Ekto-Basilisk wrote:

I really appreciate that I can scare up rare old tracks on Youtube if I want to share a song with someone.

Of course, this is just another form of copyright infringement. Not only that, but I find that a lot of old schoolers are rather protective about the classics; perceived value rises as availability drops.

So what do you guys think?

TheTreeTribe wrote:

i think youtube is harmless. Sound quality is not great, so collectors shouldn't mind tracks being on youtube. Its a good way to share.

Infra303 wrote:

TTT has a point and I think its a great resource to find "new" old stuff. More like a promotionsource. And a nice instantplay-device when i´m away from my cds ^^ :)

SamanthaJames wrote:

good: 1 trax
bad: entire album

303 wrote:

by one side the poor quality of youtube's audio is not a threat for physical records collectors.

in the other side I think the value of many old records is because nobody heard them anywhere, once you got them disappointment is the word..

XpandoZ wrote:

I like it. Discovered a few nice tracks this way :- ) and tracks are easy to share with other people (when I'm trying to get them into goa)

la-voie-du-sabre wrote:

it's a good thing. first because it balances the number of available shit music around. unlike on radio or even in clubs and at parties - not that i go out much these days. it's always nice when at a computer, and away from your vinyl, to enjoy some quality stuff.
then, as mentionned above, it's a chance for some to discover or id some gems or, at least, obscure music. a strong and useful web tool. as well as a positive way of sharing and spreading the music, pretty oldschool actually.

on the other hand, if you're satisfied with the poor quality of youtube sound then you don't deserve the original media anyway ;)

marsh wrote:

For me it's proven invaluable when auditioning older vinyl that I'm considering purchasing from other Discoggers. As mentioned above, the quality is not there such that someone will rip the track and play it in a set, and I don't believe it lowers the "value" of rarities. As well, if someone finds some rare oldie and falls in love with it, they'll be that much more excited if they hear it in a set or some mix somewhere.

I absolutely LOVE being able to go record shopping via Discogs and You Tube. All the pleasure of flipping through dusty record bins and finding the gems, without the hassle of putting on some crusty headphones at the listening desk while your girl stands their impatiently tapping her foot, bored out of her skull. ;)

Dolmot wrote:

I'm in the "OK" camp too. Currently the sound quality isn't any major threat to sales. Full length, low bitrate samples are one of the best (realistic) options for music promotion. Dumping audio from flv:s is possible, even simple, but not really worth it. Therefore I don't equate it with piracy.




Indeed. Especially when there's hardly ever been any store in this whole city selling goa (or other rare music) in considerable numbers. Samples and second hand sites are essential for my purchases.

Of course, hunting down true rarities and surprising people had its own appeal. Now I regularly find full Youtube clips as #1 Google hit or direct Discogs embed for releases that I spent hours or even days looking for. It's occasionally a bit disappointing, but to be honest, that endless searching was ultimately just global waste of time. Let's spend more time mixing and playing the music itself. Artificial secrecy isn't good for the artists either.

The odd bit is that Youtube has become the de facto standard for audio clips too. It's kind of silly, because the video interface is generally wasted, and becomes occasionally problematic with seeking etc. There are real audio playback sites too, but none of them have the momentum of Youtube. I guess we'll have to keep watching static album art or blurry Winamp fractal plugins.

Mergi wrote:

For discovery it's pretty damn nice.

Drakulya wrote:

I think that Youtube is good and blaming it for having uploaded tracks is a bit silly. Music should be enjoyed and shared by everyone, so having tracks on youtube won't harm artists it even may rise their popularity and some may even purchase an album or open new side of music which they didn't knew before.

T0MMY_B0Y wrote:

For fans and collectors it is a good thing. "Try before you buy" and all that. Plus, how often do you find yourself drunk with friends and go "shit, you need to hear 'Blah' by 'The Blahs' - it's fucking immense!" and go look it up on YouPube. Saying that you usually end up saying "Ah, this bit doesn't sound so shit on vinyl...honestly it's an amazing tune!" ;)

The main negative as I see it is a question of royalties. If these tracks got airtime on the radio then generally royalties would be paid to the artist (or copyright holder), on YouPube there's fuck all in the way of revenue heading anywhere but inwards. Then there's that shite where YouPube technically own everything that's uploaded (apparently) but I don't think that's really a big deal as they aren't (currently!) profiting directly from the copyrighted material (i.e. selling copies etc).

As for it raising artists profiles...that may be so, but are they going to make anything from these releases that have been out of circulation for years? Plus some of these artists no longer have a profile to raise anyway (which again raises the "does it matter?" argument, lol).

It's generally accepted because it's beneficial to people but they can feel they have the moral high ground because the quality is crap...so "it isn't really piracy." Well, it is...and there's a fine line being tread here. Once YouPube streams high quality audio, without the retarded normalisation they use, it will be a different story. If I wrote a passage of Shakespeare in my own shit on the side of a double-decker bus it would still be plagiarism...even though the copy was a bit messy.

But besides that...I have bad luck and nearly everything I look for on YouPube has not been uploaded! And who am I to talk? I sometimes download stuff from fucking SoulSeek.