is progress. I personally believe folks have become overly reliant on law. Business models and customer contact must also play a role. Models which recognize the customer as an innovative participant; the importance of the relationship; and customization may lead us out of "I'll sue if you don't. . . " world.
Digital or physical? Lease or buy?
In reading about the new debates regarding
digital and physical DVD pricing, which is the same debate over music, I think back to cars. When the car lease was introduced, how did car rental and car sales businesses react? Were there lawsuits? Concerns over undercutting? I get the sense now that this debate is largely settled in the car world. Granted, at least all of the product was the same in these instances -- all physical. But in some ways it is similar, as digital downloads tend to mean (at least today) temporary access.
Target has complained that they do not want to be priced out of the market. But there have been price differences between permanent and temporary rights. Prehaps we just need to make sure that what is "permanent" is truly permanent, and has advantages? That is what the CD market has attempted to do. (My problem, in the CD world, is the "added benefits" aren't that "special" to me. But I do like the security of owning the CD. . .but I'm not as young as many music buyers these days.)
If I knew the solution I'd probably be doing something else. But perhaps we need to examine other market shifts rather than focusing on how everything now is new again. . .
Sell your rights for $1 million
Netflix is experimenting with open innovation. They have made available a set of their own data & system, and invite you (as long as "you" are unencumbered by pesky relationships with companies and educational institutions) to beat their recommendation system. If you beat it by 10% or more, you are rewarded by having the ability to grant to Netflix a royalty-free pereptual license, with a warranty of "use" and non-infringement. Oh, and you get $1 million.
If folks go for it, I think this is a great deal for Netflix. Recommendation and personalization are hot, and will continue to be hot as we have more and more people wanting to customize everything on the internet. The warranty of non-infringement is huge. The "eligibility of qualifying algorithms" section is important. Read it.
Netflix's language: "An eligible algorithm must be originally developed or implemented (e.g., must not violate or infringe on any applicable law or regulation or third-party rights); must be written in English; and must not require any third-party software or licenses, payment on the part of Netflix, or otherwise prevent Netflix from exercising the rights granted hereunder."
So, still an interesting idea. Still a great opportunity to see new data sets and try things out. And it could be good for the winning team, too -- you'd get $1 million, and the credibility that Netflix liked your system. But as with all prizes, watch for the hooks.
