Preface to following comment: I hear what you're saying and understand your point. I can see the valid reasoning behind it. I think you are right in what you're saying.
However, it seems that the concept of "profiting through exclusivity" is really the polar opposite of what a Non-Profit Public-Use Business's mission statement usually is. You could go so far to to say that profiting through the idea of exclusivity is exactly what makes a private for-profit business exactly that, for-profit and private.
It makes more sense to make your argument to those in the surrounding areas, but it feels like it loses steam when applied to the other 96% of listeners (geographically speaking). For us 96%'ers, making the decision to spend the money or not never took place.
Regardless, and in fear that this is arriving dangerously close to a Gawker-like thread, I'll leave it at this: Decisions made to keep things like this exclusive to those few hundred/thousand people to chose to come is a great community-building idea! But, leaving the other 96% (who may have wanted to come or not) no access to at least the recording may not be the best play in the long-run. Right?
