Recording concerts. Okay or not cricket?

I don't really like bootlegs, they detract from my own memories of the concert.

Oh they're never going to replicate your personal experience fully. That's something I realised many moons ago. But I do like to have some sort of memento of the event.
There are occasions where they do match my experience though. The rainy Austin one certainly captured that show well, but then it was a pro recording.
It's when bootlegs change hands for cash that I start to get cross. That IS making money out of someone else's work.
But I wouldn't say the artists lose out as such. They have taken their fee for a performance & should they release it officially, I am certain the fan base would shell out for the official release. I have plenty of audience recordings of shows that are also available officially, but have always bought the official release too. But if I have just an audience recording to listen to, it's not like the artist has lost a ticket sale is it? The more likely scenario is that I am more likely to get to more of the shows on the next tour etc. Win Win really.
I also like the notion that bands have released (as b sides or additional tracks) bootleg recordings from time to time. I wish they'd do it more to be honest.
Yes, it's technically illegal, but artists all seem to have different tolerances when it comes to tapers. The Cure seem to turn a blind eye/ ear while Prince would probably have you shot if he caught you.
As long as you're not doing the artist (or anyone around the taper at the show) any harm, I don't see it as a massive problem.
I sort of look at tapers as "historians" who document an artist's performances & give listeners a glimpse of perhaps a show they couldn't get to.
But nothing ever beats the live experience. Not even a pro recording/ filming. Live is live, End of

The official Bunnymen Live In London CD was available half hour after the gig, complete with colour packaging, tracklisting etc. Would be handy if that happened at more gigs.

One gig the OH did, was recorded professionally. And it was also recorded start to finish on a number of smartphones. When it came to releasing said video there were people saying don't buy it, here's my YouTube link, or here, I'll send it you. So less sales of the official one and a load of boots in its place.

Lol trust you

Their loss really. There is no way on earth a smartphone video of a concert will be of the same quality is a pro shot version.
But then there is also the question of "would people have bought it anyway?" That's really hard to answer.
Case in point was the recent snafu over Kanye's album. He was adamant it was only going to be available for sale via Tidal & then it popped up on a zillion torrent sites almost immediately.
There's no real scientific way of determining whether the all the downloaders would have bought it had it been available on a CD or itunes etc.
Okay, that's slightly off beam, but it's very hard to forecast that sort of sale. One way around that is a pledge campaign where the funds are available up front & so sales are ensured & costs covered.
As for your OH, if I were a fan, I would have bought the official video. As I have done, The Cure, Floyd, The Cult, Led Zep, Roger Waters, The Sisters, BRMC et al.
If there was no commercially available product, then for sure I would trawl dime & the trader's den to find the next best thing. But I am very picky when it comes to quality.
The main thing for me is that no-one profits off the back of an artist's work.