Sorry but I don't follow the logic of the OP Howard Jones.."that in the digital age it's up to the consumer to decide what something is worth".

That was a paraphrase of the argument used on the other thread. Of course the consumer has always had the choice not to pay the asking price, but in the past that usually meant not acquiring the music. The alternative to buying the album was at best a taped copy of a friend's. These days it is quite easy to acquire a good-quality copy for little or nothing.

The costs of manufacturing a CD are just a small part of the total cost. Besides, the cost of production isn't a consideration for the purchaser. However if consumers aren't willing to pay a price which covers the cost of production, will musicians and record companies be willing to continue to provide the music, if they can't recover their costs?

The other thread was prompted by a comment from someone in the music industry who is suggesting that downloads should cost £1 - since so many are being downloaded illegally the industry might as well give away recordings in order to generate interest in live concerts and merchandising. Some bands have been giving away music for free, or inviting fans to pay whatever they feel it's worth. I'm not sure that model works for the folk world.