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.

Remarking on Apple’s (APPL) new TV-show rental scheme at the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch 2010 Media, Communications & Entertainment Conference, Meyer said he was wary of its low prices and potential impact on full-season sales. “We just don’t think the value proposition is a good one for us,” Meyer said, adding that he’d rather sell season passes to the studio’s TV series and $1.99 and $2.99 per-episode downloads than “open up a rental business in television at a low price.”

News Corp. (NWS) and Disney (DIS) disagree and have already signed on to offer cheaper rentals. Presumably, if doing so increases rental volume and income for them, Meyer will change his tune.

I’m told that Apple (AAPL) has finalized a deal with Disney (DIS) for some of its shows, which isn’t a surprise. Steve Jobs has had a hard time convincing other networks, but sources tell me News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox is likely to join in as well, particularly if Rupert Murdoch thinks he can extract some iPad favors out of Jobs down the line (the Los Angeles Times reported the same thing last night).

Big deal? Maybe. Plenty of my bloggy brethren are convinced the TV business model is going to get blowed up real good, with Apple and other Web heavyweights doing the demolition. Even some grown-ups feel the same way.

But it’s worth noting that TV has been facing off against the forces of digital disruption for a long time, and it’s been holding its own so far.

Apple–with an initial push from Disney–started selling TV shows a day after they aired back in 2005, for $1.99 a piece. Five years later, after sales have stagnated, they’re cutting prices by a buck (ignore the rental vs. download distinction–most consumers watch these things only once, anyway).

Bear in mind that you still won’t get to watch any ABC show via iTunes until it’s already aired on TV. And bear in mind that this is in lieu of the product Apple really wanted to sell: $30-a-month Web TV subscriptions.

That doesn’t sound like a tectonic move to me. It sounds like the TV industry protecting its core businesses–advertising and cable fees–while playing around at the margins looking for incremental dollars.

Meanwhile, if Apple, or Google (GOOG) or Netflix (NFLX) or whoever, really wanted to compete head-to-head with cable, it could. The network guys would be happy to sell their programming at the same price, in the same bundles, as the cable guys. That’s what the direct satellite guys started doing in the ’90s, and while the cable guys didn’t like it, there wasn’t much they could do about it.

But those license deals are expensive. Very expensive. The Disney-Time Warner Cable (TWC) license deal, which should be announced any minute (or tomorrow), will likely value each of the cable provider’s 12.7 million subscribers at something north of $8.00 per subscriber, per month. And the Web powerhouses didn’t become Web powerhouses by paying premium prices for other people’s content.

Maybe that stuff really will get devalued, a la music, because most people steal it or ignore it. But we’ve been waiting for that moment for some time and it hasn’t shown up yet.

Or maybe the new generation of devices–we’re only three years into the iPhone era, and just a few months (!) into iPad time–will make a difference this time around. And maybe Apple will use its marketing clout to push the rentals really, really hard.

Maybe! But for now, I think it means a few more dollars, and maybe a few more eyeballs, for “Modern Family.” Which should make Steve Levitan happy, but it won’t change the world.

“There are certain shows that will be sold on Apple for 99 cents,” Moonves said today, adding, however, that details have not been worked out.

It’s possible that Moonves doesn’t plan to make any significant concessions on pricing–CBS, like other networks, already offers some older shows, or new shows it wants to promote, at discount prices. But the context of Moonves’s comments, which came during the company’s earnings call today, indicated that he is planning on changing his pricing structure on more than a one-off basis.

UPDATE: That metaphorical throat-clearing you might be hearing right now is the sound of people who are familiar with Moonves’s thinking. Said people are telling me that while CBS is open to talks with Apple, etc., the company has no imminent plans to change pricing and that Moonves didn’t really mean to imply that anything is afoot. But since said people won’t go on the record, we have to go with what Moonves actually said.

Any kind of price cut would represent a partial victory for Jobs and Apple (AAPL) content boss Eddy Cue, who have been trying to convince the networks to lower their prices. The Financial Times first reported on those efforts last month.

Video sales haven’t been robust at iTunes and aren’t a significant revenue source for the networks. But since the networks are still worried about cannibalizing existing revenue sources like syndication fees and DVD sales, they’ve been reluctant to chop prices further.

GE’s (GE) NBC Universal ended up yanking its shows off of iTunes in 2008 because it wanted the ability to raise prices, and it got at least some of what it wanted: Since that imbroglio, networks have been able to sell their HD shows for $2.99 a piece.

It has fixed its tech problems and is doing just fine, thank you very much. Vevo says it is generating around 20 million video views a day, which puts it on track to generate some 600 million views a month.

Some context: ComScore (SCOR) says that Hulu itself generates some 900,000 video views in the U.S, making it the second biggest video site after YouTube. And Viacom (VIA), the current No. 3, generates 500,000 views.

If you want to compare apples to apples, though, you have to cut Vevo’s 600 million down to 300 million since about half its views come from outside the U.S. Still, that’s enough to qualify Vevo for eighth place in comScore’s rankings, placing it above AOL (AOL) and CBS (CBS).

And when comScore’s December video numbers are released at the end of this month, Vevo’s numbers will come in below 300 million since it didn’t launch until Dec. 9 and because comScore’s numbers are usually lower than any site’s internal numbers.

Still, that’s a lot of eyeballs, and it’s more than the joint venture between Sony (SNE), Vivendi’s Universal Music Group and Abu Dhabi Media Company expected. But the fact that Vevo began with a huge audience, rocky start and all, shouldn’t be a surprise.

In fact, I said so last month. No need to type it twice:

While everyone has rightly been flocking to Vevo.com itself for a look-see, it’s not the most important Web site for the joint venture. That would be YouTube, where most Vevo users are actually going to encounter–and watch–Vevo videos, without even knowing that they’re watching a Vevo video.

To be clear: When Google’s (GOOG) video site agreed to help Universal Music Group (and later Sony) launch a new hub for music videos, it didn’t mean it would be sending its users away from YouTube.

When you read about Vevo launching with 400 million video views in the first month, understand that the majority of those aren’t coming from the new site but from YouTubers who are watching music clips the same way they always do, on YouTube. But Vevo will get credit for those eyeballs and any ad dollars they generate.

That is: If you’re watching a Ke$ha video on YouTube, there’s a good chance you’re watching a Vevo video.

So. Next question. Can Vevo turn all those views into dollars?

We’ll see. CEO Rio Caraeff tells me his sales group continues to bring in high-profile advertisers–the latest, last week, was Procter & Gamble (PG)–and has been able to get between $25 and $30 for every 1,000 impressions. That’s a whole lot better than videos traditionally earned on YouTube, and as good as some TV shows.

But it’s relatively easy to announce that you’re selling your initial batch of inventory at a high rate. It’s much harder to sustain that over time. So it’s hard to read too much into those numbers just yet.

In the meantime, the site is going to get much bigger in the near future.

For one thing, it should start showing videos from EMI Music Group within a few weeks, which means that it will have clips from three of the four big music labels. Warner Music Group (WMG), the lone holdout, has its own deal with YouTube.

And in March, Vevo should start syndicating its clips to other big properties, starting with CBS and AOL, meaning it will have plenty more eyeballs to sell. The challenge will be proving that the JV’s thesis–music videos alone are attractive to advertisers–is worth the effort.

Meanwhile, here’s a primer on Ke$ha, whom I didn’t know about until the other day. She is apparently big with the kids these days.

Gawker’s Doree Shafrir explains this to the rest of us. And if you don’t like words, here’s the clip:

This time, though, they’re not trying to convince consumers to pay for music or asking advertisers to subsidize it. Instead, they’re trying to act as a middleman between labels and publishers who own music and advertisers, Hollywood and other folks who want to use the tunes for commercial purposes.

Via Twain Media, their personal investment company, Goldberg and Roback have purchased a smallish start-up called mSoft and renamed it Dashbox, which they describe as a “subscription service that aggregates and manages all of your production music and sound effects.” The idea is to link up people who need to buy music for commercial reasons with rights holders, who are often scattered and hard to track down.

Roback will take the CEO spot at the renamed company; Goldberg, who has a day job running SurveyMonkey, will be chairman. The company hasn’t disclosed the terms of its mSoft purchase, but people familiar with the transaction tell me they bought the company for under $10 million.

Roback and Goldberg founded Launch Media in 1994, and sold it to Yahoo (YHOO) in 2001; the two stayed on to run Yahoo Music until 2007. Earlier this year, Goldberg invested in and took over SurveyMonkey, an online survey coordinator.

Goldberg is one of many former digital music executives I’ve talked to who thinks the music business is fundamentally broken, so at first blush it’s a tiny bit surprising to see him back in it again.

But he and Roback are essentially investing in an entirely different industry–it’s a business-to-business market that really hasn’t been affected much by the digital revolution. If you want to use a song in your TV show, you can’t steal it via BitTorrent or stream it for free on Spotify.

Nor has the digital revolution affected the industry’s infrastructure, which remains pretty ancient. Music supervisors for TV shows and movies still end up resorting to faxes and phone calls to track down tunes they’d like to use.

So there are some obvious opportunities for someone who can amass scale and decrease friction here. It may not be as sexy as providing consumers with all the free music they want, but it may end up being more profitable.

“I think the whole category is still a hobby right now. I don’t think anybody has succeeded at it. And actually the experimentation has slowed down. A lot of the early companies that were trying things have faded away. So I would have to say that given the economic conditions, given the venture capital outlooks and stuff, I continue to believe it will be a hobby in 2009.”

– Apple CEO Steve Jobs, October 2008

“We still consider this a hobby. It is clear that the movie rental business has really helped Apple TV and there are more and more customers that want to try it. And we’re going to continue to invest in it, because we fundamentally believe there is something there for us in the future.”

– Apple COO Tim Cook, January 2009

There’s not much of a business yet in Apple TV, as Apple’s leadership often notes. But there may be soon, with the market for connected TVs evolving as it has been.

In a research note issued this morning, Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster says the time is right for Apple to release the next iteration of Apple TV–one that offers DVR capabilities and supports iTunes TV show subscriptions.

“Apple could leverage its deep library of content with many network and cable channel content owners to provide unlimited access to a sub-library of its TV shows for a standard monthly fee ($30 or $40 per month),” Munster writes. “Such a product would effectively replace a consumer’s monthly cable bill (~$85/month) and offer access to current and older episodes of select shows on select channels.”

Further, Munster notes, “The selection would dictate the value, and several tiers could be offered, but we see this as one way for Apple to leverage its large iTunes content library as well as its unique Apple TV hardware in order to get digital video to the TV for a price significantly less than the average cable or satellite TV bill.”

Makes great sense. And if Apple (AAPL) were to launch these services in concert with App Store support, as Munster has suggested in the past, it would be a pretty compelling proposition. And it would set the stage for the next evolution of the platform, the Apple Television, an Internet-connected TV with onboard DVR and media center functionality.

Says Munster:

“Beyond new hardware with DVR or iTunes video subscription features, we believe the 2-5 year roadmap for the Apple TV product lineup is robust. To begin with, Internet-connected TVs with interactive features will likely gain popularity in the next several years. Apple could differentiate itself in this market as a seasoned software developer competing largely with television hardware manufacturers that do not excel in the software arena. The device could also bring iPhone games, a relatively new segment for Apple, to the television.

“While this is unlikely in the near term,” Munster continues, “we believe the iPhone will succeed as a portable gaming platform and Apple may consider bringing higher quality games developed on a similar platform to the TV. The iPhone app developer community is already robust, and Apple could leverage those developers to enter the gaming arena on the TV. In fact, the iPhone or iPod touch could itself operate as a touchscreen gaming control for a game-centric Apple TV.”

Again, this makes great sense, though TV hardware is not an easy business–just ask Sony (SNE). But, as Munster aptly notes, it might be quite a bit less difficult if Apple were to “change the rules of the game,” something it’s done in a number of markets already.

That said, as Media Memo’s Peter Kafka just reminded me, the cable companies are working very closely with Hollywood to make sure it’s difficult for people to replace their cable service. They’d almost certainly attempt to sack an initiative like one Munster describes above.

Alas, you’ve got no choice but to remember that last part. It has disappeared from the Web, apparently at the behest of Major League Baseball.

Stewart dissected the media hubhub about Obama’s pitch–and in particular Fox News’s analysis of it–on his July 15 show. But if you watch the archived version of that show at Viacom’s (VIA) “Daily Show” Web site, you’ll find that the bit has been cut out of his opening monologue. It once ran for two minutes and 43 seconds, but now the archive stops short at the 55-second mark.

And if you try to watch that episode on Hulu, the Web site owned by News Corp. (NWS), GE’s (GE) NBC and Disney (DIS), you’ll find that it’s gone altogether, replaced by a message blaming “rights issues” (click image to enlarge):

What happened? The story, via Viacom officials, is that pro baseball officials contacted them this week and told them to take down the Obama footage, which it owns.

The argument, I’m told, is that the MLB was fine with Stewart (and every other TV show in the country) using the clip under “fair use” terms–the footage itself was a news story, and Stewart was adding value via his commentary, etc. But it balked at the notion of the footage remaining in Viacom’s archives, and circulating on the Web, forever.

None of that makes any sense, of course: There’s no reason that Stewart’s use of the clip should be okay, but only for a limited time. And if Viacom wanted to spend time fighting MLB on this, it certainly could have.

But presumably, the company figures it wants to use its legal resources elsewhere–like fighting the never-ending copyright lawsuit it filed against Google (GOOG) and YouTube. Remember that one?

In any case, I’ve reached out to MLB to make sure I’m not missing anything here. And of course, you can still find all sorts of footage of the pitch, along with other anchors making fun of it, all over the Web. Like this one:

Here’s an edited version of the beginning of the July 15 episode of the “Daily Show.” Before you click on it, note the title of the clip, and it’s original running time.

I’m told that an edited version of the show will show up on Hulu again later tonight or on Thursday.

For YouTube, which has been struggling to monetize the 330 million visitors coming its way each month, this may be the beginning of the business model that has so far eluded it. That said, the company is going to have to offer those visitors a bit more than grainy “MacGyver” reruns if it hopes to prevent them from turning to Hulu for premium long-form video content.

For YouTube, which has been struggling to monetize the 330 million visitors coming its way each month, this may be the beginning of the business model that has so far eluded it. That said, the company is going to have to offer those visitors a bit more than grainy “MacGyver” reruns if it hopes to prevent them from turning to Hulu for premium long-form video content.

Amazon (AMZN) launched a new service called Amazon Video on Demand, which allows users, for a fee, to watch any of 40,000 TV episodes or movies, in real time, on their Windows and Macintosh computers, and on specially equipped Sony Bravia TV sets. This service replaces an earlier Amazon video offering called Unbox.

I have been testing Amazon Video on Demand and I found it worked well, although it has some limitations. The user interface is clean and smart, the quality is good if you have a fast Internet connection, and there are some clever features. On the downside, it works poorly with the slow connections typical in places like hotels. And there are some studio-imposed limits on what content is offered and how you can view it.

To date, there have been three major models for legally getting TV shows and movies from the Web.

In one, best represented by Apple’s (AAPL) widely used iTunes store, the TV shows and movies are ad-free, but you pay for each. All of this content is downloaded to your Windows or Macintosh computer or your Apple TV set-top box for later viewing, even when you’re not connected to the Internet — though on Apple TV you can start watching while the material is being downloaded.

A second model, best represented by the studio-owned Hulu.com, presents movies and TV shows on a Windows or Macintosh personal computer free of charge, but requires you to watch commercials that can’t be skipped. The TV shows and movies you view on Hulu are “streamed” rather than downloaded, meaning they are meant to be viewed immediately, in real time, rather than stored for viewing when you’re not connected to the Internet.

The third online model is best represented by Netflix (NFLX), the popular DVD distributor. It offers a “Watch Instantly” streaming option on Windows PCs or on TVs equipped with a special set-top box, for a small portion of its large catalog of TV shows and movies. These videos are ad-free and don’t carry an individual charge, but require a monthly subscription fee.

The new Amazon Video on Demand service is a hybrid of these others. As on iTunes, the TV shows and movies it offers are ad-free and purchased individually, don’t require a subscription, and work on both Windows and the Mac, plus on one type of set-top box. In Amazon’s case, that’s Sony’s Bravia Internet Link, a $299 device that works only with Sony (SNE) TVs.

But, like Hulu and Netflix and unlike Amazon’s older Unbox service, the new Amazon Video on Demand service offers videos via real-time streaming. In many cases, it also allows downloading, iTunes-style, to Windows PCs (but not Macs) and to TiVo devices attached to a TV. The videos can’t be streamed in real time using a TiVo (TIVO).

Amazon’s streaming videos are viewed in any of the major Web browsers and don’t require any special software. I tested the new service on both Windows PCs and Macs, and on a Sony Bravia TV equipped with the $299 adapter box. In my tests, Amazon’s videos looked quite good over a fast Internet connection. However, on a typically lousy hotel Internet connection, the movies were often grainy and kept stuttering.

The new service doesn’t yet offer videos in high definition, something Apple just announced this week it is adding for some TV shows. Amazon says it is working on HD.

Amazon’s user interface for the new service is very nice. All of your purchased videos are available in a library stored on the company’s servers, so you can easily watch them again and again if they are purchased, or resume a partly watched rental. And the service remembers where you stopped watching a video and resumes it at that point, even if you started it on, say, a Dell (DELL), and resumed it on a Mac.

On the downside, the new Amazon service isn’t always simple or consistent. For instance, you can watch only two videos at a time, and not all titles can be either streamed and downloaded, or be either purchased or rented. Most rentals last 24 hours, but some differ.

Selection was OK, but not great. Because of studio policies, many current and recent movie hits aren’t available. There are gaps as well in the TV selection. For example, while iTunes offers the current second season of the excellent “Mad Men” series, Amazon has only the first season.

Prices also can be confusing. Amazon rents most movies for $3.99 and sells them for between $9.99 and $14.99. TV shows generally cost $1.99. But some titles carry different prices, albeit these are often lower.

All in all, Amazon Video on Demand is a good service for people who prefer paying for ad-free TV shows and movies, and is another strong step in the Internet’s rising competition with traditional TV.

Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos online, free, at the All Things Digital Web site, walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at mossberg@wsj.com.