It's sort of funny in a way, the last Youtube post I made here was "Disintegrating Loops #6" in the now playing thread without a thought to anything we are discussing....it was just there. I did not think.
Should I have?
In my opinion: yes.
There are two outcomes for people who hadn't heard the album before. After listening to the samples you linked:
(a) they decided not to buy the album
(b) they decided to buy the album.
In the first scenario, the artist neither lost nor gained anything. (And there is always a chance that the listener was intrigued enough to return to the choice in the future.) In the second, the artist gained something. Something > nothing.
There is a chance that there was someone out there who was considering buying the album "site unseen" in 2014, but who has now realized that there is no point in doing so (thanks to your link) because they can hear it for free on YouTube. My intuition is that this probability is smaller than that associated with outcome (b).
I don't know the right answers when it comes to this stuff. But my intuitions align a bit with Tomas's. I suspect that people who take the liberty to enjoy the work of artists without compensating them will not suddenly start spending money on art if the free material were to disappear. The free material (samples, streams, YouTubez) is helpful to paying fans. To not make it available to prevent the non-paying fans from enjoying it does a disservice to the paying fans and, ultimately (I suspect), the artist.
Having said that, I also resonate with one of Forrest's points. Namely, sometimes I worry that the ease with which music can be distributed these days may have broader effects on the way we value art in our culture. The ease with which I can obtain good music makes my life more rewarding (as a fan), but that same convenience might lead others devalue the art or to take it for granted.