Although this may be a bit extreme, from my experiences, it seems as if going to a live concert is a completely different experience than listening to music on my ipod. Even though it is a lot more fun to go to a concert as the atmosphere is amazing, listening to the same songs on my ipod I find that they sound better; and in some cases they sound completely different. For example, here is a live version of one of Ke$ha’s live concerts, Rock in Rio; here are her published versions of the first two songs from that concert: We R Who We R and Take It Off. After listening to those songs it is hard not to realize the huge difference between her live performance and her better published versions. Thus, the fact that there is such a big difference I do not think that they should have the same restrictions in regard to copyright. I know that when people go to concerts they take videos on their phones and post them to youtube or facebook; and I think that there is nothing wrong with that. However, taking a video or recording a published song and then reposting it, without any consent is infringing on copyright.
I think that although artists often sound different in concert rather than live, the degree of difference can greatly vary. I have been to concerts where I have been disappointed by the artist live and others where I thought their recording didn’t do them justice. I think that a live performance is still the artist’s work whether or not they perform well and if they request no recording, then concert goers should respect that. However, I don’t think I have ever been to a concert where recording was an issue. I agree that taking a video or recording of a published song and reposting it without consent is an infringement.
While Ke$ha may sound better to you on her album recordings, there are other performers whose live concerts are often praised, such as Dave Matthews and Bruce Springsteen. These artists are lauded for their exceptional performances, both musically and visually.