The relevant passage from the FT:

Apple has contacted other broadcast and cable networks, including Time Warner's Turner Broadcasting System and Viacom, which have so far been unconvinced by Apple's proposal. The computer maker has also courted the book publishing industry, sector executives say.

Cooperation with Time Warner and Viacom would be essential if Apple wants to get this cable replacement off the ground—they own a plurality of basic cable channels between them. As far as the tablet is concerned:

Apple is preparing an announcement next month that many anticipate will be the official unveiling of its tablet, but the company has so far declined to confirm the existence of the device. Wall Street analysts expect mass production of an Apple tablet to begin as early as February.

That's some serious confidence right there, but it lines up with what we heard yesterday. This is all speculation at this juncture, but the WSJ and FT are big dogs who can (for the most part) be trusted; we'll have to see whether 2010 really is the year of the tablet. [Financial Times]

Even as part of a big company, and as a consumer, and as a guy who loves technology and loves gadgets and all the interesting things that are happening on the Internet, I kind of agree with [the criticisms] I actually care a lot about fair use… What we're really focused on in our business right now is the exact copy.

I really don't get it. If he really thinks this, why doesn't he advise another course of action? Señor Fricklas, no comprendo. [Ars Technica]

Now it appears they're at it again, although what the target(s) will be this time around is anybody's guess. A few of the names floated so far are Viacom Inc and Time Warner Inc.

It's most likely not Disney, said former Disney CEO Michael Eisner. "They may want to recapture their dreams of going after Disney, but not with Disney specifically," he said. "I am sure [Comcast] Brian Roberts and Steve Burke (COO) have Time Warner high on their computer screens."

The analysts, in a word, were weary of such a move. [Reuters via Slashdot]

Viacom's argument is that their channels "provide 20 percent of their audience" yet they only "receive about 2.5 percent of the fees Time Warner pays," so they're asking for what amounts to a rate increase of 23 cents per subscriber. Time Warner says that "the root of this is that the advertising market has gone soft and Viacom is desperate" and it's no time to be making people pay more for TV.

Viacom's PR campaign, so far, is decidedly brilliant: They've taken out full page ads in the Times and other papers today with characters like Dora the Explorer crying because children can't watch her starting tomorrow. Time Warner's response is pretty savvy too. Time Warner spokesman Alexander Dudley said that they'll "be telling our customers exactly where they can go to see these programs online...We’ll also be telling them how they can hook up their PCs to a television set.”

That's right—the cable company will be telling people to use Hulu. That's a first. True, they're still doing it over Time Warner's pipes, but it's pretty shocking coming from a cable company/ISP, who, like every other TV/ISP service provider, has traditionally pushed people in various ways to use the internet less and their TV services more. In fact, Time Warner has squawked before that they hate the amount of content—like The Hills and The Daily Show, the very programs at issue here—that broadcasters are putting online for free. Now they're sending people to them.

This is also the same Time Warner that's capping the amount of data people can use a month in certain markets, which, survey says, is a network management practice likely to spread—in large part due to the amount of strain on broadband networks coming from streaming video now.

And this Time Warner's going to tell people to stream more video? Maybe they're just going to bump your broadband bill instead, or this is a bluff. So, don't worry guys, you'll totally be able to watch Comedy Central while you're hungover tomorrow. (Probably.) [NY Times via NewTeeVee]

Although the intentions aren't yet explicit, most of the coalition members have openly opposed net neutrality legislation and are in favor of allowing ISPs to have the "freedom" to monitor their customers. But Microsoft is a little bit more squirmy on the subject. Thomas C. Rubin, Microsoft’s chief counsel for intellectual property strategy, told Hansell:

We think that this is an opportunity to work with leaders across industries to put our heads together to discuss the opportunities that exist to facilitate the promotion of the availability of legitimate content on the Internet. We are not in favor of filtering at the network level.

Hopefully that is enough of a bulwark against rampant abuse of power. As the forces align, it's important for pirates and non-pirates alike to keep watch. Meantime, check out the full article. [NYT]

RHAPSODY AND YAHOO! ANNOUNCE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP IN DIGITAL MUSIC

Yahoo! to Exclusively Offer and Promote Rhapsody for On-Demand Music Services

SUNNYVALE, CA AND SEATTLE - February 4, 2008 - Yahoo! (Nasdaq: YHOO) and Rhapsody® America, the award winning digital music service of RealNetworks® (RNWK) and Viacom's (NYSE:VIA and VIA.B) MTV Networks, today announced a broad strategic relationship in digital music. Rhapsody will be the exclusive on-demand music service for Yahoo!, replacing Yahoo! Music Unlimited. Yahoo! Music and Rhapsody also intend to collaborate on other digital music services such as music downloads. The partnership introduces Rhapsody's award-winning subscription music service to the largest online music audience through Yahoo! Music and reinforces Yahoo!'s focus on providing users with a destination to easily access the best music services and content from across the web.

In the coming months, Yahoo! Music Unlimited subscribers will be migrated to Rhapsody's digital music service through a simple process that will convert Yahoo! Music Unlimited subscribers' music libraries to Rhapsody. Current Yahoo! Music subscribers will have the opportunity to maintain their existing pricing tiers for a limited time period after migration to the Rhapsody service. Additional details will be communicated to Yahoo! Music subscribers closer to the date when account migration begins.

"By partnering with Yahoo!, we are connecting Rhapsody's 'jukebox in the sky' with one of the biggest music audiences on the web," said Rob Glaser, chairman and CEO of RealNetworks. "Soon, tens of millions of Yahoo users will be able to access their favorite music through Rhapsody - wherever they go, whenever they want it."

"This agreement allows Yahoo! to continue its focus on being the Internet's leading starting point by creating an indispensable music experience that will drive music fans to Yahoo! first on their path to music discovery," said Scott Moore, Senior Vice President and Head of Media, Yahoo!.

The partnership coincides with an announcement by Yahoo! that it has acquired FoxyTunes, the company that developed a popular toolbar plug-in that enables users to control more than 30 desktop and Web-based music players. FoxyTunes also allows users to easily find lyrics, videos, bios and more, based on what is currently playing in a user's media player. By giving Yahoo! users an easy and agnostic tool with which to control and play music, FoxyTunes' functionality across multiple music sources and services also furthers Yahoo!'s goal to be more open. To read more about this announcement, please visit Yahoo!'s corporate blog at yodel.yahoo.com.

"Our partnership with Rhapsody, the acquisition of FoxyTunes and the release of the web-based Yahoo! Media Player moves Yahoo! Music closer to our goal of enabling users to play all of the music on the Web," said Ian Rogers, Vice President of Video and Media Applications, Yahoo!. "But, it doesn't end there, Yahoo! Music will continue to innovate and forge new ways to marry music content with the rich content of the Internet."

"Rhapsody connects fans with more music, in more ways and through more devices than any other on-demand music service," said Neil Smith, Vice President of Marketing for Rhapsody America. "As an unlimited access, on-demand service, Rhapsody is a perfect complement to Yahoo!'s vibrant Yahoo!Music site."

Like the ones protecting ISPs from getting sued because no-no content whisks through their tubes and that basically form YouTube's lifeline. He also wants to consider making content filtering mandatory, like the insane whole-network one AT&T's thinking about firing up.

Needless to say, this would make Hollywood happier than fecal-eating pigs in shit—Viacom's been fighting YouTube's safe harbor claims in its ongoing lawsuit, for instance. If the safe harbor provisions were strung out, YouTube really would be blasted out of existence, along with any other site that puts up user-generated content. Not that any of that matters more than the almighty dollar to the studios. [Ars]

It's a ballsier move than putting The Daily Show online, as South Park sells lots of DVDs, and these episodes will directly compete with episodes available for sale in stores. The Daily Show is less valuable as it gets older, as it's news-based, so putting episodes that poke fun of Ralph Nader online wasn't as much of a risk. If successful, look for more MTV and Comedy Central shows to get this treatment (The State! Please!). The more free TV shows online the better, as far as we're concerned. We'd like it if they spread the love and made all these episodes available to other players such as Joost, but I guess we should be happy with what we get. [Reuters]

"Once an industry initiative is formed, Google will be forced to accept the common model rather than use its own solution as a competitive differentiator," Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey said. "The pressure on Google to go along with this cooperative initiative will be intense, as the fate of existing lawsuits will likely hinge on Google's acceptance of the common solution."

It's brilliant, really. Cutting shows into individual clips, Viacom probably feeds users more ads per content minute online than on television. [nytimes]

Pursued by the newly formed COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE, composed of 29 entities, such as Viacom, Microsoft, Disney, MPAA and RIAA, pirates raced home aboard their mopeds and bicycles, custodians of cracked copies of Windows Vista and bootlegs of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, looking to save their people and restore freedom software, movies and music to the galaxy. – Matt Buchanan.

Backers of stronger copyright laws form lobby group [CNET via Techdirt]

Now, we will be eager to see exactly how this yanking process works, and if there is any room in it for protest, deliberation or out-and-out legal confrontation. Frankly, an automated censoring product seems a little bit scary. What is clear at this point is that this is Google's way of appeasing some of the angrier content owners who have already taken action. According to a wire report, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said today that the tool may at least help play down the allegation that YouTube encourages copyright infringement. "As that product rolls out, the issue becomes moot," said Schmidt.

Sure, but then what's to become of TIME's Person of the Year??? – Wilson Rothman

Google's copyright-protection tool unveiled [CNNMoney.com]

Ars followed up to ask if they take the same active measures to identify copyright-molesting content that they're asking YouTube to follow, but naturally didn't get a response from either iFilm or Viacom. They also talked to a copyright attorney, who said that because Viacom's essentially asking for a "new interpretation of the DMCA" in its lawsuit (YouTube follows the current interpretation), and there's no precedent for a judge to follow, "Viacom's own conduct with iFilm will likely be a factor that the judge looks at."

What's that delicious taste I suddenly I have in my mouth? Oh wait, I think I know what it is—sweet, sweet irony. – Matt Buchanan

Infringing videos on iFilm could cause problems for Viacom [Ars Technica]
Image via Flickr

"This is an area of law where there are a bunch of really clear precedents, so Amazon and eBay have both been found to qualify for the safe harbor and there are a whole bunch more. We will continue to innovate and continue to host material for people, without being distracted by this suit."

Crunchgear [via Reuters]

The dustup is getting ugly, with Viacom spitting out invective left and right, whining that YouTube "built a lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others' creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent Google."

There they go again, the old guard clinging to antiquated business models. It'll work for a while. – Charlie White

Viacom sues Google, YouTube for $1 billion [MSNBC]