I would argue he isn't unclear at all - I would argue that he's got 1000 words hedging around but completely agreeing with everything she's said. Her basic statement is "I have to agree to everything Youtube says, which includes immediate rights to everything I produce, or I have to forego all revenue from Youtube." ...We'll have to block that content...so there's not going to be any revenue generated. That's an unmuddied lake right there, as Alex said.So what would happen is, um, so in the worst case scenario, because we do understand there are cases where our partners don’t want to participate for various reasons, what we basically have to do is because the music terms are essentially like outdated, the content that you directly upload from accounts that you own under the content owner attached to the agreement, we’ll have to block that content. but anything that comes up that we’re able to scan and match through content ID we could just apply a track policy but the commercial terms no longer apply so there’s not going to be any revenue generated.
I think Google would like this to never ever ever be discussed again. The fact that their royalty agreements are dipped in six flavors of NDA speaks to that. That said, Billboard has her back. Considering the dissenting opinions seem to come from Diffuser and Hypebot, I'm going with Billboard.