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

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.