The first un-stated assumption in your argument is that "intellectual property" is a valid concept, or at least, valid morally rather than just legally. Consequently, artists and inventors are encouraged to fall in to the trap of believing they can "own" an idea after it has been displayed, performed, sold or otherwise shared with the larger world outside of their own skull -- and that they can, or should have the right to, control it and exercise ownership rights over it thereafter.
The other is that the band, in performing a concert, is "selling" their music. What they are really selling is (as you said) entertainment, or rather, an entertainment experience (ie. the live concert experience). And people who do sneak in without paying are a somewhat different case than those who "pirate" entertainment. I'm not sure how to summarize the difference -- though perhaps the applicable comparison would be if those non-paying audience members produced and distributed boot-leg recordings of the concert.
I've not worked it out in depth, and I'm out of time, but perhaps these points are worth consideration?
|
