That’s the pitch Apple has been making to TV networks in recent weeks. The company is trying to round up support for a monthly subscription service that would deliver TV programs via its multimedia software, multiple sources tell me.

Apple (AAPL) isn’t tying the proposed service to a specific piece of hardware, like its underwhelming Apple TV box or its long-rumored tablet/slate device. Instead, the company is presenting the offer as an extension of its iTunes software and store, which already has 100 million customers.

A so-called “over the top” service could theoretically rival the ones most consumers already  buy from cable TV operators–if Apple is able to get enough buy-in from broadcast and cable TV programmers.

That’s a big if: Apple has told industry executives it wants to launch the service early next year, but I have yet to hear of a single programmer that has made a firm commitment to the company, which has tasked iTunes boss Eddy Cue with promoting the idea.

Industry executives believe that if anyone jumps first, it will be Disney (DIS), since CEO Bob Iger has shown a willingness to experiment with Apple and iTunes in the past: In 2005, Disney was the first player to sell its programming on iTunes, via a-la-carte downloads. And Apple CEO Steve Jobs is Disney’s largest single shareholder, a result of Disney’s 2006 acquisition of Jobs’s Pixar animation studio. Apple didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Network executives I’ve talked to are intrigued by the idea–they are eager to find new revenue streams–but are also wary, for several reasons.

Cable networks, for instance, don’t want to threaten existing relationships and subscription fees from cable providers like Comcast (CMCSA). And programmers are also worried about the effect a subscription service would have on advertising revenue: Even if the service didn’t distribute TV programs until after their initial air date, that could cut into ratings, which now measure viewership over the course of several days.

But the move to deliver TV and movies over the Web is already well under way. Netflix (NFLX), for instance, already bundles free streaming movie and television along with its disc-by-mail subscription service. iTunes and Amazon (AMZN) rent movies on a one-off basis, and Google’s (GOOG) YouTube is trying out the same thing. Meanwhile, Hulu, the joint venture between GE’s (GE) NBC, News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, and ABC, is figuring out how to launch a paid service that may include rentals, paid downloads or subscriptions.

So Apple’s proposed subscription service, which the company has floated in the past, is no longer a huge stretch. Says one executive briefed on the company’s plans: “I think they might get it right this time.”

Publicis, the giant French ad holding company, has been warning Web publishers to be “hyper-vigilant” about other bogus ads like the ones the Times mistakenly sold, which were purportedly for Vonage (VG) but were actually designed to distribute malware. Publicis, whose units includes Starcom, Digitas, Optimedia, MediaVest, Zenith, and Spark, has been sending out letters warning publishers to be wary of the rogue ads, which it describes as an “industry issue.”

The catch: It appears that the only way to combat the attacks, at least in the near-term, is to do something that runs counter to industry trends: Throw bodies at the problem. Publicis wants publishers to individually verify the ad orders they receive, which would be a nonissue for traditional media but is a problem for Web publishing, which increasingly relies on automation. Mediapost:

The incidents have exposed potential vulnerabilities in on online publishing security, and are causing advertisers, agencies and publishers alike to reassess the processes they use to conduct business, especially as they interact with an increasing array of third-party intermediaries–advertising networks, exchanges, etc.–many of which place insertion orders automatically and without human intervention. The solution, as the Times’ and Publicis’ new policies suggest, is to reinsert human interaction into the process–at least for the time being.

Whoops. That whole thrust of Web publishing is get humans as far away as possible from buying and selling decisions: The ad exchange that Google (GOOG) launched last month, for instance, is designed to handle those tasks in milliseconds. Now think about how long it takes to pick up the phone to actually confirm that ad buyers are who they say they are [shudder].

It’s possible that this is simply butt-covering on the part of Publicis (these attacks have been out there for quite some time) and that this will blow over soon. But I don’t think so. Which means the ascent of Web ads may slow down, just a bit, as the industry figures out just how many humans it will take to fight the problem.

Today’s example: Rubicon Project, a Los Angeles-based advertising-optimization start-up, has raised a $9 million C round led by Peacock Equity, the joint venture co-owned by GE Capital and GE’s (GE) NBC Universal. This follows a $13 million equity and debt round the company raised just a few months ago. Rubicon has raised $45 million since its 2007 launch.

CEO Frank Addante, whose company helps publishers manage their relationships with advertising networks, says he’ll use the new cash to acquire other ad-tech start-ups. Earlier this month, Rubicon picked up Others Online, a behavioral targeting company.

Keeping a close eye on all of this activity: Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT), all of which are reportedly looking at ad-tech acquisitions themselves.

But you won’t be seeing full-length shows or movies from Time Warner (TWX) on the world’s biggest video site–it’s saving those for cable companies that play along with its “TV Everywhere” plan.

So: If you want to see bits of programming from networks like CNN and the Cartoon Network and shows like “Gossip Girl,” you can check them out on YouTube in coming months. But if you want to see the whole thing, you’re either going to have to watch them on your TV set or via Web experiments like the one Comcast (CMCSA) is trying out for its subscribers.

Nothing wrong with clips, by the way: There’s a lot of TV programming (in particular) that lends itself well to bite-sized sampling–Turner’s “Adult Swim,” for instance should be great (see below). But YouTube has been trying to get networks and studios to give up full-length stuff and hasn’t had a lot of luck, at least not compared to the offerings at Hulu.

YouTube’s Jordan Hoffner, who hammers out these deals, wouldn’t go into detail about them with me, but he confirmed that they follow the same rough template as deals his company has forged with Sony (SNE) and Disney (DIS): The content providers get to embed their own video player within YouTube and control ad sales.

Are there more pacts in the works? Sort of, Hoffner says: “We’ve gotten a lot of deals done. You look at the media landscape, and there are only a handful of companies left that we don’t have partnerships with.”

In the meantime here’s a grainy, unsanctioned clip that I hope makes it onto YouTube in a higher-def form once the deal kicks in: Indie rock gods Pavement performing on “Space Ghost” in 1997.

The service is laying off the majority of its employees, and CEO Mike Volpi (pictured right) is out, replaced by Matt Zelesko, who had been SVP of engineering. The Joost.com portal site will stay open, but best to think of it as an ad for the company’s hosting and distribution services, which it will try to sell to cable companies and the like.

A Joost spokesperson declined to say how deep the layoffs will be; but I’m told that the company, which had more than 100 employees last fall, will be down to a couple dozen after the cuts are done. In a post on Joost’s Web site, Volpi said the company “will say goodbye to many of our colleagues and friends.”

This isn’t a shock: Joost’s fate has been the subject of whisper and rumors for the last year or more. The service made an initial splash in 2007 by raising $45 million from the founders of Skype and an array of high-profile investors and media companies, including Sequoia Capital and Viacom (VIA), and was initially supposed to deliver copyrighted content via a peer-to-peer distribution system and a player that users downloaded to their desktops.

But YouTube, and later Hulu, conditioned users to watch video via their browsers, and Joost’s software never caught on. By last fall, the company had retooled and began offering video via the browser like everyone else, but it has never been able to generate a significant audience. In November, a month after the company launched its Web browser, it said it was attracting 2.1 million unique users world-wide, a fraction of YouTube’s audience, and well behind rivals like Hulu, MetaCafe, Veoh and DailyMotion.

Here’s the service’s unique visitor count, per Comscore (SCOR); Joost’s unique viewer count, which is the more relevant metric for video sites, is considerably smaller (click to enlarge):

Joost has been a frequent candidate for buyout rumors, and the company hasn’t gone out of its way to deny them. The supposed buyers would be cable companies like Comcast (CMCSA) Time Warner Cable (TWC) or telcos like AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ), which would presumably use Joost’s technical team to help build out their own Web video plays.

But some of the cable guys and telcos insist that they’re fine with the people they have. And if they do want to buy a video player, they have plenty of options: Just about all of Joost’s peers have been on the block, formally or informally, for the past few months.

JOOST TO PROVIDE WHITE LABEL ONLINE VIDEO PLATFORM

NEW YORK AND LONDON – June 30, 2009 – Joost, the online video startup, announced today that, along with Joost.com, it will focus on providing white label online video platforms for media companies, including cable and satellite providers, broadcasters and video aggregators. This technology and service offering will support content owners’ efforts to build comprehensive branded environments online.

Media companies around the world are embracing internet-based video portals as a key path to distribute their premium video, but building a world-class video portal is increasingly difficult and expensive. Joost will focus on this issue and provide the market with a cost-effective, end-to-end solution for media companies to publish video under their own brands.

As a part of this new direction, Joost will reorganize and restructure its business. A core team in New York and London will work on providing these solutions, as well as operating and supporting Joost.com and its associated video applications. Joost also will wind down operations in its Leiden development center.

Matt Zelesko, currently SVP of Engineering at Joost, will take over as CEO while continuing to lead the engineering organization. Stacey Seltzer, currently SVP of international business development and content acquisition at Joost, will run the business operations. Mike Volpi has stepped down as CEO of Joost but will remain actively involved as Chairman of the Board.

Joost plans to make its white label video platform commercially available to media companies around the world. This offering will provide a solution for companies looking to build a branded experience for their content on their own site as well as other sites and platforms in their distribution networks.

Every year we lie to you and every year you come back for more. You don’t need an upfront. You need therapy. We completely lie to you, and then you pass those lies onto your clients.

Predictably, this generated lots of gasping in cyberspace, but it shouldn’t have. The networks always bring comedians onstage during upfronts to poke fun at themselves and their competitors.

That’s because they need to. The upfronts, where the TV broadcasters show off next year’s shows to advertisers, are a week-long hard-sell. Without some “hey, we’re in on the joke” levity, these things would collapse of their own weight.

And as far as “the occasional gasp”? I was at the 2004 upfront where GE’s (GE) NBC rolled out its animated show based on Siegfried & Roy–a year after Roy had been attacked by one of his own tigers–and attempted to assure advertisers that this was OK by rolling an interview with the mangled entertainer. Now that generated some gasping.

Anyway, no need to trust either me or Deadline Hollywood’s Nikki Finke, who patiently walks through all of this as well. Here, via the miracle of Google’s (GOOG) YouTube, is Kimmel’s routine in its entirety. Enjoy it now, in case the Disney-owned (DIS) network sends a take-down notice. Warning: Contains a couple curse words that people in the advertising business have heard before.

So says Nielsen, via its newest “Three Screen Report.” The tracking service says more Americans are watching TV than ever before–up 1.2 percent in the last quarter–and they’re spending more time watching TV, too–that’s up 1.9 percent, to a staggering 153-plus hours per month. Of course, the same holds true for Web video, which is growing much faster.

Here’s how the data break down. Total number of viewers (click to enlarge):

Time spent viewing (click to enlarge):

Don’t be fooled: As much as the blogosphere likes to describe the TV guys as clueless dummies, they’re well aware that they’re now competing with the likes of Hulu and Google’s (GOOG) YouTube for their viewers’ time. That’s why Hulu, the JV between GE’s (GE) NBC, News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox, and now, Disney’s (DIS) ABC, remains such a controversial site within the industry–one camp thinks it’s the best way for the networks to position themselves against the eventual move to the Web, and the other thinks they’re hastening their own demise by training viewers to expect free, on-demand access via the Web.

We may get a slightly better sense of what advertisers think about this soon. It’s “upfront” week in New York, which means that all the broadcast networks–CBS (CBS), NBC, Fox and ABC have begun selling their wares to advertisers for next year. Prognosticators are betting that upfront sales could be down by 15 percent or so this year, but they’re assuming that most of that decrease has to do with the miserable economy, not a full-blown move–or “secular shift,” as the smart guys like to say–away from TV and to the Web. If that decrease gets much bigger though, it could mean something else is afoot.

Enough with the serious! Here’s the excellent celebrity singalong from the finale of “30 Rock,” which aired last week. NBC only allows Hulu to keep episodes of the show on the site for a limited time (expect to see more of this restriction, not less), so this may only work for a few weeks. Enjoy:

That’s what finally allowed Disney (DIS) to join up with GE’s (GE) NBC and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox in Hulu, the fast-growing Web video site.

The deal, which was finally announced yesterday, has its roots in a November 2007 meeting between Hulu CEO Jason Kilar and Disney’s executive team where Kilar demoed a private beta of the service on Disney CEO Bob Iger’s computer. But the two sides didn’t really start talking in earnest until mid-December of last year.

Since then, people who were involved in the negotiations tell me, the discussions were a long slog, complicated by the fact that there were essentially five parties in the talks. But at no point did the deal ever look to be in jeopardy, I’m told–even though everyone from Google (GOOG) to Comcast (CMCSA) was trying to convince Iger not to go forward.

In the end, Disney essentially agreed to the same terms that NBC and Fox first used when put the site together two years ago. The main components:

• A two-year guarantee of exclusive third-party access to ABC’s online TV inventory, as well as a smattering of Disney cable shows.
• Marketing money, to be spent buying market-rate air time promoting Hulu on Disney TV properties. NBC and Fox handed over $50 million each, doled out over two years, when they formed Hulu; I’m told Disney has committed to a similar amount.
• A cash investment in Hulu itself. I’m told that NBC and Fox kicked in a total of about $30 million to get Hulu off the ground, prior to getting Providence Equity Partners to pony up $100 million for a 10 percent stake. Given that NBC and Fox took on substantial risk when they contributed their stakes, it’s likely that Disney ended up paying a larger sum.

At least as important as Disney’s contribution, though, is NBC and Fox’s decision to re-up their exclusivity arrangements for another two years. Some executives at NBC and Fox I’ve talked to have downplayed this part of the deal, arguing that their companies would have kept working with Hulu even without renewing their exclusives, which were expiring.

But the reality is that if NBC and Fox had not renewed, it would have been a signal that the networks were no longer committed to their joint venture, a question that’s been whispered more and more often in recent months. There are also some practical effects when it comes to dealing with the cable guys (see below).

The deal still needs regulatory approval, and you may hear the likes of Google and Comcast murmuring loudly that a partnership between three of the four broadcast networks violates antitrust statues. But assuming it does go through, here are some of the ripple effects:

CBS: The broadcaster is on a lonely road, which is not where entertainment companies like to find themselves. It may well be that the Web strategy CBS has been pursuing–don’t put too much of your stuff online, but syndicate the stuff you do put out there as widely as possible–is the right way to go. But if CBS CEO Les Moonves ever changes his mind, he will have a hard time climbing aboard the good ship Hulu.

For the record, Kilar is enthusiastic about bringing on CBS: “We’d love to see CBS jump into Hulu,” he says. We’d love to see Time Warner (TWX) jump in to Hulu, too.”

But executives at his partner networks–the same guys who forced him to cut off Web upstart Boxee, remember–says that the door is shut for CBS, at least in terms of the equity deal ABC just got.

If CBS (CBS) does want to make a deal with a big Web distributor, it may well end up doing something with Google’s YouTube, which already distributes snippets of CBS shows on its site. You won’t hear CBS bragging about this out loud, but I’m told partnership has worked out very well for the network to date.

The cable guys: Note that there’s very little of Disney’s premium cable stuff on Hulu–just a smattering of SoapNet and a few shows from the Disney Channel, but nothing your kids care about. And there’s zilch from ESPN.

That’s because Iger doesn’t want to freak out cable operators that pay Disney billions a year for cable programming. So that stuff will stay offline. (Meanwhile, it may get increasingly hard to find some of the NBC/Fox cable programming on Hulu, for the same reason. Good luck watching the most recent episode of FX’s “Rescue Me,” for instance).

But the Disney move, along with NBC and Fox’s commitment to re-up their exclusivity arrangement, just complicated efforts by the likes of Comcast and Time Warner to push an “authentication” arrangement. That’s where cable subscribers–but only cable subscribers–get access to a wealth of TV on the Web.

Without the exclusivity clause, the cable guys could demand that the networks hand over their best stuff directly to them for their online efforts. Now, at least for the next two years, they’ll have work through Hulu, on Hulu’s terms.

It may be that the cable guys are so far away from making their authentication plans a reality–I’m told Comcast’s test will launch this summer with just a few thousand subscribers and will add something like 50,000 subscribers a month after that–that this might not mean much. It’s possible that by the time the cable guys are ready to really talk shop with their programmers, the two-year deals will be long expired.

Bonus: We get to see new Hulu ads, starring actors from ABC shows. I’m hoping for one featuring Jorge Garcia, who plays Hurley on “Lost.” For now, here’s the newest one in the current campaign, featuring Dennis Leary from “Rescue Me.”

In the old days, this might have qualified as news. But for the past year or so, Zenith Optimedia, along with just about every other ad forecaster, has been revising its forecasts downward every couple of months as the reality of the financial meltdown sinks in. So it’s hard to get worked up about this stuff.

More stuff you pretty much knew already: Online advertising is doing better than traditional ads.

Citigroup (C) analyst Mark Mahaney summarizes his chat with the CEOs of PubMatic and the Rubicon Project, which help online publishers sell inventory through ad networks. Their takeaway is that while pricing for online display ads has dropped dramatically in the past couple quarters–by as much as 50 percent in some cases–overall spending should remain flat this year. And as we all know, that’s the new up.

If you’d like to see concrete numbers from the ad market, hang tight until Thursday, when we’ll get earnings reports from two companies at the opposite end of the media spectrum: Gannett (GCI) and Google (GOOG).

This isn’t a total shock. The previous quarter, AOL had only been able to manage two percent advertising growth, and the company had already signaled since then that both its display ad business and its ad network were struggling. But given that these results cover the three-month period that ended Sept. 30, which only included a couple weeks of flat-out economic collapse, there will be worse news in store for the last quarter of the year.

Total revenues at the unit, owned by Time Warner (TWX), dropped 17 percent, to $1 billion. The bulk of that is attributable to its declining (down 26 percent) subscription business, so that number is less relevant–except to whoever may be in the market for one or both parts of the unit, like Yahoo (YHOO). Things would have been even worse, by the way, if AOL’s paid-search business hadn’t ticked up.

Overall results at Time Warner were flat for the year, with revenues of $11.7 billion and earnings of 30 cents per share. CEO Jeff Bewkes also announced that 2008 earnings would be lower than previously forecast due to restructuring charges, but that cash flow would actually be higher than the company had predicted.

Revenues at its to-be-shrunk Time Inc. publishing unit dropped seven percent, pushed down by an eight percent drop in ad revenue. The good news is that online revenues of $13 million, driven primarily by SI.com, People.com and CNNMoney.com, helped cushion some of the blow. The bad news is that those numbers are down from $19 million in the previous quarter.

Other results:

• Cable: Revenues up eight percent; adjusted operating income up nine percent.
• Movies: Revenues nine percent (“The Dark Knight” did great, but not as well as “Harry Potter,” “Rush Hour 3″ and “Hairspray” last year).
• Cable TV networks: Revenues up seven percent. Both subscription fees and ad revenues were up.