While YouTube remains partially embroiled in a clash with copyright giant Viacom, its success in serving increasing numbers of Web users with content of all varieties has apparently convinced some in the media world to stop fighting and start capitalizing. Or at least attempt to glean some revenue from the activity happening at all hours of the day on the video site.

Now, it’s no major revelation that such revenue sharing deals have been struck. It was reported in recent months that a number of copyright owners in the music, television, and movie industries determined it would perhaps be more effective to distribute content on the Google-owned video site, rather than devote resources dishing DMCA takedown notices for any legally offensive uploads - arguably to wasteful effect. Even as early as 2006, Universal Music Group was seen making a “strategic partnership” that 1) published material direct from Universal and 2) allowed Mr. or Mrs. YouTube User some incorporation of media taken from Universal’s archives into content uploaded by Mr. or Mrs. YouTube User.

But a report by Brian Stelter of The New York Times is explicitly naming “CBS, Universal Music, Lionsgate, Electronic Arts, and other companies” as having “stopped prodding YouTube to remove unauthorized clips of their movies, music videos and other content and started selling advertising against them.”

What this means is those parties have essentially done what Web video analysts and evangelists convinced of YouTube’s promotional qualities have spent countless hours advising them to do. After having established ardent opposition to the idea that consumer impulses, aggregated en masse, could in fact help their brands and portfolios survive in new and largely unregulated landscape, they’ve gone and reversed course. A pretty significant plus for viewers, no doubt.

Leaving aside what may be the most outstanding peculiarity pointed out by Stelter - that CBS, a subset of Viacom, joins the group of content producers hungry for ad revenue resulting from spots placed aside ordinarily unsanctioned and unapproved video uploads - this recent shift, unfortunately, is really something that could have been made long ago, and to the benefit of all involved. That goes for YouTube as well as CBS and the rest.

While it’s been made clear that users uploading copyrighted content without the permission of the owner(s) “will not share in the advertising revenue generated by their posts,” the negative PR, solidified over time by ardent opponents of an aged and cumbersome legal framework, is something that may well linger, despite media owners’ change in tactic. With news of courtroom battles and what technically might be considered class-action-style bribery by media corporations to induce relatively small-scale payments from consumers under threat of full-fledged, no-holds-barred legal proceedings, bad blood isn’t simply washed away. Stains have set. The picture painted of Big Media is now a complex one. Some especially vociferous folk might say the days for Big Media are incredibly forlorn, even. (Direct attacks against consumers isn’t occurring within the YouTube paradigm, but consumer opinion most certainly carries across website lines, so to speak.)

To be fair, there naturally are levels of infringement that warrant staunch opposition by media owners. But how such companies have tried to conduct their “cleanup” of the digital space is really what has driven the YouTube set to become the force it is today. They have been forced to see their takedown letters for what they are - unproductive and illogical - and now must take a different approach. An approach that, again, should have been sought by their respective executive circles as soon as any illicit activities on YouTube, et al., went from petty to troubling to potentially quite severe.

We’re now at that last stage. We’ve been here for quite some time, actually. The question is, is it too late to make a massive monetary splash? According to an SAI report referenced by NYT, YouTube sales manager Brian Cosack said marketing efforts “appeared on less than 3% of video pages.” If YouTube itself isn’t performing as it should, despite the wealth of data it serves to consumers, what’s to say big-name copyrighters will make much use of the service? Is it a simple flip of the switch? Cooperate with consumer demand, after years of opposition, and see milk and honey flood the digital streets? Doubtful. But what’s the saying…. Hey, you never know?

—Related Articles at Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:Mobile YouTube Now Includes Most YouTube VideosYouTube Launching Chinese VersionLG To Release YouTube Phone with Direct UploadDownload YouTube VideoMandolin Player Sues YouTubeThai King Has Cooties, Drops YouTube SuitNew YouTube API Released

From The Wall Street Journal: “Microsoft said that NBC Universal Inc., Walt Disney Co., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. and Showtime Networks Inc. have agreed to contribute entertainment content to the software maker’s Xbox Live and MSN online services. The deals were slated to be announced during a speech by Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on the opening night of the Consumer Electronics Show.”

Early Facebook investor and openly Objectivist Peter Thiel tells the Wall Street Journal that Silicon Valley VCs are too quick to fire startup founders. They also meddle too much in their companies. He blames a cultural divide.

Founders have to work hard; venture capitalists do not. VC “have these very cushy jobs; they get paid a lot,” Thiel told the Journal. He thinks VC needs to more accommodating by investing in smaller pieces and allowing founders to cash out some, much sooner.

Source:Valleywag

Online shoppers spent 19 percent more this holiday season than last year, according to ComScore. It’s a big number, but not as big as last year’s 26 percent jump. ComScore chairman and chief wonk Gian Fulgoni says you people did a pretty good job considering the “economic challenges facing consumers this year as a result of higher gas prices, lower home values and a jittery stock market.” I say suck it up and buy some more free stuff off eBay next year.

Source:Valleywag

As expected, Disney has signed a deal with Apple to provide digital movie rentals over iTunes. The terms are similar to last week’s deal with Fox. While this isn’t particularly surprising — Steve Jobs owns a huge chunk of Disney from when the company bought his Pixar animation studio — it is good news for Apple. Can you name any Fox movies off the top of your head? Neither can I. But I know a ton of Disney flicks that are worth watching. Among them, Pixar’s small but universally brilliant library of family movies, which will help iTunes appeal to moms and dads. OK, so that’s two studios down. What about the rest? Variety reports that Sony, Universal and Warner Bros. are unlikely to sign on for “various competitive reasons.”

Let’s spell those out: Sony hates Apple for turning the iPod into the Walkman of the 21st century. Universal is owned by NBC, which has had a big spat with Apple over TV shows. As for Warner Bros. — which is no longer affiliated with Warner Music, the record label which signed a music-download deal with Apple rival Amazon.com recently — it’s not clear what the competitive issue might be. But Warner did recently hire Thomas Gewecke, formerly an executive at the Sony BMG music group, to run digital distribution. He may not have fond memories of negotiating with Steve Jobs.