Prince’s record label NPG records has filed a DMCA copyright complaint with Twitter over a series of videos containing Prince’s content that were posted to Vine, Twitter’s newest video platform, as The Next Web first reported.

The complaint asks Twitter to remove the eight video clips from Vine that contain Prince’s material. Twitter has not yet responded with any comment.

“These are unauthorized recordings and are unauthorized synchronizations. As such, I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted work described above is not authorized by the copyright owner (or by a third party who is legally entitled to do so on behalf of the copyright owner) and is not otherwise permitted by law. I hereby confirm that I believe the tracks identified in this email infringe my copyright.

We hereby request that you immediately remove our content 8 video clips from the vine.co platform, as accessible via the above links, as well as all other occurrences on the vine.co platform.”

While it’s unclear how much of an effect six-second videos might have on Prince’s music career, it’s somewhat of a validation for Twitter that serious musicians and celebrities would consider Vine a threat in terms of how media is distributed online. Twitter launched Vine back in January, allowing users to share short video clips and tweet them to the network, and you can now embed Vine videos on the web. It’s still uncertain how many users are sharing videos through Vine or how the startup will fit within Twitter’s ecosystem.

But it’s fair to say that if Prince has concerns about Vine, the rest of us should keep an eye on it too.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Social media in Q1: commerce and discovery dominated
• Pinterest reawakens Napster-style debate over copyright
• Examining the rise of crowd labor platforms in 2012

The clip that is being blocked is a 14-minute section of a longer film called “The Innocence of Muslims,” which reportedly shows a fictional attack by Muslims on a Christian family, followed by an account of the origins of the Islamic religion that portrays the prophet Muhammad as a fraud and a womanizer. Other fictional and/or humorous accounts of the prophet’s life have also caused violence in the past, including a fatwa or death sentence issued against author Salman Rushdie in 1989 for his book “The Satanic Verses,” and a series of attacks and deaths linked to offensive cartoons about the prophet that ran in a Danish newspaper in 2005.

It’s not clear the video is connected to the attack

In this case, the video clip has been connected to the death of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed on Tuesday in an attack on the embassy in Libya, along with three other members of the ambassador’s diplomatic staff. And in a statement released to the news media, Google made it clear that this is the main reason it decided to block access to the video from viewers in Egypt and Libya (attacks also occurred in Cairo that were linked to the clip). Said the company:

“This video — which is widely available on the Web — is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube. However, given the very difficult situation in Libya and Egypt, we have temporarily restricted access in both countries. Our hearts are with the families of the people murdered in yesterday’s attack in Libya.”

However, while many of the reports from mainstream media sources about the deaths in Libya have linked it to the video, CNN has said that the embassy attack was actually planned well in advance by members of an extremist group connected to al-Qaeda and was not directly connected to the clip, according to the news network’s sources. As more than one person has pointed out, blocking access to a video from a specific country is also quite easy to get around, even for a technically-challenged viewer — and as Google itself noted, the offending video is available on any number of other websites apart from YouTube. So why bother censoring it?

In the past, Google has fought hard against attempts by governments in countries such as Turkey to censor the content on YouTube, and in many cases those countries have responded by blocking the website entirely (as Afghanistan said it had done on Wednesday in response to the Muhammad video). The company maintains a database of these kinds of requests from governments as part of its “transparency report,” and even when it does agree to remove certain kinds of content from either YouTube or its search results — as it does in countries like Germany, where Nazi-related commentary is illegal — it does so under protest.

Should Google alone be making the decision to censor?

Jillian York, the director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said in an email to me that allowing even controversial videos like the Muhammad clip to remain online was an important principle for Google and YouTube to uphold, despite the connection to violence:

“It definitely troubles me… I think it’s wrong of Google to play Internet police here. They shouldn’t censor without a court order.”

The Libyan video case reinforces how much control companies like Google and YouTube have over what kinds of content we can see and when, and more importantly where. Even Twitter said earlier this year that it has the ability to block access to specific tweets on a country-by-country basis — although the company said that it would only exercise that power as a last resort when asked to do so by a court or government. As we’ve discussed before, this kind of control over information in the hands of a few corporate information gatekeepers raises a host of important questions about freedom of speech in a digital age.

Google’s decision to block the video clip may have been made with the best of intentions, but if the connection between the violence and the video is as flimsy as it seems — and if no government, court or other external authority has requested that it be censored — then why take this kind of step in the first place? All it does is highlight the fact that the company can remove or block content any time it wishes to, regardless of whether doing so is ethically or legally justifiable. And that is a troubling prospect indeed.

Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Flickr users Hoggarazzi and Petteri Sulonen

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected Consumer Market Overview, Q2 2010
• How consumer media will change in 2013
• Controversy, courtrooms and the cloud in Q1

But in the last several months, AT&T has been reducing the number and length of calls to its call centers by relying on so-called smart videos from New York City-based SundaySky. The videos are personalized tutorials that are built on the fly using pre-scripted clips mixed with the subscriber’s own data. The system works off a video template that incorporates visual elements, narration and integrated information from a user’s account. Users end up seeing a video bill that addresses them, acknowledges their recent account activity and leads them through their biggest billing questions.

Since April, AT&T has been offering these videos to new wireline customers when they view their bills online. The operator is now cash-flow positive using the program thanks to a reduction in calls and call time, said Jim Dicso, president and chief revenue officer of SundaySky. And AT&T is now looking at extending the videos to wireless customers.

Dicso told me that the smart videos work because they’re an effective alternative to sitting on hold for users. And because they’re personalized, they’re relevant to a user’s specific needs. AT&T surveyed users and found that 90 percent said they found the video bill to be helpful.

AT&T and other corporate clients have additional reasons to like smart videos beyond just cost savings. The videos can not only improve the user experience and reduce churn but they can be another tool to upsell consumers on more products or encourage them to make certain changes, such as signing-up for auto bill pay or bill protection.

Dicso said the videos can work for all kinds of industries that deal with customers online. By addressing some of the biggest questions that tie up customer agents on the phone, companies have a better shot at diverting people away from a costly phone call.

“Our mission is to establish smart video as the paradigm for how businesses engage their customers with a highly personalized experience,” Dicso said. “It’s just another way to engage clients.”

SundaySky got started five years ago and began serving retail customers in 2009 with video showcases that let online shoppers get a deeper dive on products. But those weren’t personalized or built dynamically in real-time like the new smart videos, which first appeared last year. Now, AT&T, Orange and many other corporate customers are turning to smart videos to enhance their customer support. SundaySky, which has taken $17 million from Carmel Ventures, Globespan Capital Partners and Norwest Venture Partners, makes its money by offering its software on a subscription basis.

I like what SundaySky is doing. People want more personalized services and they appreciate when a company can cater to their needs, especially if it’s done in a visually appealing way. And if they can expect to get their answers in a two-minute video, it’s preferable than spending a lot more time potentially on hold. This won’t work for every industry and there are still always questions that just can’t get answered by a video. But it shows how smart use of personal data and dynamic video can improve what is usually a pretty big pain point for companies and customers.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Startup growth and the new recruiting ecosystem
• A near-term outlook for big data
• CES 2012: a recap and analysis

Yesterday at its Google I/O event, the company announced more content options, so I decided to compare Google Play against the two incumbents. So how does Google now fare, considering it introduced the Nexus 7; an Android 4.1 tablet that’s optimized for Google Play?

I did a similar analysis in October, only then it was to see how Samsung fared against Apple and Amazon, and decided to take the same approach here with Google. Here’s what I found when looking at the most popular movies, TV shows, music albums, starting first with music.

Amazon sounds cheaper while Google Play has some dead air

Amazon offers the most “bang for buck” here, although prices can vary by the day. Just this morning, a George Harrison album on my wish list, for example, dropped from $9.99 to $2.99 and I bought it. In terms of the top 10 — again, using iTunes as a baseline — Amazon has 9 of 10 while Google is batting .600 with four strikes. Of course, this is just a narrow view; when casually browsing all three stores for music that I like, they’re generally equal although Google is still either missing a few.

Google at the movies isn’t bad

Google fares a little better here although it still lacks the breadth of content provided by iTunes and Amazon when looking at the current top 10. But like Amazon, Google Play offers lower prices than those found in the iTunes store. When the family wants to watch a movie, I’ve turned to iTunes in the past — mainly because we have an Apple TV. For my own consumption on a tablet or phone, however, I’ve been fine with Google Play. Amazon doesn’t support movie playback on any phones or tablets save its own Kindle Fire, so I rarely look there. Update: The original comparison showed Amazon with SD movie rental pricing, which was incorrect as pointed out by readers. The current table shows the HD movie rentals.

Don’t look for recent TV shows on Google

If you want to watch current HD episodes of TV shows, Google store isn’t playing. The company announced TV show support yesterday, but it’s like looking through an old Netflix catalog as current hot shows aren’t there. Even Amazon falls a little short: When looking for the most recent episodes of popular shows on iTunes, Amazon lacked one and had another in standard definition only.

Magazines are magazines are magazines

Google also added magazine support in Google Play this week and rather than be methodical about the comparison, I spent about 20 minutes browsing the digital newsstands. The main reason why is because the top magazines were available among all three at the same price. Checking the breadth of titles showed the same: Google is at least on even par with Amazon and Apple here. The experience of reading magazines may vary by device — small tablets and phones vs the 9.7-inch iPad, for example — but there’s little differentiation in content here.

Conclusion

Apple’s iTunes Store and Amazon’s market are a close one and two while Google is still playing catch up. Yes, the company has improved digital media offerings in Google Play of late, but there’s still work to be done. I recently said that consumers aren’t buying products anymore; they’re investing in platforms instead. Android as a platform may be the best seller, but Google needs to keep negotiating content deals to strengthen its ecosystem and give consumers a reason to shop in Google Play instead of Amazon or iTunes.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How social discovery is transforming entertainment
• Connected Consumer Q2: Digital music meets the cloud; e-book growth explodes
• Forecast: the future of the digital music industry

The Problem

I noticed this after my CES travels earlier this month. During that trip, I downloaded some HD content to the Galaxy Nexus so I could view it on the plane. That part of the process worked just fine, and I enjoyed both Pulp Fiction and Limitless. The Google Videos app supports streaming, but I chose offline use because I didn’t want to use in-flight Wi-Fi. So I “pinned” the two rentals for offline use and had them downloaded to my phone before the trip.

About a week after watching the movies — each of which had a 24-hour viewing window once started — I noticed that my Galaxy Nexus only had about 3 GB of available storage. The phone comes with 16 GB of internal storage; about 13 of which is usable. By using the Apps function in the Android’s Settings and then sorting the apps by size, I found the culprit: the Google Videos app was using up more than 7 GB of storage.

A terrible user experience

That’s interesting by itself, because I wouldn’t have thought movies files would be part of the app’s storage limit. Instead, I expected the movies to be part of the media storage section. Once I realized the movies were considered to be part of the application, I went into Videos to unpin them or delete them. Nothing worked. Unless I’m missing it, I see no way to remove these expired video files from within the app. Others have said the same since August of last year, but I just now noticed the issue.

This situation is terrible if my findings are accurate. In my case, the Galaxy Nexus has no external memory support, so I can’t simply throw a microSD card in the phone until the videos decide to disappear. It’s situations like this that make it a challenge for me to use Android and suggest others use it to. Maybe the phone would automatically delete the files when I hit my storage limit or after a longer time period, but I couldn’t wait for that.

The fix!

It’s possible the app works fine on some devices but not on others. If you’re seeing the same issue I am, there is a relatively simple manual method to deleting the files. You’ll need a file manager application on your Android device: I use the free version of AndroZip found in the Market.

Using the file manager app, navigate to: Android/data/com.google.android.videos/files/Movies

If you have any leftover movie rentals, they’ll be here in a folder and you can simply delete them. I did just that, reclaimed my 7 GB of storage and now my Galaxy Nexus has a good 10 GB of free space for apps, media and other things. Maybe even for some more high-definition movie rentals. Amazon? Are you ready to bring your video player to my Galaxy Nexus?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Analyzing the wearable computing market
• Is Android broken and if so, will Google fix it?
• A look back at mobile in Q1

One section of Gruber’s article stood out for me, however, because it’s essentially false. Yet, it’s a sentiment that many hold — including our own readers here — namely, that outside of Amazon, only Apple has a media ecosystem to offer mobile devices. Here’s the section, with emphasis added by me:

Attack from a position of strength. Build on your previous successes. That’s what Apple does. That’s what Amazon is doing here. The other guys — the Samsungs, HTCs, Motorolas, RIMs — can’t match Apple’s hardware design, don’t even try to match Apple in terms of original and differentiated software, and struggle to match Apple’s prices because they don’t have the economy of scale advantages Apple does. Those guys can’t match Amazon either, because they have no content to sell. Amazon can give away the razor because they’re already in the business of selling blades. The other guys don’t even have blades to sell.

Had Gruber only pointed to Research In Motion and Motorola in this part of his piece, it would essentially be valid (although if Google is allowed to purchase Motorola, the company has a young but growing content play).

Competitors aren’t standing still

Regardless, neither Apple nor Amazon is the only mobile ecosystem game in town. Last October, Samsung launched its Media Hub for content sales. The service provides movie and television media for rental or purchase. I pointed this service out when Samsung announced its Galaxy Player devices, which are iPod touch competitors and need a media ecosystem for sales success. HTC, too, has launched media stores this year: HTC Watch debuted with the HTC Sensation 4G handset in April, for example.

Also, my 7-inch Samsung Galaxy Tab, purchased in December of last year, has a Music Hub powered by 7digital. Although I’ve bought much music from Amazon’s MP3 Store over the past few years, I’m now using Rdio these days for my music needs, so I don’t know what the Music Hub offers, but it does exist. Readers Hub is on my Tab too; it sells newspaper content through PressDisplay, e-books via Kobo and magazines through Zinio. Yes, these are all partnerships and not direct Samsung stores, but I’d be surprised if Samsung doesn’t get some small revenue cut.

Of course, a music or video store is only as good as its content, so I decided to dig deeper to see how the platforms compare between Apple, Amazon and Samsung. There are a number of ways to make this comparison, but to keep things simple, I simply used Apple as “the gold standard” or baseline.

Essentially, I used  iTunes to build a few lists of the most popular movies, television shows, and music albums. I then checked Amazon and Samsung to see if they could match Apple’s offerings; HTC’s services are so new that it’s missing most of what the others offer. I’m not skipping the data checks to give HTC a pass, as they surely have work to do if they want to compete.

Apple and Amazon win big

Here’s what I found, presented in a simple chart:

Obviously, as the baseline, Apple is and should be 100 percent across the board. As expected, Amazon does quite well, missing only one content item as compared to Apple (for the curious, it’s Mac Miller’s album, Blue Slide Park). Samsung suffers in several categories, but with ABC television shows in particular, with just 2 of the top 10 titles in iTunes.

I’m not defending Samsung here, but several of the TV shows in Apple’s top 10 are no longer active shows, i.e.: 24, Heroes, Terminator: The Sarah Connors Chronicles. Other popular and active shows appear later in the iTunes lists and some of these are found in Samsung’s store.

Regardless, it’s clear that compared on this limited data set, Apple and Amazon are best suited to be in the business of “selling razor blades” as Gruber correctly notes. Samsung and HTC both have work to do in order to procure licensing terms with more content providers — HTC is way behind in this — but to say Samsung has no “razor blades” to sell isn’t accurate. The company has quietly been building up its content ecosystem for the past year. Amazon and Apple offer the most content for sure, but I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss the up-and-comers here.

Samsung’s store has pros and cons

Two related tidbits are worth a mention. First, I rented a movie from Samsung over the weekend — The Adjustment Bureau — and noticed that it had the same viewing period as iTunes, with one caveat. Renting the movie allowed me a 30-day window to watch it, but instead of just 24 hours to view it (once I started), Samsung provided me with 48 hours. I wonder if the company is negotiating longer viewing terms to make up for its lack of content.

Secondly, Apple gets the win for content sharing over Samsung. After I watched my movie rental on AT&T’s Samsung Galaxy S II — it looked incredible on the Super AMOLED Plus screen — I connected the phone to my 60-inch HDTV via an HDMI adapter. Upon connecting the Galaxy S II, the phone display was mirrored on my television, as expected. However, I was unable to play the movie on the HDTV. I received an error message saying the content was protected. From what I can tell, that means Samsung hasn’t negotiated the rights to play the content, at least for this particular movie, on an external television set.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile 2012 and beyond
• Is Android broken and if so, will Google fix it?
• Tablet market to hit over 377 million units by 2016

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Who and what to watch in the new era of the living room
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Connected Consumer 2011: Rise of the Virtual Video Operator

My full review of the BlackBerry Style gives all the details about the phone, and this video shows why the Style might be the perfect stocking stuffer for the BlackBerry lover on your gift list this holiday season.

Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req’d):

• To Ship or Not to Ship — Product Launch in the Smartphone Era
• Will Killer Apps Affect Which Handsets Consumers Buy?
• Marketing Handsets in the Superphone Era