4 ms·

I think the main complaint is that option (a), which is the option most artists would choose, also includes: you can't release any music without also putting i

• ta_544264 12y ago
  To play devil's advocate, though, why should Google provide access to the network they have and the value it provides, while making it easy to dilute the value content creators provide? In other words, from Google's point of view, Zoe Keating provides content for Google, for Google's benefit, not her benefit, or the benefit of her fans. In exchange, she doesn't have to run her own multimillion dollar content server. Recognizing the business they're in (advertising driven by user-provided content) doesn't seem 'draconian,' and there are other options available. If she can't accept alternatives then perhaps it proves that she needs Google a lot more than they need her.
  • kemiller 12y ago
    Well, they do have that right, but Zoe also has the right to expose those terms to public scrutiny. Google and other monetization networks tend to promote the fact that buy paying them you're also supporting the artists, and if that's a lie, end users are rightly going to be pissed.