The schoolyard made it sound like youtube was a public park. I think this still gets the point across.
Google - the owner of the park
Video makers - kids playing in the park and playing music while playing
Music authors - are still music authors
Koda - the guy that comes to the park owner and demands that the park owner pays them for the fact that there's music playing in the park and may compensate the musicians (let's just call this guy a racketeer)
The scenario - park owner comes to the park, turns off the music and makes the park a quiet zone(no more music). The racketeer goes to people on HN and complains that park owner isn't paying him more and turned off the music.
Google isn't an individual but a corporation, an entity that requires Gov permission to exist.
So lets change the landowner person to a developer (home builder). The neighborhood is built but the developer still owns the neighborhood's public space. The kids live in the neighborhood. I think that better frames the residents' expectations.
Not a perfect analogy yet but we're closing in on it.
Google offers something many people would pay for, global distribution along with ways to monetize that content if desired (patreon links, ads etc).
Your analogy is so tortured I can't even follow it. Whatever yards the danes use is up to them. Google came after music and came after countries were formed. They built something and invited folks to use it (not paying users to use it).
Somehow now they can be forced to pay some random monopoly? Are the artists even allowed to license outside of Koda? I don't think so. Would artists pay to be listed on the home page of google - for sure!
I think google has confused folks a bit - business users should just pay a fee to them (could be modest) to avoid this type of confusion.