Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 397 posts

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#111

Post by xp84 »

beart wrote: post #41
kevmo wrote: post #20

When was the last time the Justice Department actually broke up a monopoly? Don't these suits usually result in a fine and an agreement to stop doing XYZ while both parties wink and nod, then the government lawyers go work in lucrative private practice a few years later?

There is a recent story where they are attempting to preempt the creation of a monopoly in the grocery sector. https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/investing/kroger-albertsons-m...

yeah, these geniuses are really doing a good job there. last time they "blocked" a grocery merger, the divested stores were sold to basically a mom and pop operation (haggen) who had no idea how to run a large chain and immediately went bankrupt, and most of the stores either stayed empty or were later re-bought by the big bad merged company they were supposedl reining in! Wow, big win for consumers who now have not only fewer chains to shop at, but literally fewer stores too! The same will happen again. Consumers will be the only ones to suffer.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#112

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

btown wrote: post #60
andjd wrote: post #15

One important thing to know is that the venues/artists often get a kickback of part of the Ticketmaster fees. In other words, the artists, venues, producers, and Ticketmaster are in cahoots to fleece fans for as much money as possible, and Ticketmaster is willing to play the 'bad guy' and take the blame for high prices, and they get to keep a bigger slice of the overall pie than they would in a highly competitive mar…

An artist might want to opt out of this, though. They might think, and reasonably so, that the optics of having affordable tickets - even if they make less overall - is better for their brand identity and long—term benefit. That LiveNation has created a de facto system where they cannot opt out of their price setting is at the heart of the entire matter.

Affordable tickets requires a way to combat scalping, which in turn butts up against freedom to resell/transfer tickets after purchase. It's a hard game to win whenever scarcity and economics are involved.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#113

Post by davidgh »

voidwtf wrote: post #64
andjd wrote: post #15

One important thing to know is that the venues/artists often get a kickback of part of the Ticketmaster fees. In other words, the artists, venues, producers, and Ticketmaster are in cahoots to fleece fans for as much money as possible, and Ticketmaster is willing to play the 'bad guy' and take the blame for high prices, and they get to keep a bigger slice of the overall pie than they would in a highly competitive mar…

If I understand correctly Ticketmaster is still the one creating this problem, they demand exclusivity in their contracts which often means the venue has no choice if they want to participate in a large enough market to continue operating. Similarly artists have trouble securing large venues if not participating in their scheme. This is the problem with most 'monopolies', they reach a certain critical mass where they…

To be sure, Live Nation owns and / or operates many of the venues. They also provide management services to artists. So it’s not that TicketMaster demands exclusivity from the venue, they #are# the venue.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#114

Post by methodical »

michael_michael wrote: post #106
methodical wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I'd love to stick it to them, I haven't looked into it at all, assuming I'd have to pay more for legal counsel than the tickets were worth.

Legal counsel isn't allowed in small claims courts. It's just a question of whether it's worth your time. edit: Ha! Here is a guide on how to sue Ticketmaster: https://fairshake.com/ticketmaster/how-to-sue/

At least where I live (Texas, United States) from what I saw it's allowed to have legal counsel, although it may be uncommon. I'll have to look into the process more and see if there's anything I can pursue.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#115

Post by tensor »

voidwtf wrote: post #64
andjd wrote: post #15

One important thing to know is that the venues/artists often get a kickback of part of the Ticketmaster fees. In other words, the artists, venues, producers, and Ticketmaster are in cahoots to fleece fans for as much money as possible, and Ticketmaster is willing to play the 'bad guy' and take the blame for high prices, and they get to keep a bigger slice of the overall pie than they would in a highly competitive mar…

If I understand correctly Ticketmaster is still the one creating this problem, they demand exclusivity in their contracts which often means the venue has no choice if they want to participate in a large enough market to continue operating. Similarly artists have trouble securing large venues if not participating in their scheme. This is the problem with most 'monopolies', they reach a certain critical mass where they…

I think that exclusivities are a huge source of market problems in general. They are often used in these ways to create sorts of monopolies and drive prices artificially high.

Beatport, a service that sells music for DJs, has started doing exactly this sort of nonsense. They now have "exclusive" tracks for twice the price, and I would guess that the artists also get a portion of the increased profits. However, for consumers the only change is less choice and DOUBLE the price. Seems very similar to what ticketmaster is doing. I have no idea if they force artists to make all their tracks exclusive if one is, but no doubt that is the next step.

There has got to be a better solution here as it doesn't seem very reasonable to literally be doubling and tripling prices like this. And at the least, if an artist is going to do that, it should be transparent and not hidden under the guise of an exclusivity.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#116

Post by to11mtm »

michael_michael wrote: post #106
methodical wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I'd love to stick it to them, I haven't looked into it at all, assuming I'd have to pay more for legal counsel than the tickets were worth.

Legal counsel isn't allowed in small claims courts. It's just a question of whether it's worth your time. edit: Ha! Here is a guide on how to sue Ticketmaster: https://fairshake.com/ticketmaster/how-to-sue/

Time and potentially some filing/service costs. You may be able to claim some of those as well (When I almost had to sue for a security deposit, in that Jurisdiction I could get some filing fees but not service costs for whatever reason...)

That said, if they don't show up, you'll get a default judgement. And if TM doesn't pay, they can have fun with it if there is an office nearby. A while back someone got a judgement against a bank, they didn't pay out. He came by with the sheriff and they started loading up chairs/etc when they hesitated to cut a check. :)

Or, whatever other 'collection' action you may have to motion for after the fact if they don't pay.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#117

Post by phone8675309 »

lesuorac wrote: post #33
teeray wrote: post #7

The fees alone are one thing. But the fees that are a percentage of the purchase price are quite another. That transforms them from fees into a tax.

I don't think it's good to be calling non-government charges a tax. Fee or Commission works fine here. The line item for sellers/buyers agent isn't "tax" when you buy/sell a house despite it being a percentage.

Let's call it what it really is - rent

They're rentseeking

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#118

Post by xp84 »

mywittyname wrote: post #48
leereeves wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it was the breakup of AT&T on Jan 1, 1982 (the result of a suit started in 1974). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System

Which is nuts. The DoJ needs to take a battle ax to Ticketmaster to set an example. They need to prove that they are still willing and able to throw down if necessary. TM is a disposable target, they don't build anything critical to the economy or national security. They could be deleted from the earth and dozens of replacements would spring up in a week. TM is so hated that, if the DoJ goes for the jugular and misse…

So true. I wish that we could just have corporate death penalty by referendum. If 85% of the voting public agrees your company is net bad for our society, and there is no national security reason to save it, nationalize it and liquidate it and use the proceeds to fund consumer protection regulation. Perhaps if shareholders stood to lose their entire investment by being deleted like this, they would find themselves hesitant to do outright evil things.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#119

Post by to11mtm »

methodical wrote: post #114
michael_michael wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal counsel isn't allowed in small claims courts. It's just a question of whether it's worth your time. edit: Ha! Here is a guide on how to sue Ticketmaster: https://fairshake.com/ticketmaster/how-to-sue/

At least where I live (Texas, United States) from what I saw it's allowed to have legal counsel, although it may be uncommon. I'll have to look into the process more and see if there's anything I can pursue.

Actually, I'm forgetting...

Did you possibly agree to binding arbitration for all disputes?

I can't believe I forgot -that- loophole facepalm

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#120

Post by [deleted] »

calgoo wrote: post #79
voidwtf wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand correctly Ticketmaster is still the one creating this problem, they demand exclusivity in their contracts which often means the venue has no choice if they want to participate in a large enough market to continue operating. Similarly artists have trouble securing large venues if not participating in their scheme. This is the problem with most 'monopolies', they reach a certain critical mass where they…

Taylor swift is big enough that she could build a venue in each location if she wanted, so that not an issue. If Taylor and a few other large artists gave the middle finger to ticketmaster and basically created their own ticket system, i promise you that they would have enough pull to basically solve this. However, like you said, thats not in their or their labels interest.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN