Please don't conflate imaginary property with physical property.

They have set the terms under which she can have them publish her data. She doesn't like them. She has the choice to walk away.

> They have set the terms under which she can have them publish her data. She doesn't like them. She has the choice to walk away.

That is not an accurate description of the situation. Her music will still be published on YouTube if she doesn't accept their terms and walks away. She will have to take action (endless DMCA requests) if she wants to try to have her data not published on YouTube.

The terms they are offering are not the terms to have her data published on YouTube. They are the terms to get a cut of the money Google makes from her data on YouTube.

What you are describing is how Apple or Amazon work--if an artist walks away from their deals, their content is not on that service.

I don't think that's precisely right either. If I've understood the article correctly, she has three options here: sign up to the new agreement and continue receiving revenue from third party uploads that ContentID matches to her content, stop receiving third-party revenue and leave all third party videos up, or stop receiving the revenue and take all third party videos down.

I'm not sure this would even stop her from getting ad revenue from videos that she uploads herself (the article doesn't discuss this). ContentID accounts are about getting revenue from things other people upload that include your content.

Is Google is going to stop putting ads on her content or remove her content from Youtube? I don't think that's what they're saying. Aren't they just saying they're going to stop paying her. Actually the hell of it is that she doesn't really have the choice to get her content off Youtube at all. Is she going to take her $324/mo payment stream from Spotify and use it to pay for the barrage of DMCA takedown's she's going to need to send to keep her content off Youtube?

Google is saying that the program she operated under previously is going away. She can get on the new program or she can leave.

Google isn't obligated to meet her on arbitrarily chosen terms, so I don't really see the problem here.

I don't think the author here is particularly making the claim of a severe injustice. She also made no allegations of illegal behavior on Google's behalf.

I think the point she's articulating here is that she isn't a "typical" musician making profit from her music. She has hacked out a way to make money from her music that satisfies her fans and doesn't grate upon her own concious. Google has been a big part of that and now they are changing, perhaps for the better for most. But the change is unilateral and creates a personal problem for her.

Afterall, in the end she asks if anyone is starting a new streaming service, therefor leaving the implication that she is open to switch despite monetary detriment any such switch might cause.

Writing a synopsis from her perspective, I would sum up the article as, "Hey Google, I came here in the first place to circumvent the rigid and singular nature of doing business in the music industry "proper" and now you guys are injecting the same kind of problems into your own system. I have a hard time abiding that and I don't know what to do."

She has many options. She just doesn't have options she likes that let her mix what she liked about the past with what she likes about the future.

That's the consequence of choosing to rely on the services of others. You are at their mercy. If you don't like it, well, there's always YCombinator.

I am. It's imaginary - er, intellectual - property. As a result, it makes absolutely no sense to use physical property analogies.

If you don't want to use the services offered on the terms offered, that's your choice. If you don't want other people to use those services with bits that have "your" color on them, then you're up shit creek, because you shouldn't have let other people have them.