I can understand folk getting their knickers in a twist over music at CD quality [more or less], because it's easy to get something as good as the product. But youtube is nothing like napster et al.
After all, we're buying huge TVs and HD-DVD players, so much so that even PAL video looks pretty poor these days, and NTSC, well that was always crap.
The sub10 minute 320x240 pixel compressed-to-death format youtube uses isn't going to hurt that.
On the contrary, it's the best advertising any of these people will ever get for their material. They're completely hatstand to sue over it.
That said, there is a logic that suggests his material won't be watched on youtube unless he moans about it and gets some press.
He's probably right to note that his fans don't have google's distribution - it's not the size but the bias his fans have is different to the bias that google has. Unless he writes a tune called 'wikipedia' he'll probably struggle for ratings in google :)
So perhaps that's his aim - not enough of us are watching his stuff because it's lost amongst all the rest...and that might hit the advertising pay day he may get one day?
He's passing the onion because youtube have done bigger and better what they started years ago with bootlegs, and unlike Grateful dead's awful stuff [which is worth every penny they got for the bootlegs], there's plenty on youtube that's worth listening too.