[britknight]

"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.

[Kalium]

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.

[notahacker]

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?

[britknight]

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

cough cough Facebook cough cough

[sbuk]

So it's not a negotiation.