ComScore (SCOR) says Hulu generated 856 million video views during the month, second only to Google’s (GOOG) YouTube in the U.S. This makes sense given that Hulu is driven in large part by broadcast TV, which starts running new shows in the fall.

And if Hulu didn’t post record numbers after adding ABC’s shows to the mix, there would be some real head-scratching. But it will be very interesting to see what happens to these numbers next year if Hulu does move ahead with some sort of pay service.

As always, note the huge disparity between YouTube and everyone else. And it’s also worth noting that while Hulu generates more views than any of its non-YouTube competitors, its reach isn’t quite as deep:

All of which is less relevant than the joint venture’s performance, which is still the subject of much debate. People familiar with Hulu tell me it is “close to break-even,” but I worry about putting much stock in words like “close” (or “break-even,” for that matter) without seeing numbers.

And in any case, that’s only half the issue for its owners these days; just as important are the performance of its parent companies and whether all the free stuff on Hulu is helping or hindering their networks and studios.

But more on that after the holiday. For now, here’s wishing you and yours a happy and healthy Thanksgiving.

The cable provider is promoting a “Roll Over Or Get Tough” campaign, which asks consumers to…well, it doesn’t ask them to do anything, really. But there is a Web site where the company makes its case–its programming partners want more money, because that’s what they always want–and says that at some point, consumers will be able to “vote” on…something.

The thing is, the cable providers are at least half right: Cable programmers do want more money, because that’s what they always want. And now broadcasters like CBS (CBS) and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, which traditionally haven’t been paid for their programming–at least not officially–want money, too.

But boy oh boy, is it going to be hard to gin up sympathy for the cable guys. When’s the last time you felt anything remotely warm and fuzzy toward your local operator, which may well have an effective monopoly in your neighborhood, and certainly acts like someone who has a monopoly?

And in any case, it’s hard to see what consumers are expected to do here: Left to their own devices, they might well elect to pay for just a handful of cable channels they want instead of subscribing to dozens of ones they never, ever, watch. That might well drive down cable bills, dramatically. Which is why programmers and providers don’t want that to happen.

That’s one conclusion you can draw from a new survey showing that people who own Apple (AAPL) handsets are more willing to pay for stuff than the average Internet surfer.

It’s a U.K. survey, conducted by the Olswang media law firm, but my hunch is that you’d see similar results in the U.S. And given that consumers look much less likely to pay for stuff than publishers and distributors would like, it’s worth chewing on. Guardian:

The survey showed that 58% of people would pay to access online a film just released in cinemas, 52% would pay for access to a film that will not be on DVD for at least two months and 40% would pay to access a film which is already on DVD or pay-TV. Looking at solely iPhone users, however, those figures jump to 73%, 67% and 54% respectively….

News content, however, remains a tough online sell. The survey asked how willing consumers would be to buy a newspaper article or column which could be read on a computer or portable device such as a phone or e-reader. Only 19% of respondents expressed any willingness to pay–though that did increase to 30% among iPhone users.

I’ve repeatedly been skeptical that consumers will pay for something solely because it’s on a mobile device–this is the key idea behind the magazine industry’s digital plans–but I do think there are some cases where this might work.

My own anecdotal confirmation: My household just dropped $6 for three Pixar shorts for an iPhone 3G in a desperate attempt to provide some electronic babysitting/soothing. This, despite the fact that everything we bought is also available for free on YouTube. When you need the stuff, you can’t be dependent on a wireless connection.

Here’s one of the clips we spent $1.99 on:

What exactly did Adconion buy? Some of Joost’s technology, as well as its trademark, and about a dozen of the company’s remaining 25 employees, a spokeswoman says.

So what does that leave? Does any part of the original Joost survive as an operating company? “I believe so,” says the spokeswoman, who is going to get back to us about that.

Price? Your guess is as good as mine. But I’m guessing it’s not going to be very much, and nothing close to what investors like Sequoia, Index and Viacom (VIA) were hoping when they plowed $45 million into the company more than two years ago. Index, by the way, is also an investor in Adconion and led an $80 million C funding round in February 2008.

In any case, this is all a matter of “i” dotting and “t” crossing, as Joost has officially been in hospice mode since June, when the company laid off most of its employees and replaced CEO Mike Volpi. Prior to that, Volpi and his investors had been trying to broker a sale of the company, hoping that they could convince a big infrastructure player like Comcast (CMCSA) or Time Warner Cable (TWC) to bail it out.

No dice, though Time Warner Cable did end up hiring some technical help from Joost.

ADCONION MEDIA GROUP ACQUIRES JOOST ASSETS

New Capabilities Provide Advertisers, Content Owners and Publishers with an End-to-End
Cross-Channel Video Solution

SANTA MONICA, CALIF. – NOVEMBER 24, 2009 — Adconion Media Group (www.adconion.com), the largest independent global audience and content network, announced today that it has acquired certain assets from privately-held Joost, the online video service. Terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

“Video is a top priority for our company, and through the acquisition of the Joost assets we will be able to provide advertisers, content owners and website publishers with an end-to-end global video platform and cross-channel video and display ad-serving solution,” said Tyler Moebius, CEO, Adconion Media Group. “This acquisition immediately brings additional scale and content to the Adconion video pre-roll network for clients who are looking for a safe, cost-effective alternative to achieve the maximum value of online video advertising. We’ll also continue to operate Joost.com, providing clients with a destination site to showcase and distribute their branded entertainment content.”

In June, Joost announced a change in its business strategy to focus on providing white-label video platforms, and Adconion plans to pursue this strategy. On Friday, Adconion announced its first long-term licensing partnership as the exclusive display and video ad-serving solution for the Goldbach Media Group in Europe.

The acquisition of Joost assets adds many dimensions to Adconion’s existing video services and further will solidify its position in the online video and content syndication market. Prior to the acquisition, Adconion offered targeted distribution of content, including video and television commercials, to audiences around the world via Adconion.TV; as well as customized branded entertainment solutions for clients through its exclusive relationship with the digital studio RedLever. Through the Joost acquisition, Adconion.TV will add to its library of professionally-produced video content available for targeted pre-roll advertisements across 2,000 premium publishers.

Janus Friis, co-founder of Joost, said, “Over the past few months we have been actively exploring strategic options for Joost, and have concluded that the sale of certain of its assets to Adconion is in the best interests of Joost. Adconion has a strong technological platform and a compelling business model, and we believe that both businesses will benefit as a result of this acquisition.”

A leader in advertising innovation, targeting and distribution, Adconion reaches nearly 300 million unique users on a monthly basis. Prior to the Joost acquisition, Adconion was serving more than 80 million video streams per day to targeted audiences across 2,000 global websites.

Want to watch YouTube on your TV? There are plenty of devices and services that let you do that, with more on the way.

But starting next month, at least one gadget is getting its YouTube feed shut down. Syabas Technology, which makes a line of set-top boxes called “Popcorn Hour,” says Google’s (GOOG) video site has told it to remove YouTube content beginning December 2.

This one is a straight he said/he said: Syabas, via a blog post from COO Alex Limberis, says it has an agreement to use YouTube’s clips, but that YouTube had changed the terms of the agreement recently. YouTube won’t address that claim directly, but offered this statement:

Since July of 2008, YouTube’s Terms of Service has restricted implementations for televisions based on our APIs. YouTube has been in active discussions with various developers on how best to implement YouTube on set top boxes and TVs. There are several companies, however, that have deployed solutions, like video scraping technology, to circumvent the rules and violate YouTube’s Terms of Service.  Companies that have negotiated agreements to use our APIs, like TiVo, Sony, Panasonic and PS3 are not impacted.

The first-gut reaction here is to draw a parallel between this move and Hulu’s attempt to prevent video software start-up Boxee from using its stuff.

But in that case, at least, Hulu was trying to restrict access to a data stream it was making freely available to the rest of the world. Here, both sides agree that YouTube requires a contract before it will release its API to commercial partners.

So, the real question is: Did the two companies have an agreement, and what if, anything, has changed recently.

Gentlemen?

[T-shirt image courtesy of Zazzle.com.]

But what do Oprah’s plans mean for the TV business? Not that much, argues JP Morgan (JPM) analyst Michael Meltz. Short version of his note published this morning: It’s not bad for OWN, the cable network Oprah co-owns with Discovery (DISCA). But it’s also not terrible for CBS (CBS) and Disney’s (DIS) ABC, the two broadcasters currently in the “Oprah” business.

That’s because while the move makes for unpleasant “optics”–bizspeak for “looks bad”–for broadcast, it turns out that Oprah didn’t make that much money for the business. (But plenty for herself, obviously.)

Medium-sized version of Meltz’s argument:

• The show made $50 million a year for CBS, which syndicated the program. CBS would rather have that money than not, but losing it will amount to a “rounding error” in 2012.
• The show was a big ratings hit for local TV stations, but they paid a lot for it–upward of $200,000 a week in big markets. That made it a loss-leader for most broadcasters, Meltz says.
• And yes, the show provided a big lead-in audience to local TV news broadcasts, particularly in top ABC markets. But given that it’s not going to end up on a rival broadcast channel, “it is conceivable that station audience/ad share won’t change much for the day-part.”

Okay. Back to the crying and teeth-gnashing.

The Web is full of chatter about yesterday’s game, but video is hard to come by. Again, this appears to be a case of Google’s (GOOG) YouTube flexing its ContentID system on behalf of copyright owners, in this case the European sports marketing company Sportfive.

This is a theoretical victory for content creators, who want to be able to control how and where their stuff appears on the Web. But since there doesn’t seem to be an approved video, it’s not really a solution. If it’s a story that’s attracting most of the world’s attention, someone’s going to find it, somewhere.

For instance, a bit of searching did yield these two, at least for now: A high-quality YouTube version of what appears to be a French broadcast, via the Los Angeles Times, and what appears to be a German highlight reel, via DailyMotion and FootyTube, which consistently has great soccer highlights, legal or not (thanks to Zen Web Solutions for the reminder).

A Los Angeles federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction against BlueBeat, a California-based site that had briefly sold the band’s music, arguing it used “psycho-acoustic simulation”–basically, making a note-for-note recording of the band’s recordings–to make the songs its own.

The same judge had already issued a temporary restraining order on behalf of music label EMI Music Group against the site earlier in the month and had scheduled a hearing for Friday, Nov. 20. But this ruling cancels out the hearing and by any reasonable standard should end the case.

Then again, this whole story has been a head-scratcher from the start, so who knows? Maybe the BlueBeat guys will try an even more preposterous argument down the road.

Part of me thinks that the whole thing may be some sort of Negativeland/U2 hack/stunt/performance art piece. Or maybe there were a lot of mood-altering substances involved. Or maybe it’s part of a conspiracy to create work for copyright lawyers.

Whatever. I’ve embedded the court ruling below, if you insist on reading it. But here’s a clip of Richard Pryor reading the alphabet on “Sesame Street,” which is just as edifying and much more entertaining.

bluebeat beatles suit –

For those who haven’t been following along, here’s what we know about Vevo:

• It will be powered by Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, which will share ad revenue with the joint venture.
• It is being run by Rio Caraeff, Universal’s veteran digital guy.
• In addition to its equity partnership, its distribution strategy is modeled after Hulu: Sony and Universal videos will appear exclusively on the site and/or YouTube, but the site plans on licensing its stream to other outlets, as Hulu does with portals like MySpace and Comcast’s (CMCSA) Fancast. One obvious place to license the stuff: Hulu itself.
• Neither EMI nor Warner Music Group (WMG), which has created its own Vevo-like channel with YouTube, is participating in the venture, but they could.

But oddly, the deal is the only one of its kind. While the big music labels have played footsie with Hulu in the past, they have yet to actually move any of their clips there.

That could still happen one day, and the site hints that you may see more clips coming down the road. But Hulu is less valuable for the labels than it could have been a year ago: Since then, three of the big four have struck deals that give them much more incentive to show their stuff on Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, the world’s biggest video site.

Vivendi’s Universal Music and Sony (SNE) have a deal that locks up their stuff exclusively on Vevo, a sort of “Hulu for music videos” that will be powered by YouTube. And Warner Music Group (WMG) has convinced YouTube to give the label its own branded channel for its clips.

No word on financials for the Hulu deal, but I’d surprised if this generates much cash for EMI. Hulu’s core partners–News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, GE’s (GE) NBC Universal and Disney’s (DIS) ABC–have deals that let them keep 70 percent of any ad revenue their stuff generates on the site. But other partners get closer to 50 percent.

In other Norah news, my soon-to-be sort-of neighbor is having construction problems. Here she is taking on one of the great Wilco songs:

But will they actually pay up? Here, the conventional wisdom is not so helpful. Nor are studies predicting consumer behavior. To wit:

• Nearly 50 percent of U.S. Web users are willing to pay for online news, says the Boston Consulting Group.
• Not a chance, says Forrester (FORR): Try 20 percent.

For what it’s worth, my money’s on the Forrester number, or one that’s even lower. My gut says people love consuming news, but only in the broadest sense–Obama doesn’t really Twitter! What was Belichick thinking?–and that sort of stuff, which appeals to a very large audience, will always be free, and you’ll get it from Google (GOOG) or something like Yahoo (YHOO). Which leaves you with a small audience willing to pay for everything else.

But! We should note that people are indeed paying for “content” right now. In fact, they’re paying for a lot of it: $115 a month, up seven percent from last year, says NPD Group. The breakdown:

As of August 2009, 81 percent of U.S. households subscribed to a television service (satellite TV, basic/premium cable, or fiber-optic television service). A similar percentage of households (76 percent) paid for Internet subscriptions. Seventeen percent subscribed to an online music service or satellite radio; and 14 percent subscribed to online gaming subscription services.

More traditional forms of entertainment subscriptions, however, did not fare so well. The number of people subscribing to newspapers fell by 2 percentage points to reach 29 percent in August 2009. Forty-one percent of consumers subscribed to magazines this year, compared to 43 percent who did so last year.

According to NPD, an influx of new smartphone owners has led to an increase in mobile data-plan subscriptions: 9 percent of U.S. consumers had mobile data subscriptions this year, versus just 6 percent last year. Fourteen percent of consumers subscribed to a home-video subscription service, like Netflix, this year, which is 2 percentage points higher than last year.

Ah, see? Problem solved: If you want Americans to pony up for stuff on the Web, just link it to something they’re already paying for, like their cable or Internet subscription.

This is what smart guys like John Malone have been talking about for a while, and it’s also the core of the strategy behind the Time Warner (TWX)/Comcast (CMCSA)/everyone else “TV Everywhere” gambit. But it’s also what many people have been trying to do for a very long time–ask the music industry–with limited success.

The former French water utility has the ability to hold up the deal due to its 20 percent stake in NBCU and a put option that gives it the right to sell the stake back to back to GE (GE), hang on to it or take the thing public.

There’s no reason for Vivendi to do anything but the first option, but the company is not going to come out and say so, which means that negotiations for GE to buy the stake aren’t going as fast as it or Comcast (CMCSA) would like. Vivendi itself wrote down the value of the stake by a few billion earlier this year, but that was then, and this is now. New York Post:

The deal, which many assumed would be announced today, is being held up because Vivendi is playing hardball in its negotiations with GE, said several sources close to the deal.

“They’re trying to squeeze every nickel they can out of GE,” said one of these sources. “Why wouldn’t they?”

But again, there’s no reason for this deal not to get done, and Vivendi itself made a strong case for it on Friday by announcing plans to spend some $4 billion on Brazilian telecom GVT. The proceeds of a $6 billion sale sure could come in handy for that, no?

While we’re at it: I wouldn’t read all that much into reports that Comcast plans to appoint current NBCU head Jeff Zucker to run the new business. Perhaps they really do. But even if Comcast didn’t, it would have no choice but to say it does. Remember that any deal will take a very long time to clear regulatory review and that someone has to keep running NBCU in the meantime. This stuff will get more meaningful when we’re closer to showtime.

Or at least that’s the way I read it. My guess is that Jim is using the “leaky wall” strategy to access the rest of the Journal piece rather than using a paid subscription. But the writers seem to have made that deliberately oblique. Or perhaps they think their audience has zero interest in the minutiae of media economics.

And for the record: In addition to Dow Jones and The Wall Street Journal, News Corp. (NWS) owns this Web site.

The tool has been around for a while and got a formal roll out earlier this fall, but Google (GOOG) product manager Nick Jacobi just showed it off to the chattering (and tweeting) classes gathered at the Monaco Media Forum, so it’s going to get another burst of attention. (Also of interest, apparently: A dustup between Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner and Arianna Huffington. Looking forward to watching that.)

Anyway, the Insights tool is self-explanatory and entertaining, at the very least. For instance, I used it to find out what 35-44 year-old males who like advertising, beer and football (ahem) are watching, and got this results page.

The most interesting part of the results is a mosaic of videos (above; click to enlarge) that my target demographic is watching, which includes some obvious stuff, like “Amazing NFL Football Catches,” and some really obscure stuff, like an episode of “Shazam.” I also found this Kirby Puckett tribute, which pleased me to no end:

Dish has rung up the tab while fighting one of the many patent suits Tivo has brought against cable and satellite providers, accusing them of ripping off its DVR technology. Tivo has won an initial series of rulings against Dish, forcing the company to hand over a slug of cash, but more could be coming, the satellite company noted today. What would that mean? In Securities and Exchange Commission legalese:

Depending on the amount of any additional damage or sanction award or any monetary settlement, we may be required to raise additional capital at a time and in circumstances in which we would normally not raise capital. Therefore, any capital we raise may be on terms that are unfavorable to us, which might adversely affect our financial position and results of operations and might also impair our ability to raise capital on acceptable terms in the future to fund our own operations and initiatives. We believe the cost of such capital and its terms and conditions may be substantially less attractive than our previous financings.

Gulp. On the other hand, as Barclays Capital’s Vijay Jayant notes this morning, if Dish were really worried about a coming legal bill, the company probably wouldn’t want to hand its shareholders a $900 million dividend. Let’s see how investors react today.