Well, not really. There's a debate going on about how much people should pay for records. I've read two articles recently, one from the producers point of view and one from the collectors;
I'm a collector and music fan, and whilst I really don't want to pay through the nose to own items I covet, I'm well aware that the artists/producers don't actually have an obligation to provide me with my fix at whatever price. I'm arguing that something is worth whatever somebody else will pay for it - this in theory should regualte prices, right? Although I'm sure some Business Studies academic could enlighten me to the errors of this thinking. But what price art? I think the producer/artist should actually think about what they want and who they want their audience to be - those simply interested in making money and put the art secondary to this will charge the high prices and supply only the mental collector with deep pockets who values a trophy rather than art. Those interested in art and experimentation and giving people something to think about and enjoy while just "creating" will surely prefer their work to reach a wider audience and adjust prices accordingly.
Endnote/Afterthought: I've got some rare records I paid money for that I feel are special and would prefer if these were more axclsive because I put either time or money or commitment into procuring them. I'm a hypocrite. The artist Mudd recently asked his fanbase via a social networking site whether or not he should repress a record for those who didn't get the limited edition first time round - would it piss them off, believing in the first instance that they were buying a limited and exclusive product. The fans were overwhelmingly in favour of a repress. Apart from Todd Terje, who immediately dissolved their friendship ;-)