Does for me, but perhaps not for any "logical" reason. The "archiving" and "sharing" of broadcasts doesn't seem as ethically "wrong" to me, but I agree it's a slippery slope.
This thread is frustrating, though, for its mix of assinine and astute comments regarding the subject at hand. Once again, the thread-starter overstates to an absurd degree, which undermines his otherwise valid argument that internet-driven trading of live performances could be a legitimate way for artists to promote their work, especially for relatively unknown or non-mainstream acts - such as many jazz musicians.
There will always be artists who object to their performances being recording; there will always be those who record said performances anyway. There are archival/historical rationalizations for why said performances should be preserved, and there are the issue of artists' rights that need to be considered as well.
What worries me - like Chuck, Jim, and several others here - is the willingness of some to completely disregard the IP issue and embrace some absurd "everything belongs to the universe anyway" philosophy. Like Mike F., I occassionally drive too fast, but at least I'm aware that I'm doing so and refuse to blame everyone else for not driving fast enough (or some muddled metaphor like that).