They have been slow, although adjusting pricing for example wouldn't keep most people from downloading illegally or re-distributing those files. They're not doing it because music is too expensive, they will do it even if the songs were .29 instead of .99 or 1.29. It's just their mentality.
I'm not so sure. In my view, the mentality started because the cost was too high.
With 'hotel' analogy, those items are items that we often need and items that we take opportunistically. They are physically offered and they are taken. With digital music, the process actually takes more and you have to actively seek the product. It's too late now to speculate too hard on the issue - it simply doesn't matter right now because it's already happened - but I really do hold the record companies to account here for their own demise.
When the first Mp3 player was introduced to market around 1998 (if my memory serves me) the record companies actively tried to sue the makers. They saw it as a threat to their business model and rightly so. What they should
have done at that point is (especially after the judgement in court went against them) tried to offer digital distribution right then and there at a fair price. Unfortunately for them, that didn't happen for a few years and they have lost hold of the distribution industry to Apple and Amazon. You're absolutely right, record companies have changed now to digital distribution systems but they are now working below somebody else - their digital distributor - rather than being at the top of that tree themselves; which they would have been if they had actually have engaged with the new technology than trying to criminalise it!
All that Apple did with the iPod and iTunes are things that could have been done by a record company, or a record company with a partnership deal. I will cry no tears for them. They made a big mistake.