The group (user) consensus on music seems to be that it should be, for the most part, accessible for free, and that live shows are how music is expected to be m

The group (user) consensus on music seems to be that it should be, for the most part, accessible for free, and that live shows are how music is expected to be monetized. That seems like pretty ridiculous and greedy reasoning on the behalf of consumers. You're essentially eliminating one large revenue stream, in hopes that it generates new business in another revenue stream. While labels certainly rake plenty of revenue away from the artists, I think people largely underestimate the amount of money recorded music brings in to musicians, producers, songwriters, etc. Many people who are either not part of the tour, or who cannot tour, are going to be adversely affected by the incorrect idea that the music industry is zero-sum and revenues will just shift accordingly for all. If that were the case, the labels would have been on board a long time ago and 360 deals would be significantly more prevalent than they are. There are lots of revenues to be lost by reducing, or making free, the cost of recorded music. How much is the Beatles catalog worth (in terms of albums sales, not licensing) and what is the lifetime value of their album sales vs. their touring receipts?