The free-market operates based on the law of supply and demand. You’re right when you say that if a customer doesn’t like the price, he doesn’t buy it. However, if customer’s don’t buy, the company needs to lower the price in order to get rid of the stock they have – stock that doesn’t sell and just sits there is a waste to them.
This method normally helps goods reach a price that is equal to their real value.

When it comes to media, the supply is endless and publishers don’t have leftover stock if they price their music and movies too high. Therefore they don’t have the same incentive to lower their prices when customers don’t like them.
Publishers will say “Good for us if what we sell has endless supply. Why should our goods be treated differently than physical goods?”. Personally I think that if your goods come in infinite supply, and therefore break the law of supply and demand, then they shouldn’t be treated like goods that come in limited supply. Currently the media industry is saying “Just because our goods are unlimited doesn’t mean everybody should get a sample of each for free!” and that’s just silly.

We have the option today to let everyone enjoy media for free. Thanks to technology. This improves society, it makes everyone’s lives more comfortable. For the good of society as a whole, the media industry should change their business model and make money differently. Give songs and movies away for free, but use them to promote other products or services that you sell (i.e. t-shirts, toys, concerts/others shows, etc.). We’re basically just switching resources from one production line to another; instead of producing music that is sold (which requires stores and other things) we produce free music (less costly) and produce goods and services derived from it. More concerts, more conventions, more toys, more t-shirts… I can’t tell you how often I’ve wanted to buy a specific good related to a movie or a band I like, but I couldn’t because nobody was producing it.

I have to admit, I still don’t understand why the media industry won’t change their business model so perhaps I’m missing something important here. My guess is that they’re either too stubborn to change or they are changing to a model where they make profit by suing people for copyright infringement, but to be honest these two explanations don’t satisfy me entirely. I wish I knew what the real deal is.

And something to think about:
3D printers are coming soon. In 10 years most homes will have one. Imagine how we could just print most of the things we need. There would be less waste (all those unsold iPhones, toys and t-shirts are a huge economical and environmental waste) and less costs in the production line (society would cut down on distribution services, thus freeing up resources (i.e. workers) to place them somewhere else where they would be needed). We would also have products for a cheaper price. A great advancement for society, right?
But what if George Lucas starts suing people who print their own X-Wing replicas because as a result of printing items themselves, people don’t buy the official toys? Should society forgo many uses of 3D printing and the advantages associated to them, or should we just tell Lucas ‘Hey, we realize it sucks for you, but you need to find a new way to make money. You can do it, it just takes a bit of effort to think about it and figure out how to do it. Once you’ve done it you’ll be making as much money as you used to’.