Sean Brennan wrote:
It's the same thing as filesharing in that, like you just said (which was argued about endlessly in the past and caused big fights here, where I said YouTube was indeed harmful) people DO use YouTube like a radio station and listen to the music there - for free.

I still think it's too extreme.   Why must people be deprived of listening to music for free AT ALL? Then we could also agree that people have no right to read a book for free or to look at a painting reproduction for free?

Our Soviet motto was "Art belongs to people". Art shouldn't be luxury items for the well-off only. Ability and necessity to consume "spiritual food" distinguishes people from animals. Should we consume only material things if we don't have spare money? What's SO wrong in listening to something on YouTube (it's not people's fault that there's nothing worth listening on official radio channels!) to call these people criminals?

Not only art consumers are wrong, the whole system is wrong, this world is wrong where art is considered to be a luxury item like another pair of shoes, or a diamond ring, or a car...

As for musicians, it really seems that they can earn a living only by live performances nowadays... And by the way, after concerts CDs (together with other merchandise) always sell well.

But don't worry, I'm not gonna start a fight, and I'll not argue any more.   Just wanted to pass an opinion...