Dubstepforum.com

i have been speaking to people who produce and own lables and the general consensus among the people i speak to is that people who upload on to youtube are the same as file sharers.
the majority of tunes that i check there are all nearly all HQ full length songs , and its very easy to rip the audio from youtube,,, so whats the difference between a file sharer and someone with a youtube channel?

Yah but who is gonna really do that ? You Tube is a great place to expose music. File-sharing/ home taping doesn't hurt music. since the 60s & 70s there's been a movement from the major record labels all propaganda saying copying music for your friends is hurting music. Its BS. It wasn't true in the 70s and its not true today.

Mp3s may seem "high quality" when ripped from You Tube, but I would argue that its a temporary "high quality". Ripping an Mp3 from You Tube and listening to it is like getting a couple samples of free candy. Yah it tastes great for the day but its not something that is going to last. You won't know where that MPEG3 file is in 5 yrs much less what hard drive it'll be on. My point is ripping music from You tube might seem damaging but to the artist it should be just another tool to expose people to your music.

We know that file sharing/youtube can hurt or can do good. We have to figure out how to maximize the positive effects possibly!

Youtube definitely promotes shit though.

Like my mate will often send me a link to a track on youtube to listen to and I'll then go order it at my local record store .

If you rip the audio off youtube then you're a cheap ass bitch who must enjoy shitty quality.

I've got alot of dubs on my youtube channel :

No full tracks, no high quality rips, all unreleased material : all straight from the radio show with the DJ talking over it
and I also give full credit to artist and radio show.

I think this is a means of promotion and not ripping off people, if I'm wrong, please do correct me.

personally, if it wasn't for file sharing and youtube letting me preview stuff at home, i would probably be buying a lot less music

and if people couldn't post youtube links to tunes on here, then discovering and sharing new tunes would be a lot more difficult

a couple cries of illegality isn't going to change people's minds. People don't share music out of desperation or necessity to steal, they do it because they love the tunes- and a couple of people sharing stuff and putting no money into it is at least going to mean they get to share it to the people who put way too much money into it

Dubstep would be nowhere near as big as it is now without youtube

The dead kennedys released an album once which instead of the songs on the B side it just said "Home recording is ruining the music industry, so this side has been left blank for your convenience"

Really though if you download music from the internet and try pretend what your doing is right or ok, your a prick.

Streaming stuff on youtube so you can listen to the song (much as you can in a record shop) I don't have a problem with.
I ain't gonna spend 6.95 on a track based on a 30 second clip.

(Pada) wrote:The dead kennedys released an album once which instead of the songs on the B side it just said "Home recording is ruining the music industry, so this side has been left blank for your convenience"

That was the cassette release for In God We Trust Inc. wasn't it?

im not doubting the value of youtube as a promotional tool,,, i think its great , i just get pissed off at seeing full length tunes in HD on youtube , would it really put anyone off of buying music if they could just hear 3mins of a song? and as regards audio quality uploaded video with a resolution of 1024x768 or greater and will be classed as high definition and the audio wont be transcoded so there will be no loss in quality when ripping to mp3

If you look at the Pinch Q & A on this forum hes asked about youtube and he says hes all in favor of people uploading tracks on to it because its promotes the artist and they get paid royalties. He produces and runs a label.

darigan wrote:If you look at the Pinch Q & A on this forum hes asked about youtube and he says hes all in favor of people uploading tracks on to it because its promotes the artist and they get paid royalties. He produces and runs a label.

youtube doesnt pay royalties

the-voice-of-reason wrote:

darigan wrote:If you look at the Pinch Q & A on this forum hes asked about youtube and he says hes all in favor of people uploading tracks on to it because its promotes the artist and they get paid royalties. He produces and runs a label.

youtube doesnt pay royalties

pinch wrote:

Antics wrote:Do you get annoyed when you see your music on youtube? consequently are you more interested in people hearing your music or do you think they should have to pay for the privaledge?

no i'm flattered someone can be bothered to upload it! artists who are prs registered get a (very very small) amount of money each time its played on there anyway.. straight up downloading tectonic content, sometimes prior to release - that gets my goat!

I spoke to a guy a couple of week ago who rips tunes from youtube and plays them out.

I was pretty shocked, but then a few of his pals said they did this too.

Mostly off that inspector dubplate thing what people seem to bum off.

Everything I hear on youtube sounds like shit to me. I would never rip that shit and listen to it for pleasure. I like everyone else in the universe use it to hear tracks I haven't heard. It is like an mp3 lite. You get to hear just about any track you like, but you don't have a copy. If you want a good quality copy you buy it.

the-voice-of-reason wrote:so whats the difference between a file sharer and someone with a youtube channel?

the real question is whether file sharing is a bad thing in the first place. the answer is probably not.

wolf89 wrote:Youtube definitely promotes shit though.

Mt. Eden, wait we've already cleared this up..

Even though there's "HQ" stuff on youtube, doesn't means it's always at a high bit rate.. I find they're compression on tracks makes everything sound tinny tbh..

Fact is, people are always going to pirate music - in any way shape or form. I would never rip a song off youtube, but I'd be lying if I said I've never recorded samples from youtube..

it's not the same

darigan wrote:

the-voice-of-reason wrote:

darigan wrote:If you look at the Pinch Q & A on this forum hes asked about youtube and he says hes all in favor of people uploading tracks on to it because its promotes the artist and they get paid royalties. He produces and runs a label.

youtube doesnt pay royalties

pinch wrote:

Antics wrote:Do you get annoyed when you see your music on youtube? consequently are you more interested in people hearing your music or do you think they should have to pay for the privaledge?

no i'm flattered someone can be bothered to upload it! artists who are prs registered get a (very very small) amount of money each time its played on there anyway.. straight up downloading tectonic content, sometimes prior to release - that gets my goat!

Last FM also pay royalties and I think the rate is a bit higher per play than Youtube. It's a good place to upload your tracks as well as the other ways
mentioned. You can target your audience more specifically on Last FM, therefore getting more plays/exposure if that's what you want.

vishnu wrote:

wolf89 wrote:Youtube definitely promotes shit though.

Mt. Eden, wait we've already cleared this up..

Even though there's "HQ" stuff on youtube, doesn't means it's always at a high bit rate.. I find they're compression on tracks makes everything sound tinny tbh..

Fact is, people are always going to pirate music - in any way shape or form. I would never rip a song off youtube, but I'd be lying if I said I've never recorded samples from youtube..

I know people who rip from youtube and the bit rate is 128 standard every time