Launched four years ago, Voyeurweb is the brainchild of 42-year-old Igor Shoemaker, an entrepreneur who says he holds citizenship in four countries including the U.S. and Germany. (He won’t reveal the other two, “in case I need somewhere to run to.”) A former top marketing executive at one of the biggest software vendors in the world (again, he won’t say which), Igor quit his job after one too many reorganizations and took time off to pursue other interests. He surfed the Web and was struck by the way most Web sites treated content like a “one-way street.” “Why are you using the Web?” he’d rant. “Why don’t you just Fed Ex me the CD?” Convinced that content should be an interactive experience, he decided to ask “netizens to help me to build a site with their photos.”

Today Voyeurweb draws about 1 million unique visitors a day (1.3 million on a recent Monday). People send in about 200 “contris” a day. Two eight-person crews work 18 hours a day reviewing and processing submissions. Contributors include a “story” along with their photos, and five editors provide “commentary.” The photos vary in quality from the awkwardly posed to the artfully rendered. Content is organized into sections such as Voyeur Shots, Private Shots and Nude in Public. Shoemaker claims the company operates in the black. Most of the revenue comes from 400,000 subscribes who pay $20 a year for access to “RedClouds,” the site’s explicit photo section. Because of the risky nature of the business, Shoemaker says, the company operates out of five different offices in the U.S. and Europe.

By this point you’re thinking, “Aren’t we talking about just another adult site here?” But Voyeurweb is more than yet another porn emporium. It’s a compelling demonstration of one of the things the Web does best — providing a forum in which the users are also the producers. Voyeurweb shows what can be achieved if you combine a strong editorial voice with a popular format for user contributions and a regard for community.

Content is like strawberry jam, Sony of America Chairman Howard Stringer once observed. “The wider you spread it, the thinner it gets.” When the demand for content exceeds the productive capacity of professional writers and producers — as Stringer argues it has in the age of the Internet — quality heads south. Sample the offerings of even the most professionally produced online entertainment sites and you get the idea that the “jam” is spotty at best. Building community around such sites — an essential element for future financial viability — is like trying to grow roses in frozen tundra.

But some Internet sites are bucking Stringer’s sticky theorem by tapping a new and limitless source of free content: Ordinary Web users like you and me. Call it “user-generated content,” “consumer created content” (Jupiter Research’s term) or simply “interactive content,” the approach offers more than just a solution to the “content problem.” Guided by a distinctive editorial “voice,” user-generated content can also be a powerful method for building strong communities of virile viral marketers. An as on so many other fronts on the Net, the adult sites are leading the way.

The personality of its eccentric and restless founder is what sets Voyeurweb apart from the many thousands of world-weary adult sites out there. Igor likes to call breasts “funbagos” and refers to the female receptive position as “WFI” (Waiting For Igor). Apart from a phobia about white cotton panties, he is an effusive and supportive commentator. “Igor is Da Man!” “@I@n” recently noted on the site’s main message board. “Why would I submit my clips and captures to a copycat site and miss out on the chance of having Igor make his comments on them?”

Submitting “contris” to a site like Voyeurweb — or any Web site — requires a small act of courage. (Maybe a big act of courage.) People may be more willing to put their egos on the line if they feel there is a likable human being on the receiving end. “@I@n” adds: “How many Web sites have you visited and not known who the webmaster is?”

User-generated content on the Internet is nothing new. The early Web was largely built on the backs of user-generated content in the form of amateur Web sites of the “Uncle Art’s Fly Fishing Homepage” variety. What distinguishes sites like Voyeurweb from those amateur efforts — past and present — is the “Law of Large Numbers.”

Visit an amateur Web site on any subject at random and the content is likely to be mediocre at best. Even if you spend an entire day sampling similar sites — a stultifying prospect — you may get content from a few dozen persons at most. User-generated content sites, on the other hand, aggregate content from thousands of individuals. Out of all the flotsam and jetsam, gems are bound to emerge. In the case of Voyeurweb, some of the photos on its pages are as artfully erotic as any found on the Web. “We contribute because we like photography and we are very proud of our photos,” writes one contributor. “We work hard to try and get good results and [Voyeurweb] is a great place to share them.”

A non-adult humor site that has been taking advantage of the law of large numbers for years is Hecklers.com. The site’s David Letterman-style “Interactive Top Ten” features user contributions on subjects like “Top Ten Reasons ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’ was canceled.” (Reason No. 6 from nynyagene@hotmail.com: “Finally reached bra-shrinking threshold.”)

When thousands of contributors send in photos, opportunities abound for “found humor.” IloveBacon.com is a humor site that specializes in this type of twisted content. Mike W. sent in a photo of the tombstone for a couple named “DUMFART” (“Haunted by a bad name even after death”). Derek M. found a billboard for a car wash promising “the Best HAND-JOB in Town!”

Access to thousands of individual contributors doesn’t mean that the “garbage in, garbage out” rule is suspended. Many of Heckler’s Top Ten lists fall flat. No. 1 on the list of “Top Ten Things Israel and Palestine Can Agree On”: “It sure is hot out.” Hmmm. And some of the pictures on Voyeurweb look like rejects from a gynecological handbook. A visitor to any of these sites — adult or not — has to dig to find the good stuff.

Voyeurweb has attempted to proactively boost the quality of “contris” by implementing a numerically based user-rating system and paying $200 to first-place winners each month. A new feature, “Igor’s Photo Lessons,” offers straightforward advice on basic technique (“Focus focus focus”), posing (“Is less more?”) and content (“pictures can tell stories”). Still, it’s hard to say whether “Igor’s Photo Lessons” have helped anyone shoot more aesthetically pleasing “spread invitation” photos of his wife.

A mass appeal to contributors, just the same, can yield surprising results. “I started a special contest titled ‘Shaved in front of the cam.’ More than 2,000 ladies lost their pubic hair during that contest,” Igor recalls. “That was scary. Much more than I expected.”

And never mind if the quality or the level of creativity of the submissions is uneven. Another powerful argument for employing user-generated content is that it seeds community. Sharing content — even pictures of naked people — serves as a pretext for people of like minds to gather together and socialize. “We get feedback on our pictures,” writes Voyeurweb contributor nikki, and “requests for new pictures.” Interactions eventually steer toward other subjects, even topics like the upcoming election. “This place is like a big family,” writes another contributor.

User-generated content is not only an integral part of the history of the Internet, but it is increasingly a movement that draws power from widespread discontent with how content is packaged by the entertainment industry. “There’s a big reaction among consumers against packaged, slick and promoted content targeted at an audience,” Packet Video Networks president Rob Tercek observed in a Salon interview last December. Tercek, who has worked in every new medium from cable to the Internet to wireless, believes that user-generated content will become an issue for major media companies. Individuals may spend less time consuming professionally produced product “because they’re busy making and exchanging their own content.”

The breakthrough for the user-generated content approach may not come in entertainment but in news. I’ve heard more than one savvy content entrepreneur say there’s money to be made in developing a news program where ordinary citizens contribute the stories, photos and videos. Tercek sees the day when millions own video-enabled cell phones and everyone has the potential to be an “electronic news gatherer. Episodes like the Rodney King incident will be ubiquitous,” he says. “The eyes of the world will be everywhere all the time.”

Whether that’s a good thing or not isn’t exactly clear. But there seems to be little question that, in the age of the Net, the user — not the content — is king.

Parsons is the captivating subject of a new biography called “Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons,” published by quirky Feral House, which bills itself as the “publisher that refuses to be domesticated.” (The author is listed as John Carter, although Feral says Carter is the pseudonym of a writer who has withheld his name so as not to jeopardize his job.) It’s not the most artfully written book, but the story is so fascinating it transcends the author’s rather pedestrian style. And, unlike the many accounts of Parsons’ life you can find online, “Sex and Rockets” provides a fairly objective telling of the story that seems to have intrigued many an occultist writer.

The stuff of myth since his death in a mysterious laboratory explosion in 1952, the darkly handsome Parsons is sometimes referred to as the “James Dean” of American rocketry. His innovations in solid and liquid rocket fuel during the 1930s and ’40s responded to the challenges of the era: developing a fuel source that would burn long enough and with sufficient thrust to reach outer space. And his successes propelled rocketry forward; America’s space program owes much to Parsons’ rocket design and innovations — and in 1972 the International Astronomical Union honored him by naming Parson’s Crater on the dark side of the moon. After co-founding the JPL — which his admirers referred to as “Jack Parsons’ Laboratory” — Parsons started Aerojet Corp., now the world’s largest rocket producer and manufacturer of solid-fuel boosters for space shuttles.

But while his peers considered him one of the top rocket scientists, “Carter’s” biography suggests that Parsons’ contribution to American rocketry was overshadowed by the professionally questionable intrigues of Parsons’ life: He messed with the Enochian Tablets (a magical alphabet) and took part in bizarre rituals involving menstrual blood and masturbation. Not surprisingly, Carter implies in his plain but serviceable prose, Parsons’ professional reputation suffered — and yet, he was something of a failure as a worshipper of the occult. After joining a young L. Ron Hubbard in an exotic attempt to communicate with the whore of Babylon and being hand-picked to succeed Crowley as a leader of the quasi-Masonic organization, the Ordo Templi Orientis, Parsons never managed to engage his own group of followers.

Carter makes a laudable effort to assess Parsons and his contribution to the worlds of technology and Gnosticism as he addresses the question: Was Jack Parsons a New Age revolutionary and prophet or simply a Southern California crackpot?

Parsons, born in 1914, grew up on Orange Grove Avenue, known as Millionaire’s Row in Pasadena, Calif. His father deserted the family early on and Parsons had a lonely childhood, during which Carter says he nurtured an Oedipal attachment to his mother Ruth. He grew up abhorring all forms of authority and developed an early hatred of Christianity. He claimed that he invoked Satan at the age of 13, only to cower in fear when the big red guy appeared.

Carter rightly devotes much of the 229-page book to Parsons’ career as a rocket scientist. Parsons attended Pasadena City College in the early ’30s with his friend Ed Forman, although he never graduated. The two young men shared a fascination with rocketry and shared test results with American rocket pioneer Robert Goddard. Parsons and Forman soon joined the Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory of the California Institute of Technology. GALCIT, as it was known, was under the direction of Hungarian-born scientist and rocketry giant Theodore von Karman (1881-1963). Von Karman would later write that Parsons was one of the three most important figures in American rocketry.

Parsons, Forman and their GALCIT colleagues Frank Malina, Rudolph Schott and Arno Smith conducted a famous test firing on Halloween 1936 in the nearby Arroyo Seco Canyon that marked the birth of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. A photograph showing the men in a sandy pit preparing for the liquid fuel rocket test was used to construct a “nativity scene” — a reconstruction of the scene using figurines in the likeness of the scientists — for the JPL’s 50th anniversary.

Just a few years later Parsons was instrumental in developing jet-assisted take-off (JATO) rockets for military aircraft. In the early years of World War II, these rockets were used to reduce by more than 30 percent the distance required to get military aircraft off the ground. Parsons and other GALCIT team members used the JATO breakthrough and the ensuing military contracts to start AeroJet Corp. — where Parsons came to regularly invoke the spirit of Pan before test-firings. By the end of the war, Parsons sold his interest in AeroJet to General Tire.

Flush with funds, he immersed himself in the philosophy of his mentor, English occultist Crowley –the bald guy in the back row on the cover of The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart Club Band. The latter chapters of Carter’s book jump back and forth from the arcana of solid propellants and rocketry design to the esoterica of the Ordo Templi Orientis, the “quasi-Masonic” organization that Crowley headed, and the infamous 1946 ritual known as the “Babalon [sic] Working.”

Parsons’ partners in the metaphysical “Babalon” adventure were his ex-wife’s sister, Betty, and a pre-Dianetics Hubbard. Hubbard, later discharged from the Navy on medical grounds, assisted Parsons as a “scribe” during a “sex magick” ceremony in which the “whore of Babylon” was invoked to attract an “elemental” with whom Parsons could conceive a “moonchild” to usher in a new age.

Carter’s description is based on incomplete records, but it seems that the ceremony involved annointing objects with menstrual blood, invoking spells and incantations, and Parsons’ act of masturbating (using his “magic wand”). The “elemental” arrived soon after in the form of a woman named Marjorie Cameron, who would later become Parsons’ second wife and an underground figure in her own right.

Parsons and Cameron were unable to conceive a “moonchild” — or any children at all, and Parsons’ remaining years were a rapid descent into chaos and failure. Hubbard, who later founded the Church of Scientology, absconded to Miami with Betty and most of Parsons’ money, which they apparently used to buy a boat. Parsons pursued the pair only to find that Hubbard had already set sail.

Here Carter’s narrative slips into high comedy. Parsons returned to his hotel room and “consecrated a circle.” As he described it in a letter to Crowley: “Hubbard attempted to escape me by sailing at 5 p.m., and I performed a full invocation to Bartzabel [a form of Mars] within the Circle at 8 p.m. At the same time … his ship was struck by a sudden squall off the coast, which ripped off his sails and forced him back to port …”

Flat broke, tormented by what he saw as his failure as a magus, Parsons’ occult activities caught up with him in the late ’40s. He was investigated by the FBI and local authorities for establishing a “sex cult” and lost his government security clearance as a consequence. At one point the co-founder of JPL was reduced to working in a gas station. Eventually, he found work as a consultant on explosives projects.

On June 17, 1952, Parsons was preparing for a trip to Mexico when he was killed in a powerful explosion in his laboratory in Pasadena — also on Orange Grove Avenue, not far from where he grew up. He was known as being a very meticulous chemist and yet there were some very unstable chemicals found in a trash can at his lab. His fiery death is fuel for conspiracy theorists to this day, though the generally sympathetic Carter concludes the explosion was probably accidental.

Carter does report the unconfirmed rumor that investigators later discovered films of Parsons “exteriorizing” his Oedipal fixation — having sex with his mother. But no one has been able to resolve the question, as Parsons’ mother committed suicide within hours of hearing of her son’s death.

Carter leaves the gossipmongers to make what they will of Parsons’ life; his own conclusions are neatly summed up: “Historians of rocketry and the space program seem to have underestimated [Parsons'] contributions to the field [of rocketry],” Carter writes, “while writers on the occult have romanticized him as some sort of great sorcerer.” Carter has spent a good half of the book detailing Parsons’ pioneering years as a rocket scientist and seems to be intent on bringing some balance to Parsons’ sometimes overlooked contributions to American rocketry. So it is not surprising to read his assessment of Parsons’ occult practices: “As a magician,” Carter writes, Parsons “was essentially a failure.”

Regardless of where your sympathies lie, however, the book — thanks to its fantastically esoteric protagonist — is a success.

PacketVideo was formed last year by James Carol and James Brailean with investments from Siemens and Intel. The plan is to market technologies that allow content providers to stream video and other rich media to cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs) and other wireless mobile devices. The San Diego startup, which holds six video-compression patents, recently collaborated with Sony to deliver movie trailers to cell phones at 14.4 kbps wireless network speeds.

Tercek’s move to PacketVideo is in keeping with a career that has evolved with the technology. He has toiled in a succession of emerging digital platforms in the ’90s. He began the decade in cable as director of on-air promotions for MTV, then rode the CD-ROM wave as a founder of a company called 7th Level. (“Monty Python’s Complete Waste of Time” was a hit title.) By the mid-’90s, Tercek had migrated to the Web, creating the webisodic “Candidate 96″ for TCI and later guiding the development of online games as vice president of online programming at Columbia Tri-Star Interactive.

Elevated to senior vice president for Digital Media last year, the peripatetic and perpetually jetlagged Tercek has logged tens of thousands of miles keeping up with ITV developments in Europe and Asia. Tercek assumed the daunting task of setting up Sony’s interactive TV production unit and formulating the studio’s broadband strategy. He introduced ITV versions of “Wheel of Fortune” and “Jeopardy” for WebTV this September.

Tall, angular and cerebral, Tercek has a reputation as a provocateur at industry forums. In a now infamous sting before an industry crowd last September, he told Digital Entertainment Network CEO David Neuman that his company’s business model was the equivalent of “burning hundred dollar bills on the corner of Fairfax and Sunset.”

With the move to PacketVideo, Tercek enters the undefined world of wireless content delivery. “Mobility,” he says, employing his favorite epithet, will be “huge.”

Why are you leaving your studio job to get into the wireless video business?

Choice and convenience have been a part of all the programming I’ve worked on. In my career I went from cable to satellite to the Internet, and more recently broadband and interactive television. Network television gave you three choices — CBS, NBC and ABC. For a price, cable gave you more choice. For more complicated pricing, satellite gave you even more choice. With the Internet, you don’t just get unlimited choice but convenience. Wireless will give you not just the choices of the Internet — and eventually cable and satellite — but the ability to decide when, where and how to consume all this content. To me, this is what this progression of platforms has been leading up to.

Your cell phone will become a player for all sorts of streaming media. A cell phone should be an MP3 player, a radio, a PC. It’ll be a super-flexible device that can do everything. The telephony sphere is growing geometrically. The population of cell phones to PCs is about even now, but the growth curve for cell phones is much faster.

I don’t want to sound hopelessly optimistic. I look at this as taking a couple years to roll out, not a couple months.

What are the obstacles to rolling all this out?

Wireless networks have to be upgraded. That gets solved over time. The upgrades are underway in Europe and Japan already, and that’s going to put pressure on the U.S. to upgrade their networks as well. The U.S. is the big beneficiary here. Because our cellular infrastructure is not as advanced as in some other countries, we’ll get the stuff that has been tested and proven in other markets.

Another obstacle is convincing content providers that there is a future in wireless multimedia. The challenge is getting those providers to sign up with us before there are huge numbers of subscribers for those services.

What are the attributes of the cell phone as a content medium?

The key attribute of mobile wireless is that you can take it with you. It’s that old Marshall McLuhan saw — the medium is the message. How we communicate affects what we communicate. When video becomes mobile, it’s going to be a lot more active, highly under the control of users and purposeful. It’s going to be the opposite of the sitting-in-the-living-room experience. If you’re going to program for people with the mobile mindset, you’ve got to think interactive.

What kind of applications do you see in the next couple years? Will people be watching movies and TV shows on their cell phones and PDAs?

That may not be the first thing we do. The story of the Web has been utility and convenience. There’s nothing more convenient than a mobile phone. What are the kinds of video that would help when you are on the go? Imagine a device that is smart enough to know when you are in a new city, so it gives you a video city tour to orient you to the place.

Another example: I’m at the San Jose airport where my flight is delayed. What am I missing on television tonight? I click “What’s on TV tonight” on my wireless PDA and start getting promos for the evening lineup of TV shows. Let’s say there’s an episode of “Dawson’s Creek” I really want to record. I click the TiVo button at the bottom of the screen. It sends a message back through the network to my TiVo box at home and instructs it to record that episode. That’s a huge application.

Let’s say you’re driving around town with some friends. One says, “Let’s see a movie. What’s on?” You click on “movies” and a full color movie trailer pops up for a film like “The Cider House Rules.” You click on “Show me a theater.” Because it’s wireless, we kind of know where you are by triangulating between towers. We can give you the local theaters and even a map that shows you where the theaters are located — and a button that allows you to purchase a ticket.

It’s bundles of tightly integrated services like that that could be incredibly useful to people. That’s the way life should be.

What is the “secret sauce” in PacketVideo’s core technology?

The whole trick to PacketVideo’s technology is that it’s scalable mpeg 4. It happens to be optimized for delivery over wireless networks, but you could deliver it over terrestrial networks as well. What “scalable mpeg 4″ means is you’re encoding once. That’s very different from the way video is encoded today, where you have to code separately for 14.4, 28.8 and on up to super broadband speeds. When consumers go to a video site today they have to click on their connection speed. It’s kind of crazy to expect people to know what their connection speed is. PacketVideo removes the need to do that.

Why should the cell phone be an all-purpose device? Are people really going to be able to use all that functionality on the run?

Data storage is an issue for PDAs today. Even with miniaturization, storage takes up space. People worry about losing their PDAs and the data they contain. Well, the right thing to do is leave all that data on a server. You don’t need to carry the data, just access to the data.

Blue Tooth is a wireless protocol for devices to talk to each other in a localized area without plugs. Imagine I’m coming to your office to do a Power Point presentation. I don’t bring my computer. Instead I bring a Blue Tooth-enabled cell phone. Let’s say I need to make a change in the presentation. My Blue Tooth-enabled phone talks to the Blue Tooth-enabled keyboard in your office and brings up my presentation on your Blue Tooth-enabled monitor. I can use that keyboard to make changes, which are keyed to my phone and delivered to the server where the data is stored. That means you have all the functionality of a computer without having to carry all that crap around. What you’re going to have is a world where you don’t need to have a personal computer anymore.

You’ve worked in Hollywood for years. Has the entertainment industry really come to terms with the Internet?

The Internet disrupts a lot of old businesses. It doesn’t do away with them, but it changes them. MP3 has changed the way the recording industry works. Amazon has changed the way books are bought and sold. A lot of people in the TV business think they’re immune to that trend. Not only is it crazy to think you are immune, but to survive you’ve got to embrace the inevitability that the Internet will overwhelm the TV business.

What the Web does is call into question the need for programming for mass audiences. It’s going to put that notion, which has been the bedrock assumption of TV for the last 50 years, under question.

There’s a big reaction among consumers against packaged, slick and promoted content targeted at an audience. People have an instinctive reaction against that stuff now. They are looking for something raw, unadorned, original and not as slickly produced.

What the Web is really great at is self-expression and connecting like-minded people. So the issue for media companies is that a multitude of individuals are springing up who don’t necessarily need to consume those old products because they’re busy making and exchanging their own content.

You talk a lot about turning the cell phone into a “video walkie-talkie.” But that sounds a lot like the picture phone. People have been talking about picture phones for over 35 years but the idea has never caught on with the public.

There are all kinds of reasons why a picture phone doesn’t make sense. Like video conferencing — you have to go over to a part of your house that is set up for it. There’s nothing convenient about that. What we’re talking about here is a mobile device with a video option.

According to Bloomberg News, there may be a billion cell phones on the planet by 2003. What would be the implications if everyone had a “video walkie-talkie”?

If everyone gets a video walkie-talkie, then everyone will be a potential electronic news gatherer. Episodes like the Rodney King incident will be ubiquitous. The eyes of the world will be everywhere all the time. We didn’t have a good picture of what was happening in East Timor recently because there wasn’t a good way for people to get the images out.

It sounds like there may be geopolitical implications if this kind of technology actually catches on.

There’s an old phrase — out of sight, out of mind. There’s no question that improving communications has a geopolitical impact. This is a deeply empowering technology for people. Instead of getting the processed, programmed point of view, you’ll be able to upload your own point of view.

Getting back to Hollywood, what other ways will digital networked technology change the entertainment industry?

TV content is dumb — not as content, but as data. It’s not self-aware, interactive, indexed, searchable or dynamic. Once a program is on tape it becomes fixed media, like shrink-wrapped games for computers. The problem with products like that in a networked economy is that they become commoditized. Video libraries are destined for commodization. What every program provider needs to work on is how to add layers of service, content and information on top of that fixed linear programming.

Let’s imagine a world where sports programming is encoded live and indexed for all key plays. One index may be how loud the audience cheers. Let’s say that PacketVideo has a deal with a video provider to deliver sports highlights to mobile wireless customers. Imagine a busy traveling businessman who loves sports and signs up for this program. He doesn’t have a lot of free time and he’s stuck at the airport. He wants sports video but only wants to see the big plays. He says “Sports. Football highlights” into his cell phone — I’m convinced we’ll have speech to text recognition on these things. The command goes back through the server and scans all the indexed sports footage for the past weekend and brings up the big plays. That service is one way to take linear video content, repackage it and make it valuable enough for someone to pay a subscription for it.

What is the ultimate wireless vision?

Imagine a world where processors are embedded in everything, wireless bandwidth is abundant and flat and flexible screens are available. That will be a world where video images are as ubiquitous as paper is today. Everywhere you see a poster, sign or ad, imagine a video screen in its place. It will be a world aglow in constant activity and fabulous images, communicating relevant information. Take a billboard on a bus. As a bus moves through different parts of town, the ads will change depending on the time of day, the part of town and traffic conditions. During rush hour that ad space will be more valuable to advertisers than at other times.

Aren’t people already suffering from information and sensory overload?

We haven’t seen anything yet. The fun thing about traveling overseas is coming home and realizing how saturated we are with media in the U.S. You begin to think you’ve reached your limit and can’t absorb another video image. Well, you can always absorb another video image. We’re going to be awash in a rich media stew.

Last July, Burgess’ company launched Shockwave.com, a Web entertainment hub featuring animated games and cartoons like Comedy Central’s “South Park,” Showtime’s “WhirlGirl,” and — in an exclusive deal signed last week — Spiderman creator Stan Lee’s Seventh Portal. Shockwave.com has quickly become one of the most popular game and animation sites around; it averages 2.1 million page views per day and registered over 5 million visitors in its first three months.

Burgess took on the CEO role at Macromedia in late 1996, after a stint as a senior executive at Silicon Graphics. He quickly laid off 10 percent of the workforce, revamped Macromedia Director for the Web, and introduced new Web products like Flash, a vector-graphics based tool that delivers high quality animation over slow Web connections. Flash and the company’s popular Shockwave plug-in are key to the current explosion in online entertainment of which Shockwave.com is a part.

Burgess races through long work days as if he were born with an extra set of adrenal glands. A star track and field athlete (he ran a 5-minute, 30-second mile at age 11) and life-long hockey fanatic, he wooed his wife by offering to take her to the Galapagos islands — on their second date. He once stole the show at Silicon Graphics’ annual lip-sync contest by dressing like Annie Lennox in black leather pants, red bra and a spikey blonde wig — belting out “Would I Lie To You” to much applause. Shockwave.com’s interim CEO, Burgess may have a bit of Hollywood in his blood after all.

Hollywood and Silicon Valley have had a terrible track record for working together, suffering one “convergence collision” after another. Why?

Silicon Valley and Hollywood are totally different in the ways that their businesses are structured, deals put together, language, values — everything. In Silicon Valley, the venture capitalists are creating this new economy. Down in Hollywood, it’s the lawyers and the [talent] managers. In Silicon Valley, the talent is the engineers, while in Hollywood it’s the actors. In the valley, if you have an idea for a business, you put a business plan together. In Hollywood, you put together scripts, actors and combinations of people for a show, then see how much you can sell the package for. I think that’s the reason why there are so few deals between Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Both sides come together, and each side knows they are making sense in their respective worlds. But they aren’t making sense to each other.

Brad Grey of [the Hollywood management/production company] Brillstein/Grey said something very interesting to me recently. We were talking about the huge differences in culture and language between Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Toward the end of the meeting he looked at me with a big smile on his face and in good humor said, “You know Rob, you can’t imagine the rage among the members of the Hollywood community.” “Why?” I asked. “Because,” he said, “we [in Hollywood] are used to being the overpaid guys. Now you Silicon Valley types are the ones who are ridiculously overpaid.”

We are in the midst of the Web’s second great flirtation with entertainment. The first involved industry players like AOL and Microsoft, who were unable to aggregate large enough audiences or make enough money to make their Web entertainment efforts worthwhile for them. Why has entertainment been such a tough business on the Web? What’s different this time?

The Internet has not had the kind of playback capabilities needed to create a rich entertainment experience. Everybody wants music, but nobody wants shitty sounding music. Everyone wants to see cartoons or games, but nobody wants to wait a week to get them. Nobody wants video that looks like a cheesy little security video. What’s different now is that new technologies like Flash and MP3 can deliver a broadband experience over today’s Web. The fidelity of a Flash cartoon now rivals cartoons you might see on television. Add the fact that — according to NPD, the parent company of Media Metrix — there are now 190 million Flash players and 100 million Shockwave players out there.

So now we’ve got the reach in terms of audience. The technology allows artists to express themselves effectively. Now we’re galvanizing the writing — getting the best storytellers of our day to focus on this new medium. We’ve just done a huge deal with StanLee Media. Seventh Portal and a bunch of other Stan Lee series are going to be coming out exclusively on Shockwave.com. We’ve made an investment in StanLee Media as well. There’ll be a lot more deals like that happening.

The main selling point for Flash is that it allows you to download richer animation through slow Internet connections. But isn’t Flash just an interim technology? What happens to Flash when broadband is more ubiquitous?

Oh, Flash can use as much bandwidth as becomes available. What we can do today with current slow connections is more simple animation — the kind of stuff you see on Saturday morning cartoons on television. But we can’t do “The Lion King.” That requires so much more fidelity and bandwidth. I often say there are just two uses of broadband: Transferring big files and multimedia. So with greater bandwidth the programming will get richer and richer.

What is Macromedia’s broadband strategy? What kind of tools will we need in a broadband environment?

We’re always looking two or three years out, speculating about what kinds of connections people will have, and building tools in anticipation of that. There’ll be much more video, much better audio, and you won’t have to be so concerned about the initial download time. When you watch Ted Koppel, you don’t want to download ABC. There’ll be passive delivery techniques so that you won’t be so burdened by the weight of a piece of software. It’ll all happen silently, so you’ll only be concerned about the programming instead of doing back flips to see it.

Last month Steven Spielberg’s DreamWorks, Ron Howard’s Imagine Media and Paul Allen’s Vulcan Ventures announced formation of Pop.com, a Web entertainment company that will offer short films, animation, games and other interactive fare. What are the implications for the online entertainment space — and Shockwave.com?

I was down in L.A. when Pop.com happened. Everybody is looking for a dance partner. I think there’s going to be a whole bunch of companies like Pop.com. Anyone who is doing animation and games will be using our products — Shockwave and Flash. It’s been building and building. Pop.com was one of those announcements where people say, “Jesus, online entertainment is not going to happen — it is happening!”

What will be the role of the Hollywood studios in the online entertainment space? Are they your main competitors?

The studios are masters at figuring out how to entertain people. It’ll be “co-opetition” with those folks. I see a lot of things we’re doing technologically as being of a lot of value to the studios. They’re going to want to harness some of the technology we’re building. There are lots of opportunities for both collaboration and lots of places where we’ll be competing — for the artists and the audiences.

It used to be that the networks and studios were the only companies with the capital and the eyeballs. That’s not true anymore. What we’re creating here at Shockwave.com is the United Artists of the Web. We provide artists with eyeballs, capital, promotion and an e-commerce infrastructure. We have a business model that allows them to keep creative control and have long term financial participation in their creations.

Why did you set up Shockwave.com as a separate company apart from Macromedia?

Macromedia and Shockwave.com are completely different businesses that have different cultures and customers, and require staffs with different skill sets. A software company like Macromedia sells software to developers, while an entertainment company like Shockwave.com tries to entertain consumers. The two are also at different stages in their respective development. Macromedia is a functioning, public company that is on a steep growth curve and spitting out lots of profits. Shockwave.com is an Internet entertainment startup, so we anticipate several quarters of losses as we invest for the future. Macromedia’s operating income last quarter was 19 percent, but if you separate the two businesses, operating income for Macromedia rises to 27 percent. Separating the businesses makes the performance of each company clearer. Macromedia is even more profitable than people think, and the split gives more visibility to Shockwave.com’s business model, which is more like that of MP3.com.

Spinning off Internet businesses seems to be a popular strategy these days. We’ve heard about the advantages — Internet-style valuations, using equity to attract and keep talent. What are the pitfalls?

It’s very difficult for companies to actually spin off their Web sites if those Web sites are fundamentally in the same business as the parent company. If you look at a brick-and-mortar company that sells toys and the Web business that is spinning off also sells toys, it’s really hard. There are channel conflicts and both businesses are chasing after the same customers. With media companies you’ve got cannibalization issues, cultural issues — a lot of issues. Hats off to them for trying, but it’s a much more difficult corporate re-engineering.

In our case, the spin-off is easy and natural. Macromedia sells software. Our objective was to populate all the browsers with Shockwave and Flash content so we could sell more software. Those products just happened to really take off. Shockwave.com became an outstanding business opportunity that could not be overlooked. We’re an accidental entertainment company.

Macromedia’s Director still commands market share as a Web animation suite. But Director was originally designed for CD-ROM and video games, not for the Web. Some believe that Director may be vulnerable to a competitor coming in with a better product and that Macromedia needs to come up with a new high-end multi-media studio for the Web. What do you say to that?

While Director wasn’t originally designed for the Web, it has been substantially updated. Usually when you ship a new version of software, sales are large in the first and second quarters. By the third quarter a lot of people have the product and sales start to drop off. The third quarter for the current version of Director, on the other hand, has been the biggest quarter in the whole cycle. Director has been the market leader for many years. The barriers to entry for a competitor are very high. There are 100 million copies of Shockwave running out there on Windows, Apple, I/E, Netscape, all these different environments — and getting them all to run is no small feat. Our developer community is now over a million strong. There may be some product that comes along to compete with Director, but there are none now.

Have you ever visited Tom Winkler’s scatological Flash animated cult site, Doodie.com?

I haven’t really … [turns to his PC and types in the URL] … At a Macromedia/Shockwave.com all-hands meeting recently one of the engineers asked where we would draw the line on content. I asked people to put up their hands if they had seen the “South Park” movie. Almost every hand went up. “We’re not going to do porno,” I said, “and we’re not going to do gambling. But we are probably going to do filthy humor.” The place erupted into applause. [A Flash cartoon called "Shit n' Spin" downloads on Burgess' screen. A defecating naked man wearing ice skates spins like a top, poop flying in all directions.] Holy Mackerel! … Well, you know, people love Joe Cartoon’s “Frog In A Blender”!

During his six years in Redmond, Carpenter was a key figure in Microsoft’s effort to develop Internet tools. His job was to get the moribund interactive television group “technically geared to the Internet delivery space.”

He also served as an unofficial liaison between the “tech-speak and creative people” at the Microsoft Network, and worked his Hollywood connections to recruit TV producer Joel Silver, Warner Bros. and Paramount as partners for the Internet Explorer 4.0 Channel Bar. Last year he created and led the Windows Media Player marketing group in its drive to dominate the field of streaming media.

Carpenter’s new employer, DEN, in Santa Monica, Calif., aims to create a major entertainment brand for 14- to 24-year-olds. DEN presents niche-specific streaming video shows like “Redemption High” (Christian teens), “Tales From the Eastside” (young Latinos) and “Aggronation” (extreme sports fans).

The company filed papers on Sept. 17 for a $75 million IPO and announced plans to use $17 million of the proceeds to build a new online music business, in which Carpenter will play a key role. Carpenter, a big disco fan, has musical tastes that run to ’70s mainstays like Heart and Foreigner. “My 8-track still works fine,” he says.

You’ve spent years working in the “tool” business. What compelled you to leap over the fence and go work for a content company?

I’ve been told my personality is more in tune with [the personalities you find in] the interactive entertainment space. Part of the reason for that was the friends I had in L.A. in the mid-’80s, “nobody comics” like Robin Williams, Jim Carrey and Pauly Shore. (They’ve since percolated upward.)

Also, Microsoft was a smaller company six years ago than it is today. The vibe has changed. I was comfortable and challenged, but I missed the start-up mentality — the drive to do something new.

Obviously, you felt confident enough about the Web’s potential as an entertainment medium to join an online entertainment start-up. You must know that skeptics abound, and many don’t have a high opinion of the entertainment stuff they’ve seen so far on the Web.

With the introduction of any new medium there is a transition period where people aren’t sure what to do with it. The classic example is the transition from the stage to movies. Early film makers shot movies on a stage with curtains in the frame, just as if it were a play. Eventually, people figured out that movies didn’t need stages anymore. I think the Internet is following the same path.

Just as with early films, programming folks are treating the Web as if it were a television set. There are tons of things that can be done in Web-based entertainment that aren’t really possible in niche media like film, TV or print. At DEN we are creating an integrated, immersive experience that crosses text, graphics, interactivity and video in a unique way. I see rapid growth in the medium and associated technologies that is going to make Web-based entertainment much more engaging over time.

Your last position at Microsoft was director of marketing for Windows Media technology. How does it feel now to be working for a company that is, on the face of it, technology agnostic — and worse, where Apple’s QuickTime is the preferred player among visitors? Any pangs to push Microsoft technology?

No. My R&D group developed the first Linux QuickTime streaming server. It’s more about trying to meet the needs of the audience and what they have. QuickTime is marginally more popular, but I wouldn’t say it’s rockin’ above the Real Player or Windows Media.

Which player gives the best quality experience?

At lower data rates the Real player is in last place and QuickTime and Windows Media are similar on quality. At full frame rates and high data rates there isn’t anything better than Windows Media. At one of the meetings I had at Microsoft we demo’d a 300k stream at full screen. Bill Gates looks at it and goes … “Wow.” The impression in the past was that you couldn’t get that kind of experience until you got to 700k or beyond the low-end DSL modems. The reality is that we’re getting pretty darn close. In two years, you’ll be able to get a TV quality experience with a 300k stream.

Some have accused DEN of not having a well-articulated broadband strategy.

That is an extremely false impression. We have an extremely good broadband story. Because of the way we do the physical production, low-bandwidth 56K connections actually look better on our site than on some other re-purposed video sites. All our producers have to adhere to a style sheet, a set of production guidelines involving colors, patterns, motion-in-and-out of camera, right-left as opposed to left-right motion — all kinds of things that make a big difference in terms of compression at lower data rates. When you scale that up to 300K you have that much more headroom for broadband interactivity, alternate video streams and all the other things that make for a rich experience. Our broadband experience is better because of all the hard work we’ve put in at the low end.

DEN is building an online music business called “>en.” Is the fear that MP3 will cannibalize CD sales justified?

I don’t have an MP3 player in my car — nor do the bulk of the cars on the planet. Until there is a ubiquitous medium for transferring music from place to place, you’re still going to derive tons of CD sales off the promotional angles of the music you distribute on the Web.

There are still many companies that are afraid to put music up for general download because they’re afraid of losing control. DEN’s philosophy is just the opposite. There are promotional songs that we’ll put up that have no protection. People will just take them. We want to encourage that. The more people who sniff up that stuff, the better, since we’re targeting breaking bands and distribution is the key. If we started with bands like the Beastie Boys that already have an established audience, then it would be a different dynamic.

What is DEN’s new music business going to look like?

When you come to our site, you won’t find a music button that you click and get the MP3 music experience. There are plenty of opportunities to highlight music across the DEN network, especially for our 14-to-24 target audience, since music is a key part of their culture. We may use a song in a show, or feature members of the band as performers. You might see a Limp Bizkit doing a “Rated DG” episode. There will be listening areas where you can get the stand-alone music experience, or buy the CD. The whole DEN music promotional package will be woven throughout the network.

What is the Holy Grail for the online music business?

The “juke box in the sky,” as my friend Sam Anderson at Microsoft used to refer to it. There’s enough spectrum floating around that if you had a box with a very simple interface, really only a playlist, you could say you want to play such-and-such a song, punch in a code and pull it out of the air — at any point, any time.

Several developments are coming that will allow that kind of capability. Two companies in the past year have done deals for distributing music via satellite. Also, with digital television coming on strong, there’s going to be the ability to transmit a lot more data. You may be sitting at your PC and (assuming it’s affixed to a DTV-receiving antenna) get everything that Led Zeppelin has ever done in a single transmission.

Jim Banister of Warner Bros. Online is an advocate of WebDVD hybrids, what he calls “broadband in your hand.” WebDVD is a strategy where you put most of the fat video elements on a DVD and ship it to the consumer, who uses the disk to have a seamless MPEG 2 experience integrated into their Web activities. Are you considering this approach?

No question, the WebDVD experience is awesome. The issue is that WebDVD is a two-step process. The downside is the extra step involved — content acquisition. A consumer either has to go out and get it, or you have to carpet-bomb them with DVDs. I’m not discounting the strategy. We may decide in the future to pre-populate PC’s with our video content, so that it comes with your lovely Dell box.

Some people believe that online entertainment won’t be compelling until we have full screen, full motion video delivered over the Web.

We don’t believe that a complete full-screen video experience is the way to go on the Web. A quarter-screen video with a bunch of nice, interactive stuff offers a different experience. The interactive elements are really key ones for the audience we are after. This 14-to-24 aged audience is the first group of people that have had access to computers their whole lives. They’re mouse freaks — they click on everything. When you put little unmarked bugs on the site, these people find them. If you want a full-screen video experience, go to your television or rent a DVD — don’t sit at your computer.

What is your greatest fear?

Success. If you are successful in a business that relies on streaming media, your success breeds infrastructure problems. The producers of the Victoria’s Secret Webcast claim that millions of people saw the show. What most of those millions saw was video-on-demand, not a live webcast. If someone were to draw 100,000 users simultaneously streaming the same Webcast …

It would bring down the network?

Right. Until multicasting gets enabled across the Internet, there will be bandwidth and scaling issues.

How long will that take?

Five years. Router configuration is the biggest hurdle. We’re working on an old network: The more people that get connected to the network, the more routers. Every router that the content flows through has to be multicast-enabled — and not all routers are configured that way. Some networks, like UUNET, have large multicast-enabled pieces, but the general Internet that comes into people’s homes has big chunks that need to be fixed. The sheer volume of routers on the planet means that it will take a long time.

What interim kinds of changes in network architecture are being taken to increase network capacity?

If a consumer in Miami has to go 17 hops across the Internet to get to a data source in San Jose, you can’t stream to him at a very high data rate because the network doesn’t support it. The key is putting your content out on the edge of the network, so that somebody in Miami has only one hop to get to their content. The buzz word in network technology over the next year will be “distributed architecture” — getting your content out to the edge.

What is the one thing that consumers would be most shocked to learn about in this world of streaming media?

Most people don’t have any idea the number of computers it takes to serve streaming video to an audience. You can maybe get 600 to 800 streams off a box at low data rates. Compare that to sites that get 40 million page views per month. It takes 15 to 18 servers just to service those little webcam-based sites like the Jennicam. I think a lot of people think streaming video works just like television: You just put one server up and people go get it.