> If they no longer have a formal relationship with the
> artist and no longer have the artist's original works to
> have the Content ID system compare to
Google threatening to remove their ability to identify copyrighted music, simply because they can't negotiate the business terms they want? For future releases, sure, but for content they can currently identify, they plan to say "Nah, we're going to pretend we can't identify it any more"?
That sounds like the mother of all punitive damages lawsuits waiting to happen.
Somewhere a scumbag attorney's wallet is getting warm, and he has no idea why.
Google is not obligated to provide a Content ID system; they're only obligated to make it possible for someone else to do so. So if Google wants to tie their Content ID system to their monetization system and put other restrictions on it, that's 100% ok. If you don't like their terms, you're still free to use other means to police for infringement of your content.
As for them no longer being able to identify other instances of your work after you sever the relationship with Google: once you do so, they've got no license from you that authorizes them to keep authoritative copies of your works around.
She already pointed out that, more often than not, a sync license should be in order. YouTube is trying to claim their Content ID system usurps this right? Wow, people have accused me of hubris, but...wow...
That sounds like the mother of all punitive damages lawsuits waiting to happen.
Somewhere a scumbag attorney's wallet is getting warm, and he has no idea why.