Comment Re:Summary is Awful (Score 1) 364
So what Google is doing here is saying: this license we had isn't good enough for us anymore, we now want an extended license that also allow us to use your content on an audio streaming service, except they want everything or nothing.
An aggressive move, yes. I can understand people disliking that they didn't try to renegotiate the deal as opposed to scrap the old one and get a new one (the only way they would end up in a situation that would require them to block content they don't have a license to). The problem isn't, as was the focus of TFA, that they are blocking the videos (if they no longer have a license and they know it, I assume it's safest to simply block such content until a new license is issued OR it is clear that they won't have a new license; thus avoiding legal issues) of independent labels. The problem is that Google decided to go for a "double or nothing", in which the labels are always the losers: either because the terms are bad, or because they just are not in Youtube.
At least, that's what I think. Did I miss anything or made any mistakes in my thought process? Is there any assumption that's impairing my analysis of the situation?