Free music versus a free* lunch

In the real world, there's no such thing as a free lunch. You are expected to pay for things that you want/need. But is there such as thing as free art? Free music, for example? One of the schools of thought propounds that music should be totally free. Free of charge, free to use and appreciate. That is, you pay no money to get the music. The artist is supposed to make money from the sales of associated products and services such as concert tickets, T-shirts, endorsements and other avenues. Music - of the people, by the people, for the people, you say?

The question is, how many T-shirts/stickers/buttons/photo frames can you or would you buy to support your favourite artist? And would your music records (or downloads) hold the same special place in your heart and ears if they came for free? And would an artist's creative pangs have the same intensity if they knew they were going to earn nada from their latest number? Would they then be more inclined to focus their creativity on T-shirt designs and new pyrotechnics for their next concert?

Anyhow, I wonder how such an approach would translate to other areas in life. If you went to a restaurant, you could have a free* lunch, but if you wanted to have a table by the window, you'd have to pay. You would have to pay for the parking. You would have to pay for a better level of service or for use of cutlery... You would have to pay till the peripheral charges started to seem like a desperate attempt to cover the price of the lunch. The restaurant would be serving the food for free* and hoping desparately to lure the people into spending money on peripheral services.

Freedom does not have to mean 'free'. Do we want free-dom or do we want free*?

*conditions apply.