So if I understand the 'economics' argument presented here. If it costs me 10 zillion dollars to produce the new record and I choose to distribute it electronically then I ought to charge nothing for it because my marginal costs are zero.
Perhaps I'm being stupid here but why on earth would I spend any money producing music if I couldn't have at least a chance of recovering my investment ?
I'm not looking for a guaranteed return here, just a plain old capitalist chance of making a profit.
I paid cash for my cellphone and I use a pay as you go plan which I top up with cash. They can record as many of my conversations as they like as they've no way of knowing who owns the phone. Oh and I change my phone every once in a while just to keep it private.
I live in the UK and recently went to see 'Tegan and Sara', a Canadian duo, in Leeds. I looked in the local record shops prior to the concert and couldn't find a single one of their CD's on sale. The concert was a sellout, as were most of the other venues on the tour, yet the artists mentioned that their record company had put nothing into promoting the tour. All the fans were there because they'd found the music on the web and bought tickets the same way.
Some of the discussion here seems to revolve around covering the cost of making the original recording if the digitized form is 'free'.
Why not view concerts as a sponsored recording sessions ?
Which will be the first venue to automatically record and digitize ALL artists that perform there and then use those recordings to promote both themselves and the artists, maybe both sound and vison.
Until I retired a few years ago I would take short trips to the US to go to a particular concert because some of the artists I really enjoy don't tour Europe often enough.
So if I'm prepared to pay a few hundred dollars to get to a concert how much do you think I'd pay for a live webcast of a concert ?