And if you don’t want to invest that much time, here’s the super-short version: Head to a pirate review site like Scenesource, look for any movie you want and then look in the comments for links to cloud-based storage lockers where you can grab a copy of the movie, for free.

You may have to try a couple of links, because they eventually get shut down, but it should still be very easy–and more comfortable for mainstream users than dealing with BitTorrent software, which has been the preferred piracy method for some time.

Greenfield’s larger point (registration required) is that the rise of Internet-connected TVs–look around this year’s Consumer Electronics Show and you’ll realize that the next set you buy will almost certainly have a Web connection, whether you want it or not–and cheap bandwidth is going to create a giant headache for big media.

Big media and technology companies can try to fight it with legal and mechanical tactics, or half-steps like UltraViolet, the “everybody but Apple” coalition. But the best long-term answer is to make media consumption incredibly cheap, and incredibly easy, so that it’s more convenient for mainstream users to get it legally than to go through the pirate sites.

That’s an incredibly hard thing to do, because it involves trading big, existing revenue streams for smaller ones down the line. But not doing it can be even more costly: Ask the music labels.

That’s what Universal Music Group is hoping. The world’s biggest music label is pushing a plan to sell all its CDs at a retail price of $10 or less, Billboard reports. Given that all the big labels are currently selling discs at wholesale prices of $10 to $12, that’s a big price chop.

(An update from UMG, which says it hasn’t committed to the new pricing: “This test comes after extensive consumer research and conversations with our retail partners, and we will be looking at such variables as greater selection at sharper pricing on front-line releases. We expect to begin the test in Q2.”)

And it has been a long time coming, since on the Web, the price of an album ranges from nothing (via legal streaming sites and pirate services) to $9.99 or so on Apple’s (AAPL) iTunes.

You could argue that people still buying physical discs are unlikely to be comparing prices with digital alternatives. But there is indeed evidence that consumers respond to cheaper discs. Billboard relays the example of Trans World Entertainment (TWMC), which runs the F.Y.E. and Coconuts chains:

In the last few months, Trans World Entertainment began testing the $9.99 price point in over 100 stores, while Wal-Mart has been telling the majors to release shorter albums at lower prices more frequently.

The Trans World test–in which most independents and every major except for the Warner Music Group participated–produced units sales increase of more than 100%, according to label executives who participated in the tests. The Trans World test helped sell the new pricing model to the Universal labels, sources say.

On the reluctance by other majors to so far address the $10 retail price point issue, one source says, “The definition of idiocy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Things are not going to get better for CD sales unless the price point is addressed. One thing that the Trans World test shows for sure, $10 will drive sales and traffic.”

Here’s the story of Tapulous, relayed from the Midem music conference in Cannes by Robert Andrews of MocoNews:

Rhythm game Tap Tap Revenge saw 2.5 million downloads in its first two months–but a million of those were pirate downloads, Tapulous business development head Tim O’Brien told delegates.

But that’s okay. “We know who they are,” O’Brien said, adding that many of the pirates are now buying virtual goods and legal music downloads within the app.

“We’ve started running ads to the pirate users more aggressively.  Some of those users, because we sell virtual goods, have become high-volume users.” Now Tapulous has 25 million unique users and has been profitable since June.

Had the music labels tried this approach, would the industry be in better shape today? I’m not sure. The labels do make periodic attempts to steer “file-sharers” to legal purchases, either via marketing or threats.

But the big problem there is that people who are looking for free music are looking for free music, and there’s no equivalent “virtual good” the labels can sell to enhance the music they’re not selling.

The labels have started branching out again into revenue streams beyond music sales–concerts, T-shirts, headphones, etc.–so in theory, there could be an opportunity to do a variant: Hey we noticed you’re “sharing” a Madonna song. Would you like to buy a concert DVD? Etc. But if they’re doing it–and if it’s working–that’s news to me.

The short version is that unlike its broadcast peers, CBS (CBS) has been reluctant to make many of its shows available on the Web because it worries that doing so cuts into its core TV business.

So while GE’s (GE) NBC Universal and News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox put Hulu together, CBS stayed away. And when Disney (DIS) decided to join the joint venture earlier this year, CBS executives argued strenuously against the deal. Instead, CBS has been content to use the Web as a promotional tool for TV via outlets like Google’s (GOOG) YouTube.

The longer version is below, via the transcript of a brief chat I had with Smith this afternoon to discuss his plans and the network’s. This is stuff he’s talked about before–to reporters, in industry forums, and even via emails he wishes he hadn’t written–but I’m running it at length here.

Because 1) I think Smith does a good job of explaining the push-and-pull of Web viewership vs. Web economics that everyone in big media is grappling with, and 2) I want people to see just how difficult it is to keep up when Smith talks. He can get out a lot of words in a relatively short time.

I also had a quick chat with CBS CEO Les Moonves, who made many of the points Smith did, but with less verbiage: I’ll get you that transcript shortly, too.

Peter Kafka: Since you’re going to be advising CBS’s Web video strategy, why don’t you lay out, for the record, where things stand?

Quincy Smith:

We recognize that the Web is two things. It’s both a new medium…and there my example has always been, look at fantasy football: When you’re nice enough to watch the Jets just pound the snot out of the Raiders on Sunday, on a CBS channel…on fantasy football on CBSSports.com, you start on the Tuesday before and end the Wednesday after.

And what are you doing? You’re personalizing it, you’re becoming more of a fan of the game [Smith goes on to praise CBSSports.com's feature set]. All of those things are additive, so when Sunday comes in, you’re actually more of a fan, and you’ve even more convinced you’re going to watch that broadcast show.

Now, I realize that sports is reasonably bulletproof, and a good case study to begin with versus some of the other programming, but the fact is, the Web is a new medium. So what do I also mean? Tech reviews on CNET, Money Watch being watched on BNET. GameSpot videogame reviews.

Access to content that CBS didn’t already have, that are additive–both in their own right online, with the margins that the CNET business is used to, and where we’re getting just stronger and stronger from a margin perspective–and potential content that can also be applied to our [local TV stations owned by CBS], our affiliates, our broadcast news, as well as the radio. So that’s the side of our business that is $600 million revenue and $50 million-plus profit on the bottom line.

The other side of the Web, the side that is most thought of by many journalists, is the threat of an IP-deliverer of video. And how you turn that threat into an opportunity.

And so, from that perspective, as  you know, we didn’t go ahead and say, “Okay, we’re going to lock down and stream, with all of our other peers in broadcast, and come up with the same rules, and embed and right-click this and go away.” I’ve never had a beef with Hulu. Hulu’s always worked as a great service. That’s part of the problem.

As a network, we need to make sure that our content is being seen where the dollars matter. And right now that’s on air. Opportunities like TV Everywhere–we’re not putting all of our eggs in that basket, though we are big advocates of it–are ones where you can actually take and expand and extend the television market online, so it doesn’t matter what screen you watch “CSI” on; what matters is that you watched it, it counts and you saw the ads.

But until that happens, it’s crazy to just stream the shows for zero economics. When in fact you can make a lot more money doing things that are additive and complementary to the rest of the CBS line. That’s where CBS interactive comes in now.

Kafka: But TV viewers are showing an increasing interest in watching their programs on the Web, whether from legal services like the Web or illegal torrents and pirate sites. Don’t you need to reach them where they are?

Smith:

Now, if you really look at those numbers, what they’ll say is [online and offline video are] both growing, right? We’re having the best year ever as America’s largest broadcast network, and I think that 99.9 percent of that–this is the quote I’ve never been able to get in there–is that’s [because] of the great content that we have. There’s some infinitesimal basis point that’s relevant [to CBS ratings because] we are making sure that when people watch it, they’re more inclined to watch it on television. For now.

Once that solution moves, once those economics move–whether that’s more ads, [higher] CPMs, more ad buyers….You and I can say all day long, “We’re sold out on Web video. That’s going really well. It’s sold out.” Well, no kidding, it’s sold out. It’s a $700 million market. The television market is $120 billion. And of that, $700 million, half of those [ad buyers] are spending  90 percent of their time doing Google keywords, not buying online video.

The key is, how do you turn television buyers into video buyers? And that’s where a solution like TV Everywhere comes into play.

And by the way, looking at [Hulu CEO Jason] Kilar’s comments the other day, in Colorado [at an industry convention], he sees that too. He’s more sophisticated on this stuff than most anybody. From the perspective of, he understands that’s where the big dollars are. And so he probably went at it as, “I’m going to aggregate all the people first, so hopefully things like TV everywhere come to us.” From our perspective at CBS, we’ve got to go to them.

I don’t hate Hulu. Hulu’s world-class video viewing. What I don’t understand is, why license all that content to something that works that well, that seamlessly, yet–without the economic model around it?

That’s the path that Jason Herskowitz has chosen. Old job: VP of product management at Total Music, Universal Music and Sony’s (SNE) attempt to create a service that offered either free downloads or free streaming music as a way to combat file-sharing. It collapsed earlier this year and Project Playlist bought some of its parts.

New job: VP of product management at LimeWire, one of the last (one of the only?) high-profile peer-to-peer file-sharing companies based in the U.S. Not surprisingly, the service was embroiled with industry lawsuits for three years running.

Here’s Herskowitz’s blog post announcing his new job and his pending move to Brooklyn (Welcome, Jason! Pretty sure we’re neighbors.) from Washington D.C. It’s not a crazy career move: A job is a job and there aren’t that many in digital music these days. Besides, I hear that LimeWire has nice offices.

Which reminds me: How is it, exactly, that LimeWire stays afloat when the labels have been able to force so many of its peers to shut down? Good question. I’ve asked around and heard murmurings that the labels and the file-sharing service may be able to work out some kind of agreement, but I’ve heard that every 12 months or so. So I’ll believe it in when I see it.

In the meantime, LimeWire continues to allow you to download just about any song (and many other things) you can imagine over the Web for free, without paying anyone a cent. Though if you do try to download a copyrighted song, you do get this stern warning from the service. I take it in the same spirit as the warnings head shops give you when they say the bong they’re selling is for tobacco use only (click to enlarge):

This is the second time Jammie Thomas-Rasset has been ordered to pay the music labels for her use of file-sharing services. In a 2007 trial, a jury originally decided that she would owe $9,250 per song.

It’s unclear what prompted the jury to bump up her tab in the retrial, but it’s going to be academic anyway. The industry is making noises about settling, and 32-year-old Thomas-Rasset, who lives in rural Minnesota, doesn’t have $2 million lying around. In her words: “The only thing I can say is good luck trying to get it, because you can’t get blood out of a turnip.”

Lawsuits like the ones the labels filed against Thomas-Rasset haven’t worked: Music piracy has continued unabated, and while Apple (AAPL) sells about $2 billion worth of songs a year on iTunes, the overall market for digital music is flattening. That’s why the lawsuits are supposed to be relics of the past, replaced by a new strategy whereby music labels convince Internet service providers to help them police piracy.

But while the industry floated the concept six months ago, it has yet to get a single cable company or telco to sign on. And even if they do, there’s not a whole lot of incentive for the likes of Comcast (CMCSA) or AT&T (T) to really crack down on music pirates, who don’t take up much bandwidth and don’t steal anything the pipe guys care about.

Nobody, but nobody, releases news late Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend, unless they are trying to do a PR pirate raid on another company.

So it was nice to see Facebook, which tried and failed to buy Twitter, having the moxie to release impressive user numbers for the fast-growing social-networking site just as all the oxygen was getting sucked out of the media room by news that the microblogging start-up got $35 million in new funding and a $250 million valuation.

In a Facebook press release today that arrived at 2:31 p.m. PST: More than 175 million users, with an average of 120 friends on the site; three billion minutes spent daily on Facebook; 850 million photos uploaded monthly; and more.

And, oh, yes: “More than 15 million users update their statuses at least once each day.”

Translation from Facebook founder and CEO Mark “Talk-Like-a-Pirate” Zuckerberg: Aarrr! Yer a scurvy bilge rat, puny Twitter!

Here’s an image of the new Facebook stats page (click on it to make it larger):