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.

Via Reuters/Billboard:

Guns N’ Roses and Universal Music Group’s Interscope-Geffen A&M label were sued by British label Independiente and the U.S. arm of Domino Recording Company, who own the licensing rights to songs by German electronic musician Ulrich Schnauss.

Singer Axl Rose and Guns N’ Roses band members and album producers copied portions of two of Schnauss songs–”Wherever You Are” and “A Strangely Isolated Place”–for a song used on the band’s last album called “Riad N’ the Bedouins,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed on Friday but made available on Monday, seeks $1 million in damages. A spokesperson for Interscope-Geffen A&M, owned by Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, was not available for comment.

You might have thought the labels suing the band and Universal Music would have done so last fall, when there was a biggish to-do about the album and when the band and Universal Music were siccing the federal government on bloggers who posted links to unauthorized MP3s from the album.

Anyway, it’s another good opportunity to remind the young people of today why the young people of 20 years ago were really into Guns N’ Roses: They used to be great!

Also, I am still trying to track down a recording of any of the songs from the Axl Rose-inspired “White Trash Wins Lotto,” the best musical I’ve ever seen (the version I saw featured a pre-“Ratatouille” Patton Oswalt, I think). Any help greatly appreciated…

Could Comcast (CMCSA) be talking to NBC Universal about…something? Could be–that’s what the Los Angeles Times and other outlets reported last night.

And Comcast’s statement says there’s no “deal,” which doesn’t preclude “talks about deals.” Then again, it’s awfully unusual for a company in Comcast’s position to say anything at all.

Clear as mud? Then this won’t help. Check out these comments from Comcast COO Steve Burke at a Sept. 9 conference hosted by Bank of America (BAC) where analyst Jessica Reif-Cohen asked him about his appetite for acquisitions.

Burke said he’d love get more cable channels (like the kind NBCU owns). And he said he didn’t want a really big deal that would require the company to use its shares or take on a lot of debt (like, say, a $35 billion deal for NBCU). He said all this, by the way, in the span of a single answer.

I’ll carve it up and translate for you:

We’ve had plenty of debt, and we don’t want any more right now, thank you very much.

Well, if you look at cable companies over the last 10 or 20 years–I joined the Company 11 years ago. It is really amazing how deleveraged our Company and other cable companies have gotten….We like where we are from a leverage point of view and I think [we] would be uncomfortable if our leverage was significantly higher.

But boy oh boy, are cable channels attractive!

At our core, we believe that content and distribution work well together….I think there are a lot of case studies where content and distribution, particularly in a world where the distribution has technology that can deliver content in new and innovative ways, you really can create a lot of value by putting content and distribution together, particularly if that content is cable content.

And again, when you look at the big media companies, the best businesses that all of us have in the entertainment business I think are the cable content channels and those channels with that dual revenue stream are really good businesses. And I think we wouldn’t be doing our job if we didn’t try to figure out a way to get bigger in those businesses. Those businesses are growing more rapidly than our cable business and if the opportunity came about where we could add cable content to our portfolio, I think we would do it.

But really, we’re not in the market for a mega-deal.

Just to sort of get it right out there, I don’t think that means doing a big deal with our stock. I think all of us think our stock is significantly undervalued. So I don’t think that means doing a big deal with our stock. I also don’t think that means doing a big $50 billion acquisition. I think it is more trying to find opportunities that are complementary with our core business, that don’t take our balance sheet and push it back into a position, which we have worked so hard to get it down.

Never say never!

We are going to try to make sure that we are disciplined and we have high IRRs and good free cash flow generation and we will see if anything comes available. If it does, we will certainly look at it.

Got it? Me either. The only way I can reconcile Burke’s comments with the notion that Comcast is interested in an NBCU deal would be if Comcast was talking about buying Vivendi’s 20 percent stake in the NBCU.

Comcast could swing that one without breaking the bank–the conventional wisdom is that it would cost something in the $5 billion range. And it would technically increase Comcast’s cable network holdings, as Burke says he wants to do. But not really: Comcast would be a minority shareholder with no clear path to control. And it wouldn’t get the “distribution plus content” benefit Burke was talking about last month.

Anyone else have any ideas? Feel free to sound off below.

The deal was hammered out by reps at a Tuesday meeting, Waxman reports, citing “two individuals informed about the meeting.” The $35 billion price tag happens to be the value that a recent JP Morgan report assigned to the company.

Comcast (CMCSA), in a statement, says the story is untrue: “While we do not normally comment on M&A rumors, the report that Comcast has a deal to purchase NBC Universal is inaccurate.” NBC Universal has no comment.

Clintonian parsers will note that Comcast’s denial has potential wiggle room: It isn’t denying, for instance, that the two companies had or are having talks. On the other hand, this is exactly the situation where corporate PR protocol calls for the “we don’t comment on market rumor and speculation” line. That way, you have the option of updating your statement if the story does turn out to be true. And for what it’s worth, I can’t recall the last time I saw a big, publicly traded company respond to an M&A story with this specificity.

UPDATE: The Los Angeles Times’s Joe Flint now says that Comcast is “kicking the tires” at NBCU, according to ”people familiar with the situation.” His report is much more hedged than Waxman’s.

All that said, this is a tie-up that has a first-blush logic to it: Comcast is flush with cash and could presumably take on more debt if it wanted to, and the company has shown an interest in branching out into content before. In 2004, it made a run at Disney (DIS). And the drumbeat for GE (GE) to dump its 80 percent stake in NBCU has been more or less constant, even while the industrial conglomerate insisted it had no interest in selling.

Those drumbeats get louder every year around this time, by the way. That’s because Vivendi, which owns the remaining 20 percent stake in NBCU, has a put option that kicks in every November and that could theoretically force GE into buying out the stake or spinning the whole thing out to the public.

More theoretical ammunition for a deal: Comcast is one of the few potential buyers that could swallow up all of NBCU. While there might be lots of people interested in NBCU’s cable properties (USA, Bravo, SciFi, etc.), there aren’t many who also want the company’s flailing broadcast property.

And while Universal’s film library is potentially attractive to some buyers, many of them–like Time Warner (TWX), for instance–have no interest in the film studio because they already have one.

If you want to play out the theoretical implications for digital, things could get very interesting. NBC is one of the founding partners at Hulu, the free Web TV portal that’s caused consternation for Comcast and other cable providers, which worry that the site is undermining the value of the TV programming they spend big money on. And Comcast and Time Warner have been trying out a “TV Everywhere” strategy that is, in part, a reaction to Hulu’s initial success. But let’s let the dust settle for a minute before we head in that direction.

Vevo

Kohl’s job is a key one at the venture, whose premise is that the music industry can do a better job of selling its video inventory than sites like Google’s (GOOG) YouTube. Vevo is a joint venture owned (for now) by Sony (SNE) and Vivendi’s Universal Music Group; YouTube will help power the site and share in some of its revenue.

In theory, there could be a lot of dollars to go around. When Vevo opens its doors later this year, it is expected to generate some 450 million video streams a month. In theory, the fact that a single company controls the way the videos are displayed and distributed will make those streams more attractive to advertisers.

But there are plenty of skeptics who think the site will flounder, in large part because the music industry has never figured out how to run a successful consumer business and because media companies have a terrible track record when it comes to joint ventures. In Vevo’s favor: They said the same thing about Hulu, and that venture has been a success, at least operationally.

Kohl will run a six-person sales team he intends to expand, people familiar with Vevo’s strategy tell me. Until now, Vevo head Rio Caraeff has been overseeing sales himself–and learning on the job, since he didn’t have any sales experience of his own. Vevo now employs about 45 people.

At Nokia, Kohl ran the company’s interactive ad group; he has also put in time at Viacom’s (VIA) MTV Networks, Vivendi Universal and Comedy Central.

Even when the M&A market was shut down, Wall Street couldn’t stop speculating about GE’s intentions for its NBC Universal unit. And now that it’s deal-making time again, the chatter is getting very noisy.

Hence the flurry of coverage over yesterday’s remarks by Vivendi CEO Jean-Bernard Levy, in which he said…not very much.

But even Levy’s noncomments are important, since his company may have a good deal to say about the fate of NBCU. That’s because Vivendi owns a 20 percent stake in the company, and it looks increasingly likely to sell this year. And that could trigger a whole series of moves. The Wall Street Journal:

Vivendi, the Paris-based entertainment conglomerate, has an annual option to unload its NBCU stake which it is allowed to exercise beginning each November. The option was part of a deal made in 2003 when Vivendi sold its theme parks and television assets in the U.S. to GE for cash and stock.

If Vivendi exercises the option this year, Mr. Levy said, it will plan to offer the shares in the public stock market unless GE exercises its right to buy the stake.

If Vivendi says it will exercise the option this year, GE would have nine months to pony up an estimated $4 billion to $5 billion if it chooses to buy Vivendi’s stake at a time when it already is struggling to shore up its financial position. Otherwise, Vivendi’s minority stake in NBCU could be put in play, raising a host of potential complications for GE’s ownership of the media company.

Yet another option: GE (GE) and Vivendi work together to sell off all of NBC via a direct sale–Comcast (CMCSA) and Time Warner (TWX) are the names you always hear as obvious strategic buyers, though I’m not sure that’s the case–or even via an IPO.

A good bet: Veoh, one of the best-funded would-be YouTubes. Multiple sources tell me the company is aggressively marketing itself in hopes of finding a buyer.

And if a deal does go through, it will result in a loss for the company’s high-profile backers, who include former Disney (DIS) CEO Michael Eisner and Goldman Sachs (GS). I’m told that CEO Dmitry Shapiro has been shopping the company at prices below $70 million, which is the amount investors have sunk into the portal since 2005.

What happened to Veoh? The same thing that happened to almost every other Web video portal that isn’t Google’s (GOOG) YouTube or Hulu: Not enough audience, not enough ad revenue, too many costs.

Veoh claims an audience of about 25 million users, which is less than auditors like comScore (SCOR) report, and is, in any case, an order of magnitude smaller than YouTube’s. Sources tell me the company lost money on revenue of about $6 million last year. Sales are up and executives are optimistic it could break even this year, but the trajectory isn’t high enough to keep Veoh afloat as an independent company.

Complicating matters for Veoh is a costly court battle with Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, which accuses the company of copyright violations. That two-year-old fight has cost the start-up millions in legal fees.

The fact that Veoh’s backers include media-savvy players like Time Warner (TWX); former Viacom executives Tom Freston and Jonathan Dolgen; and Spark Capital, one of the primary investors in Twitter, hasn’t been enough to help the company extricate itself from the suit.

In April, Veoh laid off a good chunk of its staff, replaced CEO Steve Mitgang with Shapiro, the company’s founder, and focused its energy on a new “Video Compass” player that users are supposed to download and install in their Web browsers.

At the time, Shapiro said that the company’s Web portal business was a success but acknowledged that “quite frankly, there are a lot of things like that.”

So who would buy Veoh? Theoretically, at the right price, the company could be attractive to a large Web player like a Yahoo (YHOO), which used to be a big player in video back when video was a small market. Or the company could try marketing its technical expertise to a cable/telco company like Time Warner Cable (TWC) that hasn’t done much with online video but says it will soon.

But rival Web portal Joost tried making the same pitch to various buyers over the last few months and couldn’t get a deal done. Last week Joost laid off most of its staff and said it would try to go it alone as a services company.

This kind of flux is now par for the course among the big Web portals that thought they could rival YouTube, or at least secure second place. But Google’s lead over everyone else in video gets bigger every day, and its primary competitor is now Hulu, which has the advantage of premium content from its Hollywood owners–Disney, GE’s (GE) NBC Universal, and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox.

In addition to Veoh and Joost, France’s DailyMotion has swapped out CEOs in recent months and is reportedly looking to raise money. Meanwhile, Metacafe, yet another video hub, has hired boutique investment bank Think Equity to look for “strategic investors to provide expansion capital.”

Metacafe CEO Erick Hachenburg says his company doesn’t need the money and can survive on its own if it doesn’t go ahead with a deal. “You would expect in this marketplace that you’re going to have a shakeout, and the stronger players are going to make it,” he says.

That sounds right. The question is whether we’ll have more than two players left when this is all over.

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.

Google’s YouTube and Vivendi’s Universal Music Group will be launching a new site, dubbed VEVO, that will highlight UMG’s videos. The site will launch in “coming months” according to a press release (below). And YouTube users will still be able to watch UMG clips from the likes of Lil Wayne via a “new VEVO channel through a special VEVO branded embedded player.”

This is essentially what I’ve been calling “YouTube Music,” and it’s been in the works since last fall. In March, I reported that the two sides had basically hammered out a deal.

I’ll be tracking down whatever details I can throughout the day, but at first glance, this is a pretty big deal for YouTube, the music business, and the rest of the media world.

• YouTube, which dominates the market for Web video but can only sell ads against a small portion of the clips it shows, gets to hang on to valuable, advertiser-friendly inventory.
• Universal gets its best shot at making money from something other than music sales, which it desperately needs to do. I’m also assuming that it gets a large chunk of cash upfront: The press release says the two companies will share ad revenue, but I’d be shocked if UMG CEO Doug Morris wasn’t able to wrangle a significant advance from Google (GOOG). UPDATE: No word on an advance, but I’m told that the two sides have scrapped their earlier arrangement, in which Google paid Universal a fraction of a penny every time someone played on of its videos. That’s a big deal: YouTube has complained that the previous deal was a money-loser, while the labels have complained that they weren’t getting adequately comped for their content.
• Obvious question: Will Universal’s fellow labels–Warner Music Group (WMG), EMI and Sony (SNE)–come on board? Sony has already re-upped its deal with YouTube, and Warner is currently at loggerheads with the video site. I assume that all of them will want access to the dollars and eyeballs that Universal is now getting, but a person familiar with the deal tells me that it’s not a foregone conclusion–in part, because neither YouTube nor the labels understand how VEVO will do. It’s possible, for instance, that both Sony and YouTube will be happy to keep the label’s videos on the larger site. “This is their big toe in the water,” an insider tells me, speaking of YouTube. “I’m not sure they want their whole body in the water.”
• The deal is also an important signal to other content providers YouTube would like to do business with: Give us your best stuff, and we’ll cut you a special deal. Now that YouTube is creating a new site for music videos and directing some its traffic there, who’s to say it couldn’t do the same thing for movies or TV shows? The company would desperately like to sell ads against some of Hollywood’s premium content–whether it’s Sony’s movies, or Disney’s (DIS) shows on ABC. So VEVO may be a template for future deals.

More later. For now, here’s a Lil Wayne video, followed by the press release:

UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP (UMG) AND YOUTUBE TO LAUNCH REVOLUTIONARY PREMIUM MUSIC & VIDEO SERVICE

VEVO – UMG’s Premium Music Service Powered By YouTube
To Launch In Coming Months

NEW YORK, NY and SAN BRUNO, CA, Thursday, April 9, 2009 – Doug Morris, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of Universal Music Group (UMG), the world’s leading music company and Eric Schmidt, Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer of Google Inc., today announced that UMG and YouTube, a Google subsidiary, are working together to launch VEVO, a music and video entertainment service that will feature UMG’s premium video content.

In addition to VEVO, YouTube has renewed and extended its successful partnership with UMG that allows users to continue creating and watching user-generated videos containing UMG sound recordings and Universal Music Publishing Group’s compositions on YouTube through various territories around the world. The two companies will also share advertising revenue on YouTube and VEVO.

Launching later this year, VEVO will be a premium online music video hub built for consumers, advertisers and content owners that will blend UMG’s broad catalog of top artists and content with YouTube’s leading edge video technology and user community. YouTube will provide the technology infrastructure that will power VEVO and host UMG’s extensive library of professionally-created music videos on the new site.  On YouTube, this content will be exclusively available through VEVO.com and a new VEVO channel through a special VEVO branded embedded player.

“VEVO will bring the most compelling premium music video content and services to the world’s single largest online video audience,” stated Mr. Morris. “We believe that at launch, VEVO will already have more traffic than any other music video site in the United States and in the world. And this traffic represents the most sought after demographic for advertisers, especially as advertising dollars continue their shift from old media to new. VEVO will be uniquely positioned to monetize this opportunity and a host of others as we grow it to become “the” destination for premium music video content online. For music lovers who want the best in music videos, the VEVO experience will be second to none.  At the same time, VEVO will expand the premium video marketplace, generate new revenue streams for content creators, and provide brand advertisers an unprecedented opportunity to get in front of a highly engaged audience. We couldn’t be more excited about the huge potential we see in the VEVO service.”

“Technology has allowed fans to discover music in endless ways while creating new business opportunities for artists and labels alike,” said Mr. Schmidt.  ”At Google, we are committed to promoting greater innovation and choice and are thrilled to be working with UMG in what will surely be an exciting new service for consumers, advertisers, content creators and the music industry at large.”

At launch, people will be able to access UMG’s entire catalog of premium music video content, including professionally-created and full-length videos on VEVO, as well as artist-generated content and user-generated content hosted on YouTube.  VEVO will also serve as a syndication platform, expanding the reach of the VEVO brand. This innovative platform is aimed at providing consumers the very best in digital music content while further extending UMG’s lead in the direct-to-consumer market.

Presently, UMG’s YouTube video channel has more than 3.5 billion views, making the UMG channel the most watched on YouTube.

No terms were disclosed. The settlement, in conjunction with an earlier deal struck with Sony’s Sony Music Entertainment (SNE), means that Project Playlist now has deals with two of the big four music labels. But Warner Music Group (WMG) and Vivendi’s Universal Music Group are still suing the company.

Just as important: Project Playlist hasn’t been reinstated by MySpace and Facebook, both of which booted the service off their social networks last November. Since Project Playlist depended on those sites to drive traffic to its site, it’s hard to see how it can gain much traction unless it can sweet-talk the two other labels into coming aboard.

My expectation was that a settlement was in the works last fall because that’s when former Facebook COO Owen Van Natta joined the company as CEO and investor Bob Pittman poured several millions of dollars into it. Neither of those men, I assumed, was betting on a prolonged lawsuit.

Project Playlist isn’t the only music start-up struggling these days–even those that haven’t been sued by the labels, or have deals with them or even investments from them, are trying to figure out how to survive. Most assumed they’d be able to make money via advertising, but that was a hard sell even before the recession/depression.

Still, better to have a deal than a lawsuit.

Preprepared quotes from both sides:

Van Natta: “It is crucial for us to continue connecting our users with more of their favorite music. This partnership will provide us with a wide-ranging selection of content to satisfy our users’ appetites to share and purchase music. We are excited to now have both EMI and SONY BMG Music catalogs available and we hope to continue to expand and enhance our service.”

Ronn Werre, EMI Music’s President, Music Services worldwide: “Making our music available on a fan favorite like Project Playlist is part of EMI Music’s mission to connect artists and fans and to give fans more ways to discover new artists. Project Playlist is becoming a fan favorite. Our artists also know that word-of-mouth among friends is a powerful part of music discovery.”

Try it yourself. Head to YouTube and look up an “official” clip from any of the big three labels that still put their stuff on YouTube–Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, EMI Music Group and Sony’s (SNE) Sony Music Entertainment. Inevitably, you’ll find the embedding code “has been disabled by request.” (This doesn’t apply to Warner Music Group (WMG), since that label’s stuff isn’t on YouTube at all anymore.)

This isn’t the end of the world. I can almost always find an unofficial clip that does the job. But why do I have to do that at all? Don’t the labels, and Google’s video site, want this stuff distributed as widely as possible–either because the clips can help them sell music or sell advertising?

I’ve asked both Google (GOOG) and the labels about this in the past and have never gotten a satisfactory answer. Essentially, both sides point the finger at each other. But yesterday an employee at one of the big labels tried to answer the question for me, via an email. His argument: Both the labels and YouTube are really collaborating on this one.

Meanwhile, he says, the fact that the labels would be much, much better off if they let people promote their products, for free, all over the Web isn’t lost on label employees themselves. Just not the ones that are cutting deals with YouTube.

Here’s his letter, sans identifying details. Below that: An excellent, and unofficial, Beatles clip.

I wanted to point out something that might explain the inability to embed [major label] videos outside of YouTube.

I work at a major label and I’ve been told informally that embedding is disabled on our label’s YouTube clips because the deal terms negotiated with YouTube on our first licensing deal a couple years back demanded such large advance and per-stream payments that YouTube could only come close to the ad rates required to satisfy the terms by selling the advertising around the video, and not just on in-video overlays. So in the negotiation, YouTube told us only way we could get the terms we asked for was to disable the embedding on our videos.

The decision not to compromise on terms so we could allow embedding has been really difficult to label employees in digital marketing and publicity. The digital business division is rewarded for bringing in big money from deals, but we at the labels are rewarded for realizing profits from breaking artists, and end up being constrained by many of those deals.

We would absolutely prefer the videos to be embeddable to increase the reach of our artists through blogs, MySpace pages, and now (this is a huge detriment, I think) through the YouTube video items on Facebook that people post to their walls.

Maybe it’s not a huge story, but it’s definitely more complex than “major labels are so protective of their content that they disable embedding.” It’s more a result of the complex incentives created by centralizing digital business deals in a division that is not at all responsible for music and marketing. It can be frustrating.

[Image credit: MoonSoleil]

The proposed deal, first reported in The Wall Street Journal and CNET, is in advanced stages. A person familiar with the negotiations say it’s “highly probable” that a pact can be hammered out, but says it could still take a month or more to finalize.

The gist: Google’s (GOOG) video site would help Vivendi’s music unit distribute videos on sites outside of YouTube. And YouTube would create a specialized portion of its existing site where Universal could hopefully sell more lucrative ads against its clips.

As of now, the discussions about the new site only involve UMG and YouTube, and the plan isn’t dependent on getting the other big labels to sign on, I’m told. But that doesn’t mean the other labels couldn’t be incorporated, and the site would obviously be more potent if the other guys were involved.

In December, Warner Music Group’s (WMG) videos started disappearing from the site after the company couldn’t reach a deal with YouTube; last month, Sony’s Sony Music Entertainment (SNE) renewed its existing deal to stay on the site.

The WSJ says talks about some kind of deal have been happening since last fall. But let me immodestly point out that I’ve been beating the drum for this deal–repeatedly–for a couple months.

Here’s my logic, which apparently sounds right to other folks: YouTube’s music videos are popular, and should be appealing to advertisers. But right now they’re money-losers for the site: It has to pay the labels about half-a-cent every time it plays a video, and it doesn’t generate enough revenue to cover those costs.

But if YouTube could somehow separate the music video traffic from the rest of the site–as MySpace has managed to do with its MySpace Music offering–that could change. As I’ve written before:

What would YouTube Music look like? It’s not that important. Maybe in addition to videos, it would offer downloads via Amazon’s (AMZN) digital media store, as MySpace does. Maybe it would have detailed biographies and a spartan design, like that MTV video site that MTV pretends doesn’t really exist yet. Doesn’t matter.

What is important: Like its MySpace predecessor, YouTube Music would take the large audience that already consumes music content throughout the site and assemble it one place. That might have some benefits for the site’s users. But it’s undeniably useful for the site’s ad sales team: Advertisers like clean, well-lit spaces with lots and lots of bodies, and partitioning off music creates just that.

That’s why MySpace Music was able to launch with an array of blue-chip advertisers last fall. And there’s no reason why those same advertisers wouldn’t pony up for YouTube music too.”

Want to see a video from one of the acts signed to the world’s biggest music label? You can’t see one embedded in this site from YouTube–at least not an official one. That’s because UMG has disabled the embedding feature from its YouTube clips, which, unfortunately, is standard practice for the big labels.

So here’s David Letterman talking about one of the label’s acts.

1) The big music companies continue to post crummy results.

2) Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, the biggest music label in the world, continues to post results that aren’t as bad as its competitors.

The newest data points come via Vivendi’s fourth-quarter earnings release, which announces that Universal’s sales declined six percent in the last three months of 2008. Strip out currency fluctuations and that number would have been minus 7.8 percent.

That’s bad, but not as bad as the 11 percent drop that Warner Music Group (WMG) reported during the same period, or the 22 percent decline that Sony’s Sony Music Entertainment (SNE) recorded. Universal says earnings (EBITDA, in this case), declined 3.6 percent for the quarter, or 6.6 percent if adjusted for currency fluctuations.

Per usual, Vivendi doesn’t provide much more in the way  of meaningful data about Universal’s performance–though it does say it sold a lot of Lil Wayne music last year. For what it’s worth, here’s what it said about UMG’s results for 2008:

Revenues: Down 4.5 percent (-0.2 percent after adjusting for currency).

Earnings (EBITDA): Up 9.9 percent (11.6 percent after adjusting for currency).

Recorded music sales: Down 8.8 percent, (-4.8 percent after adjusting for currency).

Digital sales: Up 31 percent (the company only provides a currency-adjusted number here). It says online sales were strong “in all large countries”–thank you, Apple (AAPL)–and that mobile sales were strong everywhere outside the U.S.

Obligatory YouTube clip: Here’s UMG star Lil Wayne having a giggle with Katie Couric about his marijuana intake.

GE’s NBC Universal says its revenues dropped three percent and that its operating profits were down six percent for the last three months of 2008, primarily because of weakness at its local TV stations. [Update: NBC says local station revenue was down 25 percent and operating profit down 55 percent, according to paidContent's David Kaplan, who listened to the morning earnings call.]

Look out below: Meredith Corp. (MDP), which owns a handful of local stations in major markets, says its ad sales are down 40 percent this quarter.

The upside: Cable TV was strong, GE says–because cable systems operators have to pay cable networks like NBCU a fixed fee for each subscriber, regardless of the ad market.

And the real upside: GE shareholders don’t really care that much about NBC’s performance–they’re much more concerned about the company’s huge finance business. The one exception here would be Vivendi, which has already said its going to be writing down its stake in NBCU.

Last week, Time Warner (TWX) announced a $25 billion write-down. Now NBC Universal’s parent company, GE (GE), may be looking at one of its own, courtesy of Vivendi, which owns a 20 percent stake in the broadcast network/movie studio/cable TV outfit.

Vivendi will be writing down the value of its equity, which it acquired in 2004. A spokeswoman quoted in a Dow Jones piece says the write-down  will be “lower than the EUR2.3 billion [$3.1 billion] gain the company booked in the third quarter from the creation of Activision Blizzard Inc,” which leaves an awful lot of wriggle room.

As recently as last November, Vivendi’s stake was supposedly worth somewhere in the $6 billion to $8 billion range, which implies a value of of $30 billion to $40 billion for the entire unit. But Vivendi and GE disagree about the value of the NBCU, and the two companies have a complicated relationship, with competing put/call options in the stake.

NBCU reported operating income of $3.1 billion on revenue of $15.4 billion in 2007. Through the first nine months of 2008, the unit had posted operating income of $2.3 billion on $12.5 billion; those numbers included a big boost from the 2008 Beijing Olympics.