Digital Media

YouTube, which is already trying out the movie rental business, wants to get into TV, too.

Google's video site has been trying to convince the TV industry to let it stream individual shows for a fee, multiple sources tell me.

YouTube already lets users watch a smattering of TV shows for free, with advertising. Now it envisions something similar to what Apple and Amazon already offer: First-run shows, without commercials, for $1.99 an episode, available the day after they air on broadcast or cable.

Sources say the site's negotiations with the networks and studios that own the shows are preliminary. But both sides seem optimistic, since models for such deals already exist. No comment from YouTube.

The biggest stumbling block may be consumers. That's because Google is talking about streaming the shows, instead of letting consumers download them to their computers, as both Apple and Amazon do. But the networks and studios, who control pricing, will want to sell the streamed shows at the same price as downloads--they fear that offering them at a different price will force them to go back and rework their existing deals.

Executives at YouTube and TV insist that the disparity is simply a perception problem, and cite studies that show that most people who download TV episodes only watch them once, anyway. But that's a tough sell.

It's also possible that YouTube may skirt the issue by launching a TV rental business without the big hits that Apple and Amazon offer. One possibility: It could start by moving immediately to long and mid-"tail" shows and videos that aren't available other places, and don't have to match existing prices.

No matter how it does it, YouTube is likely to be just one of several outlets trying to get consumers to pay for TV on the Web in 2010.

Among others: In addition to its a la carte offering, Apple is trying to create a monthly subscription service. Hulu, the free TV site co-owned by News Corp.'s Fox, GE's NBC Universal and Disney's ABC, is expected to launch a subscription service of its own. And cable operators like Comcast will be launching different versions of "TV Everywhere" services, which give subscribers expanded access to online shows.

TV executives are generally enthusiastic about all of the above, since they are meant to create additional revenue streams without threatening the industry's existing business. That is: They're supposed to protect it from the digital disruption that has ravaged music, newspapers, etc.

But while Web users have an insatiable appetite for video, they've yet to demonstrate much interest in paying for it. If any of this is going to work, that will have to change.

Story Copyright (c) 2009 AllThingsD. All rights reserved.

ComScore on Wednesday released October viewing statistics for online video. And although there weren't any surprises at the top, the figures did provide some interesting insight into how users are consuming video on the Web.

According to the research firm, more than 167 million U.S.-based Web users watched video online during October. All told, they watched 28 billion videos. Google easily led the pack, servicing a whopping 38 percent of all videos Americans viewed online, with 99 percent of those videos watched on YouTube.

In a distant second, Hulu delivered 856 million videos, accounting for 3.1 percent of the market and setting a new record for monthly views. Microsoft came in third, with 451 million videos viewed on its site, capturing 1.6 percent market share.

ComScore also took a look at the total number of viewers that consumed video content during October. The research firm found that the average viewer watched 167 videos during the month. Google sites attracted 126 million unique viewers. Fox Interactive Media followed Google, with 53 million unique viewers. Yahoo sites attracted 50 million viewers. Although Hulu didn't make the top three in unique viewers, the average user watched 20.1 videos on the site during October, representing another all-time high for the site.

Some interesting tidbits rounded out ComScore's report. According to the company, 84.4 percent of all United States.-based Web users viewed online video. The average viewer watched 10.8 hours of video in October, which is especially shocking, considering that the average online video was just 3.9 minutes long.

For the last year or so, it's become clear that the economics of ad-supported streaming music services are not good for their creators or investors. As CNET's Greg Sandoval reported last week, the acquisition of streaming service Imeem by MySpace Music for pennies on the dollar is the latest bad news for the sector, following the bankruptcies of SpiralFrog and Ruckus and the similar fire sale of iLike to MySpace.

Offering your music via Spotify might help you fill up your piggybank.

Who's left? In the U.S., we've still got LaLa, which has the blessing of the major labels and seems to be enjoying dramatically increased traffic (as measured by Alexa) thanks to its recent deal with Google, and Grooveshark, which has kept a low profile. Neither of these services is purely ad-supported--particularly LaLa, which hopes to charge customers for downloads and "permanent" streams once they surpass a quota of 50 free streams a month.

But the service most often cited as the future of online music is Spotify. It's only available in Europe right now, but it seems like everybody who tries it loves it, myself included. Spotify offers a premium service as well, which offers portability and higher-quality streams, but the free service offers unlimited ad-supported streams, and that's the service that has everybody so excited.

But there's one small problem with the Spotify-as-savior story: it doesn't pay artists very well. According to this story in a Swedish publication, as translated and explained by the TorrentFreak blog, Spotify delivered more than one million streams of Lady Gaga's hit single "Poker Face" over five months. From these streams, she reportedly earned about 1,150 Swedish kronor--about $167--from the Swedish agency responsible for paying royalties. That's not even enough to cover the cost of four tickets to her upcoming concert in San Francisco.

If this story's true, why would any artist agree to make songs available on Spotify? With these kinds of payouts, it looks like music business expert Donald Passman is right--advertising is never going to support an online music service.

I have a love song to write. I don't know yet whether it will be a tragic ballad or an exuberant ode to the triumph of happiness. But it's a love song for sure: I have fallen for Spotify, the latest buzzworthy "free music" service. After months of trying to find a great way to find and listen to music online, I believe I have met my match.

No, Spotify technically isn't available in the U.S. just yet, though the U.K.-based company hopes to bring the software stateside by the end of the year. My acceptance of an invite code sent by a generous friend therefore may or may not have been in gross violation of some international laws or statutes or regulations. But that's OK. Spotify, we can have an illicit romance for now.

You see, I needed this in my life. I had been thinking about "music discovery" of late. Last week, at the tail end of a trip in which I had been covering Google's splashy Los Angeles debut of its music search service in partnership with MySpace and Lala, I was sitting in the lobby of the Standard Hotel in West Hollywood, a shameless hipster magnet designed in the manner of tacky Southwest-desert motels and which features a constant soundtrack of semi-edgy music picks from '90s-era Britpop to lo-fi and LCD Soundsystem remixes. As a parade of attractive, Sunset Strip rocker types drifted to the check-in desk, I was sitting next to a cactus, intermittently holding up my iPhone to a speaker, using audio-recognition app Shazam to find out exactly what was playing.

Considering the cooler-than-thou crowd, I probably looked awfully silly. But Shazam has been my preferred method of music discovery because I just haven't found anything else I really like. Queuing up a Pandora station makes for great party music, but I've never been enthralled by its recommendations for me. Music blog aggregator Hype Machine has very well-done charts to track the songs that are getting blogged and tweeted about the most, but they can be a little bit predictable once you've already listened to the latest mashup of Kanye West and MGMT. I use Last.fm, owned by CNET News parent company CBS, to tabulate listening-history charts, but have never found myself hooked by its recommendations or radio stations. (Sorry, bosses.)

Social music and discovery services are a mess, frankly. Some of them have terrible user interfaces, and others are slowly becoming the victim of poorly conceived business models (many of which relied too heavily on advertising strategies that have yet to bear fruit) and ill-fated licensing agreements with the major labels. Still others, in striving to get a leg up on competitors, veered into editorial curation--exclusive album-listening debuts, promotions and tie-ins, and the like. That can make for a whole lot of clutter.

Then along came my Spotify invite, and everything changed. The service makes no attempts on the surface to be an "influencer" in and of itself, instead just offering access to full-length streams of just about any song. That's daunting at first. When you first load up Spotify, you're greeted with basic top-music charts that are notably uninspiring (Black Eyed Peas? Kings of Leon?) and searches don't bring you anything other than, well, what you searched for. Social-networking features like Facebook and Twitter sharing are sparse and well-hidden. If you don't know where to look, it can be a little bit dull.

Instead, the "discovery" process is left up to third parties. Create a playlist on Spotify, and you can assign it an HTML address so that when people click on it (assuming they have Spotify accounts) the playlist will open right up. A popular U.K. music blog called Drowned in Sound has a feature called "Spotifridays," where a selection of popular music from that week is packaged into a Spotify playlist, eliminating the need to click around through various Web browsers and streaming-music embeds. A friend sent me a link to Drowned in Sound's playlist of top songs of the first half of 2009. I was set for the next 7.6 hours.

Then, this happened: My Amazon MP3 bill started escalating as my "shopping cart" filled up with songs from bands I'd never heard of before, like the Veils, Let's Wrestle, and the Big Pink. The no-brainer Spotify platform, and how easy it is for anyone to use it to create playlists and share them in a way that doesn't involve a single wacky embeddable widget, was making me buy music.

But Spotify's long-term prospects are still hazy. Its dual business models, monthly subscriptions (for ad-free accounts and access to its iPhone app) and advertising for free accounts, have historically failed to hold up in the face of the micropayments-based iTunes. CEO Daniel Ek has even acknowledged that profits aren't flooding in yet and accused the labels of inflating licensing fees. The specter of SpiralFrog, another hyped free-music service that went down in flames earlier this year, is still in recent memory.

It's also unclear as to how the Spotify service, currently available in Sweden, Norway, the U.K., Finland, France, and Spain, will fare in the U.S. when it arrives here. Google's new music search feature, which is right now restricted to the States, may give a big advantage to competitors MySpace Music and Lala as search traffic is directed there. There's also the potential money drain: Government regulations over licensing fees last year. Digital music, you could say, is an industry with a lot of emotional baggage.

Generally, when there are glaring roadblocks in a new relationship, it's a red flag that you shouldn't get too attached. But this is one where I'm willing to fight to keep it alive. I hear there's a chance I'll be shut out of Spotify entirely in a few weeks unless I tweak my IP address somehow to fool the service into thinking I'm in one of its approved countries. Or unless I cough up the money for a premium subscription.

And I'd consider that. Money can't buy me love, but it could buy me Spotify. And right now they're sort of one and the same.

Jelli.net, a Total Request Live-esq Internet radio station, is coming out of beta on Monday night and is expected to announce that it's inked a syndication deal with Triton Digital Media that will get it played in actual terrestrial FM radio stations across the U.S. beginning next year.

The service revolves entirely around a playlist of songs that's managed by users in real time. Users can vote songs up or down before they ever hit the air, as well as when they're playing. If enough people downvote a song while it's in the middle of playing, it's pulled before it even finishes, something that can be either deeply satisfying or disappointing to those listening.

Jelli let susers vote on tracks to be played next, and are able to yay or nay a video out of playing live on air.

(Credit: Screenshot by Josh Lowensohn/CNET)

Up until about four months ago this music had existed only on the Web, where Jelli streams as a 24/7 radio station. This changed in June when Jelli nabbed a two-hour spot Sunday nights on Live 105 KITS, a local San Francisco FM radio station. The company says the trial run has been such a success it made it much easier to sell the idea to other stations. And sold it has.

Jelli's deal with Triton will put Jelli's user-picked station on FM radio, twice a day on around 4,500 stations across the U.S. This won't start until early next year though. In the meantime, the company has done a deal with Australian media broadcasting company Austereo to get Jelli played as a daily show, both in FM and digital radio beginning next month in five Australian cities.

One very important detail here is that with all of these affiliate stations across the world, the playlist will continue to be controlled by Jelli users at large. This means the playlist can change drastically based on who's awake and where they're from.

Also worth noting is that Jelli users are not going to be working off the same catalog they do when it's streaming versus when it's on a real radio station. About 10 minutes before Jelli makes the FM switchover, the catalog changes to broadcast-friendly songs, which include things like the shortened and/or censored version of the tracks. It also cleans the slate for users to start up or downvoting the tracks.

As part of the beta, Jelli is introducing multiple stations that will let subsets of users control the content.

(Credit: Josh Lowensohn/CNET)

As part of the beta, there will also be multiple stations, so users can continue to control the streaming Web version without having to worry about the aforementioned catalog changeover. This also gives a minority of users a better chance of controlling what's played.

Speaking of which, Jelli continues to work on are countermeasures to keep a group of users from completely dominating the listening experience. For instance, each user is given a limited number of "rockets" and "bombs" each day. Rockets let you jump your song, or someone else's to the head of the queue to give it a chance at playing next. To even those out, bombs (which are given out a little more sparingly) are able to wipe the score of any queued track to zero, which can keep it from making it on air if users don't vote it back up.

That's not the end of the game-like experience though. In a call with CNET News on Monday, Jelli CEO and co-founder Mike Dougherty (who was previously TellMe's VP of biz dev) told me that the bombs and rockets were just the tip of the iceberg and that other gaming "power ups" and ways to earn them were coming shortly but could not give specifics on what they would do.

The company is also working on more ways to keep listeners engaged and feeding the station with recommendations. For instance, Jelli gives the person who originally suggested a track and who successfully got it played a personalized call out right before it begins playing. Because the service has no real DJs, this is all done with a text-to-speech robot. Jelli will also be giving highly active users their own short audio signature, which will get played right before their chosen song starts.

A little farther down the line, Dougherty hopes to get hardware besides PCs involved, including a way to manage the song queue and recommendations from mobile phones. There also isn't currently a way to purchase any of the music that's playing from Jelli's site, which means users have to go off and do a search for each track on their own. This too is something that will be changing in the very near future.

Jelli's streaming service is definitely a fun experiment in controlling radio--both Web and now terrestrial. You can listen to it in any streaming audio player with this link, or sign up on Jelli's site to vote on the queue and get more information about what's playing--something that can be quite useful if you're trying to get the name of that song you loved that just got bombed off the air.

(Credit: Roku)

In its bid to put together a roster of compelling content, Roku has just acquired an ace.

Starting Tuesday, the set-top box--known to many as "the Netflix box"--will begin streaming Major League Baseball games. As with the current Netflix arrangement, you have to be a subscriber to the service, in this case MLB.com Premium, to access the content that normally would be available only on a PC or iPhone.

And while this is a boon to baseball fans, it's an even more important development for Roku. MLB.tv Premium is the first live content available on Roku's device, and by bringing that from the PC to the TV, the 50-person Saratoga, Calif., company is beginning to differentiate itself from similar consumer electronics products.

Roku currently has access to the Netflix Watch Instantly queue, as well as Amazon Video on Demand, which allows for rental and purchase of movies. More recently, Roku added content from Blip.TV and MediaFly, two content aggregators, for videos and podcasts.

MLB.tv will work the same way. It will be accessed via a new pane that can be reached via the small remote. Once a customer's account is synced, any live, out-of-market (as in, not your home team) game across the league can be seen, with the choice of both the home and away team's local broadcast feed. Games up to one week old are available in the archive, and previews appear of each team's scheduled games up to a week in advance. ... Read more

Fans sign a banner outside the Staples Center in Los Angeles--the site of Tuesday's planned Michael Jackson memorial service.

(Credit: CC famoussd/Flickr)

Some 1.6 million people registered for a chance to receive 8,750 pairs of tickets to attend Michael Jackson's memorial service at the Staples Center on Tuesday. But if you weren't among the lucky few who won tickets but feel the need to bear witness to the spectacle, fear not--several Web sites plan to provide live streaming video of the event.

The service will be a star-studded event, with singers Stevie Wonder, Mariah Carey, Lionel Richie, and Smokey Robinson expected to perform in what some expect to be the biggest event in the Web's history.

Considering how news Web sites buckled under the weight of the public's thirst for news on the singer's death last month, how the Web will handle the public's demand for a live view of the service is the big mystery. Indeed, the surge of Michael Jackson-related searches on Google News was first interpreted by the search giant as an attack on its service.

Here's a sampling of the Web sites that plan to offer live streams from the service, which begins at 10 a.m. PDT:

News sites
CBSNews.com, which is owned by CNET parent CBS, plans to stream video provided by Los Angeles-based station KCBS, as well as other sources. TV.com, also a CBS property, plans to stream the CBSNews.com content as well.

CNN plans to stream the memorial service with hosts Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Don Lemon, and Soledad O'Brien.

ABCNews.com plans to stream live with commentary from Charles Gibson.

Fox News' live stream will be hosted by Shepard Smith, with Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly providing live reports from the scene.

Local Fox affiliate KTTV is also providing live streaming.

U.K. news site SkyNews is providing live HD streaming.

Video and social networking
Hulu, as one of the most popular video Web sites, may be one of the best-prepared sites to handle the load. It plans to stream the Fox News feed.

Microsoft's InMusic is providing high-definition streaming via its Silverlight and SmoothStreaming technology.

MySpace members will have access to a live stream provided by entertainment titan AEG, which owns the Staples Center and was underwriting the planned Jackson tour.

Facebook members will have access to CNN Live feed thanks to a partnership with the TV news channel.

Updated at 10 a.m. with more news sites.

Just days after the news broke that EMI is suing Grooveshark, another contestant popped into my in-box. Today, it's Fizy, which offers essentially the same features as Grooveshark, Meuzer, and JustHearIt: search for a song name, and Fizy will compile audio and video results from public sources around the Web. Today, Fizy relaunched with a handful of new features such as the ability to save playlists and the ability to post all played songs to your Friendfeed account. (Friendfeed? Where's the Facebook app?).

The new features are nothing special, but in a quick test, I did find that Fizy offers the best selection of rock songs of any on-demand streaming site I've tested. It offered me a fairly full complement of Roy Harper songs, including the lost classic "Nineteen Forty-Eightish" (with Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page on electric guitar)--and had no problem finding tracks from Pink Floyd, Animal Collective, and the lysergically inspired new "Two Weeks" video from Grizzly Bear.

Fizy delivered Roy Harper's dystopian classic from 1984, which I've never found online before.

It's not so good in other genres--its selection of Mingus tunes was weak compared with the full array offered by Grooveshark. Its search results could also be organized better--the not-exactly-obscure query "Stairway to Heaven" returned various instrumental and piano cover versions above the original Led Zeppelin classic.

But Fizy's a worthy competitor in an increasingly crowded space. More important, it shows that on-demand audio streaming sites are becoming like mushrooms--whenever the copyright owners shut one down, two new ones will pop up in its place.

Follow Matt on Twitter.

Want to feel old? This album came out 15 years ago.

Hulu will live-stream a concert for the first time: Dave Matthews Band at New York's Beacon Theater on June 1.

The online video hub, which announced the event Thursday, will be the only place streaming the concert live, at least legally.

Pop culture brush-up: the Dave Matthews Band was really, really, really huge in the '90s, known for lengthy live jams, for a Phish-like cult following that skewed more preppy than hippie, and for "Ants Marching," which was inescapable if you ever got anywhere near a frat house between 1994 and 1997. People generally loved them or hated them back then, due in no small part to the fact that they were the soundtrack of choice for the jocks rather than the indie kids or nerds.

It's a good fit for Hulu's first live concert broadcast--the site's first live streaming event was a presidential debate last October. The Dave Matthews Band's original Gen-X and Gen-Y fan base is exactly the demographic of 20- and 30-somethings--though not necessarily tech-savvy ones--who would tune into a concert stream online. And conveniently, the date of the show is the day before the band's long-anticipated new album, "Big Whiskey and the GrooGrux King," hits stores online and offline.

Frontman Dave Matthews was, on an unrelated note, one of the first mainstream musicians to use Twitter actively.

Hulu, meanwhile, is riding the wave of mainstream success in the wake of an edgy TV ad campaign and the big news that Disney would be joining News Corp. and NBC Universal as a partner in the joint venture.