I have been to several concerts and shows, and the first thing they requested was that no photography, video, or recording would be allowed.

In theory, that makes good logic.  If you want to have something you want to watch in the house, then you pay more money!

However, I think it might be a good idea to make it a marketing tactic.  Consider you give a concert.  You tell people that they can record it in their video ( as long as they don’t stand up), they can record your songs in their pocket recorders, and they can take  as much photography as they want.  They can post it in their blog, or use it by themselves, but of course, they cannot sell it or duplicate it for gain.

They will be posting it in their blogs, in their websites, or showing it off to your friends.  Some will post it in YouTube.  Your serious admirers are not going to be contented ( the standards of acceptability now is high!), and are going to buy something that is professionally taken and recorded anyway.

How much publicity do you think that will give you?  Do you think that will make you more popular?  Or it will just over-exposed you?

In short,  the standard marketing wisdom to optimize revenues is not to allow photography or video recording on live performances.  A second look will reveal that it might be a viable marketing tactic to actually allow the reverse — allowing some kind of fair use rights may be a good way to allow others to build hype, and word of mouth endorsements.  In today’s markets, it does not need to be a zero-sum game.