For the record, the deal theoretically values Imeem at something like $8 million, but most of that comes in the form of accounts receivable and debt obligations, and isn’t relevant to MySpace, which won’t be dealing with that stuff. And it’s not relevant to investors like Sequoia and Warner Music Group (WMG), which pumped at least $25 million into the venture.

In retrospect, Warner’s move to write off all of its Imeem investment in May was 100 percent accurate.

In September, I visited Caldwell in his San Francisco office. He looked like a guy who has had a very hard year, but he was confident that the company had gotten through the worst of it. If Imeem executed on plan, he argued, it would be able to survive. It wouldn’t be a home run, but it could at least sustain itself–no mean feat for a digital music start-up.

So what happened? “Things can change very quickly,” a person familiar with the company’s story told me yesterday. The short version of the story is that Imeem quickly and unexpectedly ran out of cash. Here’s the longer version of that story, which I’ve pieced together from various sources:

• As Om Malik reported, the company was hit with a copyright lawsuit by music publisher Orchard Enterprises (ORCD). Fighting the suit or settling it would require significant resources.
• Efforts to raise another funding round fell flat. If you want, you can blame the fact that Sequoia declined to pour more money into the company, which acted as a blinking red warning light for other potential investors. Or you could point to the fact that Web music start-ups of all stripes have been flailing for a couple of years.
• Ad sales, which had been perking up throughout the year, fell short of Q4 targets.
• All of the above meant that Imeem was struggling to meet payroll and payments on its debt, which it racked up when it built out its own content-delivery network.

So in retrospect, it’s easy to see why the company sold: It had no choice. And it’s sort of easy to see why News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace bought Imeem: It’s hard to pay less for talent.

Maybe, says CNET’s Greg Sandoval. He reports that Viacom’s attorneys have unearthed emails that indicate that YouTube employees uploaded copyrighted material to the site and that “managers” knew there was copyrighted stuff on the site but didn’t do anything about it.

Those allegations happen to be key parts of Viacom’s (VIA) suit against Google (GOOG) and YouTube, and a good part of what the company has been looking for in the discovery/deposition process that has stretched on for more than a year and is slated to extend through the end of 2009.

Viacom has argued that senior YouTube employees, including cofounders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen, knew full well that their site was full of copyrighted material and not only didn’t try to prevent it, but at some point even encouraged it.

So what exactly do the emails say? I don’t know. Sandoval is summarizing the documents, not reproducing them. And if I’m reading his story correctly, he may not have seen them either, but may be relying on someone else’s description of them. (That said, in a separate story, Sandoval does reproduce parts of Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s deposition from the same case.)

Here’s his description:

Lawyers working on a $1 billion copyright lawsuit filed by Viacom against Google’s YouTube may have uncovered evidence that employees of the video site were among those who uploaded unauthorized content to YouTube.

In addition, internal YouTube e-mails indicate that YouTube managers knew and discussed the existence of unauthorized content on the site with employees but chose not to remove the material, three sources with knowledge of the case told CNET.

The e-mails, according to the sources who asked for anonymity because of the ongoing litigation, surfaced during an exchange of information between the two sides of the legal dispute.

I’ve asked Sandoval for more information about the emails he’s referring to, but I don’t expect him to say much; anyone who released documents from discovery would be violating a court order. Viacom had no comment. Here’s YouTube’s comment, via CNET: “The characterizations of the supposed evidence, made in violation of a court order, are wrong, misleading, or lack important context and notably come on the heels of a series of significant setbacks for the plaintiffs. The evidence will show that we go above and beyond our legal obligations to protect the rights of content owners.”

Want to see this in action? Go to YouTube and try to find a clip of the Kanye West/Taylor Swift/Beyoncé incident from Sunday night’s Video Music Awards. Everyone’s still talking about it (I don’t know why, really, but I guess I’m out of the demo), but if you want to watch it on YouTube, you’re stuck watching shaky, grainy footage created when people film their TV sets with a camcorder.

That’s the result of Viacom (VIA) and YouTube using the site’s Content ID system–which YouTube installed after Viacom filed suit more than two years ago. Content ID allows YouTube to track copyrighted material on the site as long as the copyright owner tells it what to look for.

It’s not a plug-and-play solution: On Sunday, Viacom had to have staff work through the night to provide YouTube with “reference files” from the live show so that the Google’s video service could find the offending clips and take them down.

But it worked pretty well. Decent-quality clips of the Kanye incident were taken down fairly quickly, and the grainy shots had only generated some 700,000 views by Monday afternoon, according to video-tracker TubeMogul. Meanwhile, MTV’s official version was approaching two million views (it’s now above three million).

You could argue that both Google and MTV would be better served if the official clip was on YouTube. And one day, that might happen. But first, they have to settle their court case.

That looks less likely today than it did a week ago, by the way, because of the recent ruling in the Universal Music/Veoh case. Team Viacom says the case, which appears to be quite similar to its own, won’t have any bearing on the how the company proceeds, while the YouTube guys see it as an affirmation of their position. Translation: More legal back and forth and fewer Viacom clips on the world’s biggest video site.

Here’s one of the low-fi versions, by the way. Not recommended if you’re prone to motion sickness:

A couple of years ago, it was Britney Spears wobbling across the stage; this time around, it’s Kanye West interrupting Taylor Swift on behalf of Beyoncé and…pfft.

I can’t work up the enthusiasm to describe it, but happily for Viacom (VIA), MTV’s corporate parent, there are plenty of people who will do that for you: The story is dominating Twitter and Google (GOOG), and it’s the lead story on Yahoo’s (YHOO) front page.

You can also see the incident on Google’s YouTube, of course. But you’ll have to do a little bit of hunting since Viacom clips aren’t supposed to be on the most popular video site in the world–because Viacom is still suing Google and YouTube for $1 billion.

Remember that copyright case? It’s still motoring along, slowly but steadily: Executives from both companies are still being deposed, and if things keep moving forward, there will actually be a trial in 2010–some three years after Viacom filed its first complaint.

In any case, here’s the official version, served up by MTV, which says it has generated more than 1.1 million views of the clip since last night.

But if you’re pressed for time, you might prefer this parody version, which only requires 13 seconds and even manages to incorporate some political commentary.

If you’re a media mogul, you might note the symbolism of a Google (GOOG) co-founder boosting a group dedicated to overhauling intellectual property law.

If you’re a cold-hearted cynic, you might note that at least this is a bonafide donation made by private individuals, as opposed to the $6.5 million that Brin’s company has invested in his wife’s “personal genetics” start-up.

But since I don’t fall under either category, I’ll just make this note, directed at other nonprofits looking for a billionaire’s donation: It helps if you can leverage family ties.

In this case, very close ties–Wojcicki’s mother, Esther Wojcicki, chairs the Creative Commons board of directors.

Fair enough. But if you’re that confident in your model–which, in short, allows Web surfers to look in on the FT.com site 10 times a month for free but demands payment for anything more than that–what’s with the following message at the bottom of each story?

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don’t cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Anyone else think that strikes a weird tone between pleading and chiding? I’m told the note started showing up on FT stories about three weeks ago and that staffers at the paper are a bit confused about it as well. Here’s how FT spokeswoman Darcy Keller explains the message, via email:

The FT copyright simply protects our ownership of FT content. There is obviously a distinction between third parties referring to FT articles and linking back to FT.com and those that reuse and distribute our content without attributing it to the FT.

Obviously there is! But there’s also an obvious distinction between friends and colleagues who pass along an interesting article and, say, people who run sleazy “scraper” sites that publish other people’s copy in the hope of gaming Google’s (GOOG) search engine. Right? And more important: The people in the second category won’t be deterred by a copyright note–even a sternly worded one. Right?

Obligatory to-be-sure grafs: News Corp.’s (NWS) Dow Jones, which owns this (free) Web site, also charges for access to (some of) its Wall Street Journal. And it also tells people not to distribute WSJ.com stories without its permission. But in order to find that boilerplate language, you’d have to seek out the “Subscriber Agreement & Terms of Use” page, and slug your way through legalese until you got to section 6 (b)–“Limitations on Use.” Or you can just trust me. Does that make you less likely to copy and paste this story?

A reminder of the site’s outlaw status is splashed up on the site’s front page right now, in the form of a feature promoting “DJ Joel’s $675,000 Mixtape,” which is supposedly “Approved by the RIAA,” the U.S. lobbying/litigating arm of the big music labels.

It’s not approved by the RIAA, of course. Instead, the feature steers visitors to a page that where they can illegally download 30 songs that just cost grad student Joel Tenenbaum $675,000. That’s the amount a federal jury decided he owed the RIAA after being found guilty of copyright violations for sharing the tunes via a filesharing network.

It’s the kind of cheeky move The Pirate Bay revels in and one of the reasons the Web site has such a large and devoted base of users. The main reason, of course, is that The Pirate Bay is a huge repository for free, illegal copies of movies, music, games.

That’s supposedly going to stop after August 27, when Global Gaming Factory X, a Swedish software/Internet cafe outfit, says it will go through with plans to buy the site, and then try to make it legal.

As I’ve explained before, there’s no chance that will happen.

Even if the deal really goes through, the only way The Pirate Bay’s users will stick around is if they can continue to grab whatever they want, whenever they want. And there’s no way the big music labels and movie studios and videogame companies, et al, are going to go for that.

But it will be interesting to watch!

In the meantime, here’s the track listing for the 30 songs that landed Tenenbaum in trouble. I’m pretty sure most of them are available at Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes store:

01 – Incubus – New Skin
02 – Green Day – Minority
03 – Outkast – Wheelz of Steel
04 – Incubus – Pardon Me
05 – Nirvana – Come As You Are
06 – Green Day – When I Come Around
07 – Green Day – Nice Guys Finish Last
08 – Nirvana – Heart Shaped Box
09 – Nine Inch Nails – The Perfect Drug
10 – Blink 182 – Adam’s Song
11 – Limp Bizkit – Rearranged
12 – Limp Bizkit – Leech
13 – Linkin Park – Crawling Hybrid
14 – Deftones – Be Quiet And Drive
15 – The Fugees – Killing Me Softly
16 – Red Hot Chili Peppers – Californication
17 – Red Hot Chili Peppers – By The Way
18 – Red Hot Chili Peppers – My Friends
19 – Beck – Loser
20 – Eminem – My Name Is
21 – Eminem – Drug Ballad
22 – Eminem – Cleaning Out My Closet
23 – Beastie Boys – (You Gotta) Fight for Your Right (To Party)
24 – The Ramones – The KKK Took My Baby Away
25 – Monster Magnet – Look To Your Orb For The Warning
26 – Aerosmith – Pink
27 – OutKast – Rosa Parks
28 – Rage Against The Machine – Guerrilla Radio
29 – Goo Goo Dolls – Iris
30 – Aerosmith – Water Song/Janie’s Got A Gun

At first blush, the AP’s description of the program, found in this press release and this FAQ, sounds a lot like an attempt to implement digital rights management–a lock-and-key system–for the news. But at least in this iteration, that’s not the case. The AP is really talking about adding a layer of metadata to its copy, so it can see who’s using it, and where.

“Any time you talk about a tracking system, the thrust of [the commentary] is about enforcing copyright,” Jim Kennedy, the AP’s VP of strategic planning, told me this afternoon. “But what we hope is the outcome out of this is the ability to enable more licensed uses of  content. We want to keep the content open, we don’t want to keep it behind firewalls.”

If you want to see a benign description of the technology the AP intends to use, head to this site, developed by its U.K.-based partner Media Standards Trust. If you don’t have time for that, just imagine Wal-Mart (WMT) adding RFID chips to track its pallets as they move around the country.

Jim Kennedy tells me that the AP will have tests for the new system up and running by mid-November, and hopes to have it in place for all the copy it produces by the end of the year. And in 2010, it will make it available to the cooperative’s members, i.e., other news organizations.

You’ll hear griping about this from some corners, but all of it sounds fine to me–I don’t care how the AP tracks its product. But note that this tracking system only works when its used by someone who already has a business relationship with the AP.

Which means it doesn’t solve the two problems the AP started complaining about this spring: The  fact that bloggers and other nogoodniks are using AP copy without paying for it and the fact that Google (GOOG) isn’t paying the AP enough for the copy it does use.

On those fronts, the AP’s contract with Google expires at the end of this year, and my understanding is that renewal negotiations are moving slowly, at best. And the AP will continue to use Attributor’s tracking service to find unauthorized uses of its stuff on the Web.

And if the AP ever does try to shove its copy behind a firewall, then a tracking system would come in handy. But we’re not there yet.

You can read a confusing release from the supposed acquirer, Global Gaming Factory X, here, and an equally confusing post from The Pirate Bay’s operators, here. And The Pirate Bay guys, who are supposedly looking at a big fine and a jail term, say they didn’t actually own The Pirate Bay but will get some of the profits from the sale anyway and will use them to finance an “Internet project.” Etc.

Oh! And the Pirate Bay’s new owners say they can’t promise that copyright holders are actually going to get paid. Here’s Global Gaming CEO Hans Pandeya in the Financial Times:

However, Mr Pandeya said the company would not be able to compel any filesharers to pay content owners. “We are trying to create a different model that addresses the needs of the different parties. However, it is up to them if they want to participate,” he said.

So it’s understandable that Hollywood and big music are mute, or close to it, on the deal. Because it’s difficult to say exactly what the deal is. I was able to extract one statement from the IFPI, the international music trade group. Here’s chairman and CEO John Kennedy:

“We don’t know the details and there are many questions to ask about how this will work in practice, but we would be delighted if this resulted in the Pirate Bay turning into a legitimate licensed service.”

But let’s be honest: There’s no way The Pirate Bay is going legit. And if it does, it won’t be The Pirate Bay, but something else.

Instead of being a massive site that attracts a huge audience that wants to devour free content, it will be a small distributor of licensed content, and the masses will flock somewhere else for their free stuff. Because they don’t want licensed content, even if it’s legal and/or better quality. They want free stuff.

The movie studios and the labels should be able to pat themselves on the back, gently and cautiously, for getting The Pirate Bay’s current owners to more or less abandon the site.

The problem, as they’re well aware, is that The Pirate Bay was only a directory that sent users to “torrents” that allowed them to gobble up as much pirated stuff as they want. And shutting down the Bay doesn’t mean the torrents are gone. And it doesn’t prevent other directory sites from popping up, whack-a-mole style, all over the world.

Digital music start-ups seem to come in two flavors these days: Those being sued by the major music labels and those with expensive licensing deals they can’t afford.

But for some reason, plucky Grooveshark, which runs a very nice, free streaming music service, has stayed out of both of those buckets until now. I’ve confirmed that EMI Music Group is suing the site–whose motto is “Play any song in the world, for free!”–for copyright violation.

The label filed suit against Gainesville, Fla.-based Grooveshark in a New York court on May 8. I don’t have a copy of the complaint yet, but if you feel like sharing, hit me at peter@allthingsd.com or use the blind tip box here. No comment from EMI, but Grooveshark sent me a very long statement, which I’ve printed at the bottom of the post.

The takeaway: Grooveshark says it was working on a licensing deal with EMI and now finds itself in court instead. The company does refer to deals with “many artists, labels and publishers,” but as far as I can tell, it doesn’t have deals with any of the other three majors–Warner Music Group (WMG), Universal Music Group, or Sony (SNE)–either.

Grooveshark started out as a peer-to-peer file-sharing start-up in 2006, and has since morphed into a streaming model. When I talked to marketing VP Joshua Bonnain in May, he told me the company was primarily funded by friends and family–most of the company’s employees are either students at or graduates of the University of Florida, he said. But he also said the company had received a “substantial investment from a large party” that he wouldn’t identify.

Bonnain said the site, which generates at least some ad revenue, planned on splitting half of it with the copyright owners of the music it played. But I was never clear about how that was going to work since Grooveshark doesn’t have deals with the majors. Then again, Bonnain didn’t tell me that the company had been sued a few days before we talked, either.

In the music world, negotiations don’t preclude suits and vice versa; Warner was, at one point, suing iMeem, but then became an investor in the site. Same thing with Universal and News Corp.’s (NWS) MySpace. The only real question I’ve had is why the big guys haven’t gone after Grooveshark yet. I’ve been asking label folks about the start-up since November and I’ve only gotten shrugs for an answer.

Anyway, as I said, it’s very nice service, and it would be a shame if the labels can’t figure out a way to work with it or help it survive. But the odds of that happening, based on the unpleasant history of digital music start-ups to date, are very low. So enjoy this themed playlist I created with the site’s help, which features music from all four majors, while you can. Grooveshark’s statement is below.

For the past year, Grooveshark has been in talks with EMI Records and other copyright holders to negotiate licensing agreements for the use of their content. We are pleased to announce that over the past few months Grooveshark successfully concluded mutually beneficial agreements with many artists, labels, and publishers that we hope to be a template for other such agreements with additional copyright holders.

Recently, EMI Records chose to abandon the template we’ve built with the help of other major copyright holders and opted for their traditional intimidation tactic of filing a lawsuit as a negotiating tool. We find the use of this negotiating strategy counterproductive, as Grooveshark has been willing to conclude an agreement with EMI Records that is economically sustainable for both EMI Records and a start-up company the size of Grooveshark.

Grooveshark is run by a group of young and passionate musicians. We love music, we make music, and we believe that the use of all music should be paid for. We adopted this core philosophy at our inception and to date have concluded agreements with hundreds of record labels, major US performance rights organizations, and thousands of independent artists who support Grooveshark’s business model. (See: Grooveshark Artists)

As musicians, we support the rights of copyright holders and strive to sign sustainable agreements with all content owners, ensuring that all artists get paid– or we agree to remove content from our system in accordance with our DMCA Takedown Policy. We hope that EMI Records eventually follows the lead of the many forward-thinking labels we are already working with, who would rather get their artists exposure and a fair share of our revenue than block content access and force customers to illegal networks.

We understand that the economy of the digital music business is in a state of flux, and we hope to help ease this transition by providing the required new tools and services that lead to the next generation of the music industry. We respect the ownership rights of the major labels and publishers, and our core mission has always been to compete with piracy by offering a service that is genuinely better than what illegal networks offer, while also ensuring fair payment to copyright holders. Our next important step on our road to success is to conclude a mutually beneficial agreement with EMI Records that is sustainable for both EMI and Grooveshark.

No way, says reader Joy Sherman, who insists that they’re “all over” YouTube, and pointed me to a clip from WMG’s new Green Day album.

And sure enough, there’s the video for “Know Your Enemy,” the new single from one of the label’s biggest acts.

But I’m not sure about the “all over” part. I can find one live version that’s pretty good. But the other clips I’ve found with the same label are either bait and switches or appear to be disabled in some way.

So. You can find some Warner’s stuff on YouTube, some of the time. But aren’t all of  Warner’s videos–and songs–supposed to be off of YouTube altogether, the result of a licensing dispute that flared up in December?

No official comment from either the label or the video site. But the unofficial story seems to be this: YouTube has variety of methods to take down content that’s not supposed to be on the site, including its ContentID system, which can automate the process for copyright owners that use it–that’s why YouTube wasn’t completely overrun with clips from NBC’s Olympics coverage last summer and why very little footage from ABC’s Oscars coverage made it onto the site earlier this year.

And Warner Music Group (WMG) is a ContentID user. But the system isn’t foolproof, and it’s bound to work much better when YouTube and the content owner are working together instead of fighting over royalties and revenue splits.

So here’s the Green Day video that’s not supposed to be on YouTube, and may not be for much longer once I post it. So enjoy while you can:

And, per MTV VP’s John Loscalzo’s request, I’ll note that Viacom’s video site has a perfectly legally version of the song that won’t get taken down. You can see it here.

That’s because the site is very expensive to run–YouTube served up 5.5 billion videos to U.S. viewers alone in March–and a very hard sell to advertisers, who are scared off by its more-or-less-anything-goes collection of clips. The site doesn’t even bother to try sell ads on more then a small percentage of its videos.

But the latter part of that equation may be changing, argues Bernstein Research’s Jeffrey Lindsay. He thinks YouTube has the ability to sell ads against nine percent of its inventory. That alone represents progress–last year, that number was around three to four percent.

But Lindsay thinks that Google (GOOG) is getting better at putting more advertiser-friendly stuff up on the site, via projects like the TV and movie hub it rolled out last month.

That site doesn’t have anything like the breadth that Hulu boasts, but it’s a big improvement over what used to be there. Lindsay figures that it will get better and that next year YouTube will be able to sell ads on 15 percent of its inventory. His note:

We also note the large increase in advertising on YouTube, which we estimate currently has approximately 9% ad coverage and which we believe could rise to 15% within the next 12 months as more professionally-produced content and movies are added to the Web property. We understand that Google is currently exploring new payment mechanisms–micro-payments and subscriptions to expand YouTube’s business model. Although YouTube revenues are likely to be small through the end of 2009 (we estimate $123 million), we think the increased ad coverage will place YouTube in a favorable position when CPMs eventually start to recover in 2010 and beyond. Our 2010 forecast for YouTube revenues of $222 million represents 81% growth over 2009.

Then again, YouTube still has a very long way to go. Look at the most popular clips on the site today and you’ll find a whole lot of video from this week’s Barcelona-Chelsea Champions League match, all of which seem to be copyright violations, which makes them toxic to advertisers.

Here are four examples from the same game. Note that all of them seem to have been up on the site for at least a day:

And now it’s gone. At least temporarily.

Federated has taken down the site at the request of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and has put up a placeholder search page in its place. The problem? The college sports group, which keeps a tight grip on any and all trademarks related to its teams, games and tournaments, says the site infringed on its copyrights.

You’d think that might have crossed the minds of Twitter, Federated or at least the folks at AT&T (T), who already work with the NCAA. But no matter. Federated spokesguy Matthew DiPietro says the site will be back up with a new look, a lack of copyright violations and a different URL in time for the tournaments Final Four games this weekend.

Does this derail the great Twitter advertising strategy? Nope. But it does illustrate just how new and unformed this stuff is, both for Twitter and its ad partners. Which DiPietro is happy to admit. “These are first-of-their-kind executions,” he told me. “They’re very experimental… things will get worked out.”

Shapiro says the company, which has been primarily focused on playing video and selling ads on its own site, will now be concentrating on a new “Video Compass” player that users will have to download onto their Web browsers.

Shapiro says the company is laying off 25 people and will have a staff in “the mid-40s” when the restructuring is over. That’s less than half its size in June of last year, when the company raised another $30 million, bringing the total capital it has raised to $70 million. At the time, Veoh’s investors–which included Goldman Sachs (GS), Intel (INTC), Time Warner (TWX) and Spark Capital–valued the company at about $125 million, pre-money. VentureBeat first reported the layoffs and restructuring last night.

But Veoh’s video Web browser is one of several players in a field dominated by Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, and now Hulu seems to have established itself as a clear second place.

Comscore (SCOR) says Veoh’s audience peaked in March of last year, when four million viewers watched 33.7 million videos on the site. It says that by February of this year, Veoh’s audience had shrunk to two million viewers watching 16.5 million videos. Every Web publisher disputes third-party measurements, but in this case, Veoh says Comscore’s data are way off: It says it has 23 million unique users watching 200 million videos.

Shapiro insists that the company will continue to support its original video site, but argues that there are more opportunities with its new browser plug-in, which suggests videos to users who are searching for things on other sites. So if a Compass user was searching for, say, “CSI” on Google, it’s possible that the Compass plug-in would offer up a clip or episode of the CBS (CBS) show, via a player that would launch on top of the site.

“The website is extremely mature. It’s been around for 3 and a half years. It’s extremely successful,” Shapiro said. But “quite frankly, there are a lot of things like that. We love it and will continue to invest in it. It’s just that we also see that we have something that no one else has in Compass, and we’re saying we are going to be investing in and supporting that.”

Mitgang came to Veoh in July 2007 from Yahoo (YHOO), and shortly after that the company became enmeshed in a high-profile copyright lawsuit with Universal Music Group. The suit is still ongoing, and though Veoh has won several recent points, people familiar with the company tell me that the legal bills have been significant. I asked Shapiro if the cost of the suit had anything to do with the restructuring, but he declined to comment.

Here’s the press release:

VEoh NETWORKS TO Intensify FOCUS ON ITS SUCCESSFUL
VEOH VIDEO COMPASS™

Company to Streamline Efforts around Omnipresent Video Discovery

SAN DIEGO, CA (April 1, 2009) – Veoh Networks, one of the leading innovators in the online video arena, announced today that the company will be focusing its efforts around its highly successful Veoh Video Compass™ application.  Video Compass is a browser plug-in that makes video discovery a truly seamless experience, enabling video to be played while on every major search engine, portal and commerce site.  It enhances the browsing experience by surfacing recommended videos that are relevant to a consumer’s search terms.  These video recommendations – based on the viewing behavior of millions of online video users – make it easy for consumers to discover and watch videos from an index of millions of videos from around the Internet.  Veoh adds over 25,000 new Video Compass users daily and supports millions of recommendations each day on major web sites such as Google, Yahoo!, YouTube, Ask, MSN, Amazon, IMDB, Craigslist, eBay, Wikipedia, etc.

Meanwhile, Veoh.com, the company’s popular video portal, continues to generate more than 200 million video streams each month from a wide range of independent and traditional content publishers such as ABC, CBS, ESPN, Viacom, and Warner Bros.  The site reaches over 23 million unique users each month with average engagement time at more than 100 minutes per user, and helps dozens of blue chip advertisers reach a broad and highly targeted audience.

As part of Veoh’s continued focus on innovation, Dmitry Shapiro, Veoh’s Founder and Chief Innovation Officer, will be stepping in as CEO.  Shapiro replaces Steve Mitgang.

Shapiro stated, “Veoh was founded in early 2005 when video on the Internet was at its very beginnings.  Today after four years of being a pioneer in the online video space, we know a tremendous amount of what viewers, publishers, and advertisers want.  We have always believed that video discovery and personalization are ultimately the important problems to solve in the world of billions of videos, and have invested heavily in technologies to support that belief.  Video Compass is the latest innovation from Veoh that makes video discovery omnipresent.”  Video Compass can be downloaded at http://www.veoh.com/videocompass/.

As part of this new concerted effort, Veoh will be streamlining its organization to better enable the company to focus on providing compelling offerings to consumers, partners, and advertisers.

About Veoh Networks
Veoh Networks is an innovative Internet Television company that delivers broadcast-quality video programming via the Internet. Veoh has more than 100,000 content publishers – from CBS, Viacom’s MTV Networks, ABC, Warner Bros. Television Group, ESPN and Lions Gate to thousands of independent filmmakers and content producers.  For advertisers, Veoh offers compelling ways of engaging with a targeted audience and measuring performance of their ad buys.

Veoh Networks is a privately held company that is backed by leading technology and media investors, including Shelter Capital Partners, Spark Capital, Michael Eisner’s Tornante Company, Goldman Sachs, Time Warner Inc., Intel Capital, Adobe Systems Incorporated, Gordon Crawford, Tom Freston and Jonathan Dolgen. The company’s principal offices are in Los Angeles and San Diego, California.

The latest: A $25,000 bill from the league for two messages, totaling 49 words, that he posted via Twitter on Friday night. Both tweets complained about the officiating in that night’s Mavericks-Denver Nuggets game.

Cuban’s response? This tweet, posted Sunday afternoon: “just found out got fined25k by nba.) nice.” And then, upon further reflection, he penned this beauty:

Cuban is now wondering aloud, via Twitter (of course) and his blog whether his tweets ought to be considered copyrighted–that is, whether blogs and other publications need his permission to reproduce the stuff he posts. I don’t think so, obviously.

But for what it’s worth, I did check Twitter’s terms of service, and was a little surprised to see that the micro-blogging service doesn’t exert any claim on its users’ work. That’s a refreshing change of pace compared to Twitter’s Web 2.0 peers.