Really? It's abuse? Then what has RIAA been doing to actively patrol Google, YouTube and other services all these years? I'll tell you what:

https://www.dmcaforce.com/

The RIAA has been actively abusing the DMCA for as long as it has existed. It was unethical then and it's unethical now.

As far as most anyone is concerned, monitoring YouTube for user-initiated copyright violations to send takedown notices is precisely what the DMCA was intended to be used for.

When "user-initiated copyright violations" means "Fair Use doesn't exist", then you have abuse.

Agreed. My then-3 year old daughter danced to the tune of Da Funk and I uploaded it. The sound was removed, even though it was in the background. It was Fair Use for sure.

Shame on YouTube, quite seriously - I didn't cost Daft Punk anything!

It's certainly not a "negotiation". It's take it or leave it terms. Very different animal.

Does this Starbucks unethical? Because that's how they sell me coffee.

I didn't say anything about ethicality.

But I would certainly object to calling a Starbucks purchase a "negotiation". It is not.

Terms are offered. You can accept them or reject them.

I do see your point, though. It's not really a negotiation. There's not enough money involved to be worth negotiating over. It's a service being sold.

"Terms are offered. You can accept them or reject them"

Isn't this the exact opposite of a negotiation? By definition, doesn't "negotiation" imply that both parties enter into a discussion in an attempt to reach an agreement.

When you buy a cup of coffee, Starbucks doesn't force you to sign a legal document saying that you will only drink Starbucks coffee for the next five years, or that whenever you buy a cup of coffee from somewhere else you must simultaneously buy a cup from Starbucks. Also, if you refuse to buy the cup of coffee, Starbucks will not post your picture in every branch in the country to prevent you from ever buying a cup of coffee from them again.

Zoe has the choice to not agree to the terms here. What she wants is a product that YouTube has decided they will no longer offer.

That happens in every line of business and we accept this. Why is this one different.

In this case the "product" is an automated system for paying royalties on the customer's creative output which Google is making money off the back of, and they haven't so much "dropped" it as changed the terms to compel the customer to agree to a distribution deal with YouTube.

If any other online hosting service (with substantial network or lock-in effects) changed their terms to give themselves rights to host and slap ads on any of your other public output there would be an outcry. Why is this one different?

"give themselves rights to host and slap ads on any of your other public output"

cough cough Facebook cough cough

So it's not a negotiation.

No, it's a monopoly (youtube: online video) using its market power to juice its nascent music subscription business.

If there were forces artificially propping up YouTube beyond quality of product, I would be concerned.

Right now, YouTube is already in music business. They are just shifting model.

And google uses search, in turn, to juice their own properties (such as youtube) by pushing them higher in the SERPs. See, eg, the europe antitrust stuff for demonstration.

Zoe's music is the product here, not Google's service; it's Google that's unilaterally demanding she monetize or block it, and trying to prevent her from entering into any exclusive agreements with any other distributor.