I am impressed with your editing abilities, justalayman. Reducing one of my wordy posts down to just a single letter, while still managing to maintain its gist, shows great skill on your part.
The exclusive rights of a copyright holder do not change just because the location of the copyrighted work changes. The copyright holder retains exclusive rights to make copies of the copyrighted work, make derivatives of the work, distribute the work and perform the work, unless these rights are expressly given away by the copyright holder through a license, transfer, assignment, or other grant of permission to use the work (there are a few exceptions to this).
Therefore, making a recording (video or audio or both) of a live performance without permission from the holder of the copyrights infringes on the copyright holders rights, even when the performance is viewed for free (again with a few exceptions*).
Many performers are protected from infringers during their live performances by choosing venues that strictly enforce the ban on recording devices. Some performers accept the reality that, with today's technology, some bootleg recordings will be made. Most performers are not going to take any legal action against their fans for capturing part of a live performance to keep as a memento of the concert performance. A select few (but growing number of) performers even encourage these "bootleg" recordings, if the recordings are for the personal use of the fan only.
An example: Fox Theatre in Detroit prohibits cameras, cell phones and audio/video recording devices. You cannot enter the theatre with these items and if you attempt to enter with the items, the items will be confiscated. However, when Sesame Street Live comes to the Fox, the restrictions are relaxed. Cameras are allowed for these performances, not because Fox Theatre says it is okay to photograph Big Bird and Elmo, but because Sesame Street Live says it is okay.
Finally, a performer must balance both the pros and cons of filing suit against fans who bootleg a live performance. A 2011 Phil Collins suit againt bootlegger Imtrat Handelsgesellschatt shows the pitfalls of a suit, even when it is decided in the performer's favor, as it was in Collins' action. A performer does not want to anger his fans.
That said, a performer will generally not hesitate to take some sort of legal action (often criminal infringement action) against those bootleggers who make, sell and distribute large numbers of copies. These bootleggers make a business off of others copyrighted works and this type of "piracy" is not so easily ignored or forgiven.
mdschneider, although performing rights societies (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC) will often collect fees from venues for the performers performing in these venues (and "performance" includes radio broadcasts, tv broadcasts, live performances, etc), the rights to the copyrighted works remain with the copyright holder. It is the performer (generally) who must okay the audio/video recording of a concert, not the venue. Although the venue may have
restrictions on ticket-holders that will prohibit recording, to
allow for recording must come from the owner of the copyrights.
Again, all of this is general information and specifics must be addressed by an attorney in your own jurisdiction who can review all of the facts and particulars of your situation.
(note to justalayman: I think the letter "S" sums up this post pretty well)
