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.

I’m sure that Apple (AAPL) will indeed sell the Fab Four’s music via its digital music store one day. But it’s not happening at Apple’s keynote presentation tomorrow.

The Beatles estate, Electronic Arts (ERTS) and Viacom’s (VIA) MTV will be releasing a new version of “Rock Band” that features the band’s songs tomorrow. And on the same day, EMI Music Group will release all of the band’s music on remastered compact discs.

But that’s it, a source familiar with the band’s plans tells me. For now.

UPDATE: Want an on the record source? The Financial Times obliges with a follow-up:

“Conversations between Apple and EMI are ongoing and we look forward to the day when we can make the music available digitally. But it’s not tomorrow,” Ernesto Schmitt, EMI’s global catalog  president, told the FT’s Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson.

Beatles-to-iTunes is a story that never goes away. And some day, it will turn out to be true–there’s no good reason for it not to happen. But predictions that it will happen Wednesday have been tied to wafer-thin logic.

Two years ago, the Web was convinced an announcement was in the offing because of the wording of an Apple keynote invitation. This year, even sober-minded publications are noting the timing of Apple’s keynote event and the Rock Band and CD launches, concluding that an iTunes launch makes sense too.

But I’d argue that it makes less sense: If you’re trying to convince people to spend $16.99 for a remastered copy of the White Album or as much as $250 to play along with the band’s ghostly avatars, why offer a competing product from Apple at the same time?

Nor do I see Steve Jobs expressing much interest in coordinating his marketing announcements with the likes of Viacom.

Anyway, if you really want to get the Beatles on the Web, you don’t have to wait for Apple–a quick Google search will do. Or you can head to Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, which is flooded with great clips like this:

The Pali Capital researcher has rethought his prediction for Viacom’s 2010 U.S. ad sales and now says they’ll drop by three percent. He previously estimated an increase of two percent.

His logic is straightforward: The cable network conglomerate (MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, etc.) has had a hard time hanging onto viewers, and advertisers are following suit. Greenfield:

The risk to our estimates has increased substantially… particularly with Viacom’s ratings remaining mostly down year-over-year during Q3 qtr-to-date… If Viacom is able to turn its ratings positive over the next couple of quarters and the economic rebound begins to meaningfully impact cable network industry ad spending, Viacom could conceivably grow ad revs in calendar 2010 (as we had been forecasting), however, that feels aggressive.

The answer shouldn’t be a surprise, but somehow the performance Gamestop reported this morning managed to catch Wall Street off guard anyway.

The company’s revenue of $1.74 billion was in line with estimates, but earnings of 23 cents a share missed consensus by five cents. More worrisome is that the company had to knock down its guidance for the rest of the year and says that comparable store sales will be down between four percent and eight percent through 2009. Now Gamestop (GME) shares are trading down five percent in a flat market.

Did I mention that this shouldn’t be a surprise? Game sales, once thought to be immune to the recession, have been slumping for months. Turns out that a tough economy may indeed prompt more gamers to huddle in the basement in front of their Xboxes, but it won’t prompt them to buy new games (used ones may be a different story).

Gamestop says it’s still optimistic that coming games, like yet another Call of Duty sequel from Activision (ATVI) and yet another version of Halo from Microsoft/Bungie (MSFT), will help perk things up. But I’m interested to note that the company didn’t cite the new Beatles version of Rock Band, from Electronic Arts (ERTS) and Viacom’s (VIA) MTV as a catalyst.

By the way, for fantasists who persist in pretending that the Beatles are coming to iTunes at Apple’s (AAPL) event next month: Stop! It’s not true.

So says Viacom’s MTV, which reached that conclusion after testing various ad units in more than 50 million video clips it ran across its various sites. Viacom (VIA) says the intro-and-overlay package works best for advertisers’ “brand lift,” which it defines via metrics like unaided awareness, aided awareness and purchase intent.

And, it insists, customers like it, too! You can see an example at the bottom of this post, as well as a schematic that shows the order and timing of the ads.

This isn’t necessarily groundbreaking stuff: Overlays combined with another ad message have been popular with advertisers for some time. And when a company that makes its money selling ads boasts about how great its ads are, it’s best to accept those claims with just a pinch of reserved skepticism.

But these kinds of studies and promotions are taken seriously within the ad business, and Web publishers of all sorts are eager to find new ad formats (see–or try to ignore–the new ginormous ads rolling out this summer).

Meanwhile, as MediaPost notes, Publicis’s VivaKi is working with video providers, including Hulu, CBS (CBS), Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO), to produce its own “killer ad unit,” which is expected to debut next year. And Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, which once avoided ads like the plague, is now trying every possible combination it can find.

Depending on your perspective, this is either interesting news or heartening news: Michael Jackson’s funeral and memorial were indeed a giant Internet event. But they don’t seem to have been as big as Michael Jackson’s death, and they weren’t as big as Barack Obama’s inauguration.

So let’s call them the third-biggest Web event of the year. To date.

That sounds more like what I was thinking this morning: Everyone had to watch Obama’s inauguration or read about Jackson’s death, but not everyone felt compelled to see his burial or memorial.

It also explains why the Akamai people were so uncomfortable with my earlier reading of their traffic stats this afternoon, when I concluded that the events were responsible for the content delivery service recording more visitors per minute than any other time in the last year. Though I’d still love it if someone could explain why that did happen. (Jennifer? Anyone?)

Statistics are tumbling in from different sites and services (if you’d like to share yours with me, I’m all  ears).

Here’s what I’ve got for now:

• Akamai (AKAM) says it delivered 2,185,000 “live and on-demand streams” today. If I’m comparing apples to apples here (Jennifer?), that’s much fewer than the seven million simultaneous streams the content delivery network delivered during Obama’s inauguration. Akamai also compares the number of visitors on its “Net Usage Index for News” and says that number peaked at 3,924,370–that’s nearly double average traffic of 2,000,000, but fewer than the 4,247,971 visitors who were looking for Jackson info when he died on June 25.
• Facebook, which integrated its service with live video feeds from CNN, E! ABC and MTV (why wasn’t Twitter doing this?), says that one million users posted 800,000 status updates during the event, with the overwhelming majority coming through CNN. There were 1.8 million updates with the word “Obama” in them during the inauguration.
• CNN says it served up 781,000 concurrent live streams during the event; during the Inauguration it served up 1.3 million. It served a total of 4.4 million streams during the event, and 10.4 million for the day.
• MSNBC claims three million live streams–which are different from concurrent streams–and says that is its second-highest total, after…well you can guess. More if they roll in.

That’s why this fine Three Wolf Moon T-Shirt, available for as little as $9.78, became one of the online retailer’s most popular items in the last week. Prompted by a link at the IAC (IACI)-owned site, CollegeHumor readers bought up scads of the shirts, and filled Amazon (AMZN) with glowing reviews like these:

Unfortunately I already had this exact picture tattooed on my chest, but this shirt is very useful in colder weather…

This is the only t-shirt Chuck Norris wears. Wolves howl at the moon, and the moon howls at Chuck…

…So I’m looking for threads that say, “Hey baby…I’m real boss!” when I stumble upon this epic creation. The wolves spoke to me in a language all their own; it was like German, Mongol, and Bitchin all mixed together. I mean, one wolf howlin at the moon is major…but three???

Why bother? If you have to ask, you’re probably never going to get the joke. More info via the Washington Post, including the most pertinent detail: As clever as the CollegeHumor dudes are, they neglected to actually figure out how to profit from the stunt themselves.

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.

This news comes from Nielsen Online, which just released its video traffic numbers for April. The top line is more or less unchanged. Google’s (GOOG) YouTube dominates the field, generating more video traffic than the next nine biggest sites on the Web combined.

And of course, Hulu, the joint venture between News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox and GE’s (GE) NBC is continuing its rocket ride. The No. 2 site saw streams increase 7.1 percent over the previous month and 490.4 percent compared with a year ago (though bear in mind that April 2008 was Hulu’s first full month out of beta).

None of which is surprising. One thing I didn’t expect: MTV grew faster than anyone else in the Top 10 last month. The site posted a 15.7 percent increase in month-to-month traffic–in a month when overall video usage actually declined 2.3 percent compared with the previous month.

Here’s the full breakdown (click table to enlarge):

Bonus data point: Nielsen breaks out Web traffic by brand, not by corporate owner. But cobble together MTV’s video traffic with corporate cousin Nickelodeon’s, and parent company Viacom (VIA)  gets a total of 319.7 million video streams in April. That’s enough to qualify for third place, and not that far behind No. 2 Hulu’s 373.3 million.

Not bad for a company that spent a long time frittering away what should have been a very big lead in Web video. And perhaps promising for Vevo, the YouTube/Universal Music site launching later this year.

Usually when a company has a banner month–or even a passable one–according to Nielsen or Comscore (SCOR), I get barraged with celebratory press releases. Nothing from Viacom to date, though I’ve asked the company for comment.

Anyone else want to explain why MTV’s sites spiked in April? In the meantime, here’s MTV’s version of the newish Eminem video:

Not because the notion is necessarily a terrible idea, mind you. But because musicians and music labels seemed unlikely to be beneficiaries of Washington aid.

Today, however, the music business got one step closer to getting the bill passed: The House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation in a 21-9 vote. There’s a long way to go: If I remember my Schoolhouse Rock correctly, the bill has to get through a Senate committee, then the full House, the full Senate and then President Barack Obama’s desk before it becomes law.

The National Association of Broadcasters, which hits my inbox almost daily with a press release decrying the act and promising its ultimate failure, assures me that “nearly half the House of Representatives already opposes RIAA efforts to feather the nest of foreign record labels.” And that kind of invective may help them quash this thing.

But let me reiterate: I still think the best way to kill this, if you were so inclined, would be to start calling it the “Britney Bailout.”

Per my previous story, here’s the campaign I would run if I was the NAB: “Slap up an ad that shows Britney Spears driving with her kid on her lap or staggering around an MTV stage or cavorting with K-Fed, and run a simple tag line: “Britney wants more money. Tell Congress not to give her any.” But again, what do I know?

Oooh. Here’s that Schoolhouse Rock classic:

People familiar with the matter tell me that DeWolfe and News Corp., specifically new digital boss Jon Miller, are discussing a leadership change today. News Corp. (NWS) officials declined to comment. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

Sources tell me Miller hadn’t been planning on getting rid of DeWolfe (pictured above) in the near future, and that until yesterday he was still evaluating his options. News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch had once treated DeWolfe as a favorite and gave him significant autonomy at MySpace. But Murdoch, who brought Miller on earlier this month, has been leaning toward a change as MySpace’s traffic has stagnated and its buzz and momentum have moved to Facebook.

Still, Murdoch had left the decision about the site’s leadership to Miller, his new hire, sources said. One possibility: Elevating DeWolfe to a nonexecutive advisory position.

Those options narrowed last night once TechCrunch ran a story claiming that News Corp. had hired a headhunting firm to “scour for possible replacements” for DeWolfe.

News Corp. hadn’t actually hired a headhunter, I’m told by multiple sources. But I’m also told that the report was enough to spook DeWolfe into calling Miller to ask what his plans were. That conversation led to today’s negotiations, which will likely lead to his stepping down as CEO, although he may remain affiliated with MySpace in some capacity.

Meanwhile, News Corp. has been talking to Van Natta (pictured here) about taking DeWolfe’s place. Van Natta, who had been a highly regarded executive at Facebook, was at one point the leading candidate to head up MySpace Music, which launched last fall, and the two sides held extensive conversations.

But Van Natta, like many other potential hires for that position, bristled at the job’s org chart: Rather than a standalone company, a la Hulu, the site News Corp. set up with GE’s (GE) NBC, MySpace Music is simply a unit of MySpace, reporting to DeWolfe. MTV executive Courtney Holt eventually took the job.

But Van Natta’s fate has remained closely intertwined with MySpace anyway. Project Playlist, the free music-streaming site he took over last fall, has seen traffic plummet after MySpace, along with Facebook, cut off the site’s access to their users, a move prompted by lawsuits from several major music companies.

Van Natta has made some headway at extracting the company from its legal mess, which predated his hiring, and he has hammered out a settlement with EMI Music Group. But Playlist is still being sued by Warner Music Group (WMG) and Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, and even music sites that aren’t in legal trouble are struggling to keep their heads above water. Plenty of Silicon Valley watchers wonder why Van Natta landed at Playlist in the first place and think that he has been looking for a way out.

Here’s a video of DeWolfe talking with BoomTown’s Kara Swisher a little more than a year ago when MySpace opened a new office in San Francisco. Below that is a video of Van Natta talking to Swisher in 2007 about Facebook’s ill-fated “Beacon” project.

But Vevo, the arrangement announced by Google’s YouTube and Vivendi’s Universal Music Group yesterday, isn’t quite as straightforward as the two companies made it sound.

Some of the funkier details I’ve been able to discern so far:

• Despite the reports describing Vevo as a joint venture between Google (GOOG) and Universal, it isn’t. Instead, Vevo will be a wholly owned subsidiary of Universal Music Group. The record label provides the content and staff; YouTube provides technology, and of course, access to all those eyeballs, via its own site.
• In the near-term, YouTube will also provide a sales force for the site, but Vevo/Universal’s plan is to create its own team, eventually.
• While initial reports indicated that Universal’s videos would still be available on YouTube itself, that’s not correct. You’ll be able to find, say, the new Lil Wayne single via YouTube search. But in order to watch the clip, you’ll end up clicking through to the new site. Only Universal’s “non-premium content” will be available on YouTube itself.

In other words: With YouTube’s help, Universal is moving all of its videos off of the world’s biggest video site onto its own platform. Think Hulu meets MTV.

Is Universal a likely bet to run a successful Web site? The label’s detractors, and there are plenty, are already pointing to the music industry’s litany of failures on the Web. If you weren’t paying attention to the music business’s online attempts a decade ago, Google “pressplay” and “MusicNet.”

And even if Google’s technical expertise makes it easier for UMG to get a decent site up and running, neither company has a real track record when it comes to getting big brands to pony up for video ads, which is supposedly the whole point of the site.

Lots of people made similarly disparaging remarks about Hulu, of course. There was no way that GE’s (GE) NBC and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox were going to be able to launch a decent site, let alone provide a challenge to YouTube. But they did, and they are. So the Vevo folks have that example to inspire them. (News Corp. is the owner of Dow Jones, which owns this Web site.)

But even if UMG gets the site off the ground, there is a considerable risk for both the label and for Google. Because if it works, Vevo will be diverting a lot of eyeballs away from YouTube–yesterday’s press release boasted that UMG’s YouTube channel has racked up 3.5 billion views.

The idea is to provide advertisers with a clean, well-lit space that will make them feel comfortable enough to spend money. But part of YouTube’s appeal is that is a riot of  the good, the bad and the WTF? You may start out watching a U2 video, and 20 minutes later end up watching a clip of a doped-up 7-year-old after a visit to the dentist. If you end up at Vevo, you’re going to have be very interested in music videos–and, at least for now, just the ones that Universal owns.

Are there enough video watchers out there to justify a business with some 50+ employees, which is the number I’ve heard Vevo/Universal is looking at? And can Universal figure out how to turn those eyeballs into more money than they’d generate on YouTube itself? Got me. Can’t wait to find out.

So no surprise that Dauman had little to say about his company’s giant, glacial lawsuit–two years and counting–against Google (GOOG) over copyright infringement at YouTube. But for the record, Dauman still thinks… something will happen, someday.

“We’re in U.S. litigation-land. We are in discovery. A lot of documents have been produced. One thing about technology, there’s so many more documents now,” Dauman noted, accurately. And so what does that mean? “We continue to be confident in our position. There’s not much more we can say, and there will be an outcome.”

So there you have it.

Dauman did say that his suit helped push Google to install a filtering system that susses out videos that shouldn’t be on the site (more on that soon). And he did say that his son, Philippe Jr., continues to enjoy working at Google–a hire that Dauman says both he and Google CEO Eric Schmidt signed off on. “He’s doing very well there. He loves it, it’s a great company.”

That’s because the Online Publishers Association, one of the Web ad industry’s main trade groups, is rolling out a new series of in-your-face ad units–standardized blocks of space that Web publishers and advertisers favor because they make it easy to mass-produce marketing messages.

The new standards are meant to combat “banner blindess”–our collective, unconscious and successful efforts to block out and ignore most Web advertising.

ClickZ has the details, but the key point is that the ads are going to be ginormous and gaudy–think monster trucks with sirens and flashing lights. The numbers they’re referring to in the quotation below are pixels; by way of comparison, the column of text you’re reading now is about 350 pixels wide:

“Among the new units being debuted are: the ‘fixed panel,’ a 336 x 860 panel that looks embedded into the page and scrolls to the top and bottom of the page as the user scrolls; the ‘XXL Box,’ which is 468 x 648 and allows users to actually turn ‘pages’ and watch video; and the ‘pushdown,’ which is 970 x 428 which opens to display a nearly full-page ad and then rolls up to the top of the page.”

The reasonable thing to point out here is that there’s nothing that prohibits advertisers and publishers from doing interesting and creative stuff with these formats–just like Apple (AAPL). And if you’re really lucky, you’ll find that the ads are even about stuff you’re interested in learning about. That’s the key, remember, to Google’s (GOOG) success (and note how unobtrusive most of Google’s ads are).

But if the ads aren’t interesting and aren’t relevant to you? It’s the kind of thing that could drive a mild-mannered person to install ad-blocking software.

If you want to see this stuff live, keep your eyes peeled at sites run by ESPN, the New York Times, MTV and Condé Nast Digital, which are among the 24 publishers that have agreed to start running at least one of the ad units by July.