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

Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 193 posts

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#181

Post by dylan604 »

mrWiz wrote: post #151
dylan604 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite is the local tax office charges extra for paying online vs going in to the office to pay in person. At first, I thought it was a way to recoup the processing fees as you're obviously paying by card online. The last time I paid in person with a card, that fee was not added on though. So they are charging you extra for not having to pay an employee to process your account.

Until a few years ago merchants were not allowed to charge credit card fees. In that case, online fees make a legally-allowable proxy for credit card surcharges.

the whole allowed to/not allowed to charge extra to cover the processing fees is a yo-yo. One of the best known examples is gas stations showing you different prices for credit/cash on their signs. So the "until a few years ago" seems like some internet trope as I can remember the gas station signs showing cash/credit from back when I was a kid, and let's just all agree that wasn't "a few years ago"

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#182

Post by alistairSH »

ipaddr wrote: post #124
alistairSH wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t have to use one broken market (airline seats) as a model for another broken market (concerts). Anyway back to the top post - a Dutch auction foods almost all these issues without weird rules.

A Dutch auction kills first day sales and would affect those who need to plan ahead. It will create less ticket sales for medium tiered acts.

Do we (the consumers) care about first day sales?

And maybe we only do dutch auctions for the big acts that have the worst issues with scalping and whatnot.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#183

Post by autoexec »

traderj0e wrote: post #72
autoexec wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just ban the transfer of tickets and allow refunds? You buy a ticket, you show your ID at the door. Early refunded tickets get resold online and late refunds are sold at the venue. All seats, including the best seats, go to actual fans instead of scalpers just hoping to make a profit while providing zero value. First choice in seats goes to the most passionate and attentive fans.

The venue would make less money this way, and preferential seats would be given to whoever managed to get a request in first.

That's the entire point

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#184

Post by nradov »

butlike wrote: post #179
nradov wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly my point: boycott the artists who contract with Live Nation. Your life won't be any less rich if you go see a local band instead of Taylor Swift. People have so many options now and yet they're afflicted with this weird FOMO.

That's not fair. Taylor Swift is so big because so many people resonate with her. They want to go see an artist they connect with. I get it, going to see the up-and-coming garage band with the DIY attitude at CBGBs has a comfy I'm-there-in-a-you-had-to-be-there-time, but not everyone finds that superior. Some just want to see the artist they like. And that's ok too.

Nope, I'm being completely fair. If you want to see Taylor Swift then expect to pay a lot for the privilege. Playing games with various ticket sales schemes isn't going to magically make a scarce luxury good affordable. I just get annoyed by entitled fans who think they have a moral right to cheap concert tickets due to loyalty or emotional connection or whatever.

And I have nothing against Taylor Swift. I actually like some of her music and I'm sure she puts on great live shows.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#185

Post by traderj0e »

butlike wrote: post #180
traderj0e wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't go anywhere that wants you to pay with phone period, cause it's just annoying and usually means bad food/service. If they somehow hid this fact until the end and wanted a fee for it, I'd just slap a bill on the table and leave. Don't think that's even a crime.

Right? As silly as it might sound, I go out to interact with people. I don't want a mindless unthinking automaton as a server. I want someone who will check in on how the service is going, and also make recommendations if I ask. I really don't understand the push to make inherently social endeavors more isolating. I guess it's money. :(

That's what I'm saying, I won't tolerate the automation. At least not at a place that expects a tip too.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#186

Post by IAmBroom »

coderjames wrote: post #90
Kirby64 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airline tickets and train tickets are because they want to identify the person, for tracking/supposed national security purposes. Also, you typically can transfer train tickets. Depends on the country. Dinner reservations: I’ve literally never had an issue “transferring” a reservation. There’s no verification, often, and the reservation tools typically let you change contact details. If I present myself as John Smith…

> Concert tickets are almost certainly in the 'dinner reservation' category. They have no need to identify me for national security reasons Admittedly I haven't been to many concerts, but 'national security reasons' seems like a reasonable rationale to me because a packed concert sounds like a great place to set off a suicide bomb vest for maximum impact. Have a cut-out who doesn't raise any red flags buy the ticket…

By your argument, you should have to produce ID before going into any crowded public space.

Pure security theater, and your argument is further invalidated by the fact that it's a made-up reason. No one has claimed this is mandated by TSA or other security authorities.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#187

Post by IAmBroom »

miki123211 wrote: post #159
autoexec wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just ban the transfer of tickets and allow refunds? You buy a ticket, you show your ID at the door. Early refunded tickets get resold online and late refunds are sold at the venue. All seats, including the best seats, go to actual fans instead of scalpers just hoping to make a profit while providing zero value. First choice in seats goes to the most passionate and attentive fans.

Scalping only exists because there's a difference between what the tickets cost and what the fans value them at. For popular shows, there are more people who want to see the show than there are tickets available, so you need to pick a strategy for deciding who's going to go.. Ticket sellers have to balance lost profits from lower prices, prices being too high and the show not selling out, and fans being furious at th…

The unpleasant truth.

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#188

Post by acdha »

dylan604 wrote: post #181
mrWiz wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until a few years ago merchants were not allowed to charge credit card fees. In that case, online fees make a legally-allowable proxy for credit card surcharges.

the whole allowed to/not allowed to charge extra to cover the processing fees is a yo-yo. One of the best known examples is gas stations showing you different prices for credit/cash on their signs. So the "until a few years ago" seems like some internet trope as I can remember the gas station signs showing cash/credit from back when I was a kid, and let's just all agree that wasn't "a few years ago"

It might also be that you’re just hearing from people in different states. More than half of the states allow surcharges, but that can change: for example, Oklahoma removed the ban just last year: https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB677/id/3231564

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#189

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

hgoel wrote: post #106
chadash wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What stops a scalper from buying early and then guaranteeing someone they will transfer the ticket on the day of the event?

How is a buyer supposed to trust that the scalper won't just run away with the money? And conversely, how is the scalper supposed to trust that buyers aren't just feigning interest and will back out at the last minute? Even escrow systems don't necessarily bypass this because ultimately the buyer is likely spending on more than just the concert ticket. They're probably taking time off work, maybe traveling in from an…

> How is a buyer supposed to trust that the scalper won't just run away with the money?

Contract law like anything else?

Re: Live Nation illegally monopolized ticketing market, jury finds

#190

Post by AngryData »

ryandrake wrote: post #23
jp57 wrote: post #16

The horizontal control of venues is only one issue. A perhaps bigger issue is the vertical integration (if that's the right term) of first-party ticket sales and resale in one company. Ticketmaster has no real incentive to try to prevent resellers from buying up all the tickets on first sale, because it gets to charge fees on all the resales through its platform. The more times a ticket is resold, the better. I don't…

I'm always annoyed by this kind of news. The problem has existed for a long time, and finally, FINALLY, a court weighs in on some very narrow sliver of the problem, meanwhile things keep getting worse. It always feels like the scene in Lord Of The Rings where they're waiting for the Ents to deliberate on the big war that's going on, and then after an agonizing amount of time they announce that they just said Good Mor…

It can move slower, just throw more money/lawyers at the problem.
Post reply on HN