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

A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–328 of 328 posts

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#321

Post by mikeash »

Chris2048 wrote: post #320
mikeash wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two different meanings of "distribution." Think "probability distribution," not "transfer." A metaphor is when you literally talk about one thing, but are actually referring to something else. I'm not doing that here. When I talk about time, I'm actually talking about time. I'm comparing it to money, not using it as a metaphor for money. As for what they have to do with each other, it's simple: The usual way to alloc…

A metaphor according to dictionary : "A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.". If you don't consider time to be transferable, talking of it in terms of a currency is exactly this. > People tend to consider the first way to be unfair Time and money are linked, so I see both ways as the same. I disagree with the above, some people thing th…

I'm not talking about time in terms of a currency....

All I'm saying is: requiring people to give up time to obtain a scarce good tends to be seen as more fair, because time is more equitably available to people than money.

I can't understand why you keep thinking I'm somehow using time as a metaphor for money.

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#322

Post by [deleted] »

Chris2048 wrote: post #313
christofosho wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the event, this could make things worse for the arts. Society is seeing a decline in arts attendance in terms of the "older styles" such as theatre and lesser listened to genres (jazz, classical). I'm no expert, but high prices only deem to pull the "common folk" away from events, away from culture. Imagine if people were attending more events, experiencing more diversity, more art. Culture would probabl…

> Imagine if people were attending more events, experiencing more diversity If more is being paid for tickets, this will encourage more events. Are you suggesting a small, wealthy population repeatedly go to the same events? How could would reducing prices cause "experiencing more diversity", when every ticket redirected to one person, deprives another.

[deleted]

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#323

Post by pcvarmint »

ryandrake wrote: post #3

> "There's an emotional aspect to what artists do, which is to say 'I'm not willing to charge $500 even though clearly the market value is $500. I'm going to charge $100, and at the end of the day someone else is going to make that money,'" The bots are just a symptom. Seems like this is likely the root of the problem. If the primary market was efficient, then there would be no secondary market, and the whole point o…

Exactly. Scalping exists because the ticket prices are lower than the marginal utility to the fan. Raise ticket prices, and there will be less scalping.

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#324

Post by Chris2048 »

mikeash wrote: post #321
Chris2048 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A metaphor according to dictionary : "A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.". If you don't consider time to be transferable, talking of it in terms of a currency is exactly this. > People tend to consider the first way to be unfair Time and money are linked, so I see both ways as the same. I disagree with the above, some people thing th…

I'm not talking about time in terms of a currency.... All I'm saying is: requiring people to give up time to obtain a scarce good tends to be seen as more fair, because time is more equitably available to people than money. I can't understand why you keep thinking I'm somehow using time as a metaphor for money.

> I can't understand why you keep thinking I'm somehow using time as a metaphor for money.

I said currency. If you exchange one thing for another (or talk abstractly in terms of this), it's a currency.

> requiring people to give up time to obtain a scarce good tends to be seen as more fair

People too poor to take time off work, or with high-paid careers that leaves them little free time won't have time to spare.

People who are wealthy with no associated constraint on their free time (e.g inherited wealth, or retirees), the unemployed and children/students have plenty free time.

Why does the latter group deserve tickets more than the former?

> time is more equitably available to people than money

Time is more 'equally' (but not necessarily more 'fairly') distributed than time, but what does that matter? Daily toe-nail growth is more evenly distributed than money, and maybe more evenly distributed than time too, so should we ditch time in favor of exchanging good for toenails?

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#325

Post by mikeash »

Chris2048 wrote: post #324
mikeash wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about time in terms of a currency.... All I'm saying is: requiring people to give up time to obtain a scarce good tends to be seen as more fair, because time is more equitably available to people than money. I can't understand why you keep thinking I'm somehow using time as a metaphor for money.

> I can't understand why you keep thinking I'm somehow using time as a metaphor for money. I said currency. If you exchange one thing for another (or talk abstractly in terms of this), it's a currency. > requiring people to give up time to obtain a scarce good tends to be seen as more fair People too poor to take time off work, or with high-paid careers that leaves them little free time won't have time to spare. Peop…

There's no exchange when you ask people to give up time in order to obtain something. That time is just lost. If it was a currency, then the people selling the goods would receive the time you spent.

Your toenail hypothetical, and much of the rest of your comment, entirely misses my point. I'm not saying we should do this or that. I'm merely saying that people find it to be more fair when there's a time requirement. That's not the same thing as "we should require people to spend time."

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#326

Post by RugnirViking »

Chris2048 wrote: post #294
simonsarris wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You reasoning is a pretty good example of why the median person should be very wary of anyone saying that free markets and their "efficiency" are a good thing, or will result in good outcomes for them. They will result in good outcomes for the richest, sure. We can agree to that. You are conflating die-hard fans with die-hard wealthy fans which is a little silly. Not all fans have the same marginal value of pocket ch…

> are a good thing, or will result in good outcomes for them No one says that all individuals will be benefited by an efficient market. But they are a "good thing". > Not all fans have the same marginal value of pocket change Yet money is worth the same to the band anyway. I want a Ferrari, but I'm not wealthy enough to afford one - who should be discounting my Ferrari? > One median-income fan may be easily be more d…

Except that the system being discussed works as if ferrari released their new cars at $5000 -specifically to allow people with less money to afford it-

But released far fewer than people that wanted to buy a ferarri.

naturally a market of dealerships would snap up all the ferraris and sell them and much higher prices right? but that's not quite what ferrari intended when selling their cars at $5000. How they can get the cars into the hands of truly random people instead of always to the dealer is the problem here.

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#327

Post by Chris2048 »

mikeash wrote: post #325
Chris2048 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't understand why you keep thinking I'm somehow using time as a metaphor for money. I said currency. If you exchange one thing for another (or talk abstractly in terms of this), it's a currency. > requiring people to give up time to obtain a scarce good tends to be seen as more fair People too poor to take time off work, or with high-paid careers that leaves them little free time won't have time to spare. Peop…

There's no exchange when you ask people to give up time in order to obtain something. That time is just lost. If it was a currency, then the people selling the goods would receive the time you spent. Your toenail hypothetical, and much of the rest of your comment, entirely misses my point. I'm not saying we should do this or that. I'm merely saying that people find it to be more fair when there's a time requirement.…

Yes there is, although it's not the same as a physical exchange.

If I initiate an electronic transaction, where my bank balance goes down by $10, and yours up by $10, that's an exchange, even though nothing physically passed between us.

If I solicit you to do something for me (in exchange for money) that means you spend an hour doing something (therefore not having that time free, but freeing me from having to do it (therefore freeing up an hour of my time), a similar exchange has taken place.

Time can perish, but it can still be used as a currency.

> I'm merely saying that people find it to be more fair

fair enough. Then I disagree that this is true, without proof, and also disagree this is relevant, without justification. I'd assume most people that thing this are part of a group with more time than money.

Re: A scalper who used bots to buy millions of tickets, now wants to stop them

#328

Post by Chris2048 »

RugnirViking wrote: post #326
Chris2048 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are a good thing, or will result in good outcomes for them No one says that all individuals will be benefited by an efficient market. But they are a "good thing". > Not all fans have the same marginal value of pocket change Yet money is worth the same to the band anyway. I want a Ferrari, but I'm not wealthy enough to afford one - who should be discounting my Ferrari? > One median-income fan may be easily be more d…

Except that the system being discussed works as if ferrari released their new cars at $5000 -specifically to allow people with less money to afford it- But released far fewer than people that wanted to buy a ferarri. naturally a market of dealerships would snap up all the ferraris and sell them and much higher prices right? but that's not quite what ferrari intended when selling their cars at $5000. How they can get…

> that's not quite what ferrari intended when selling their cars at $5000

If this is what they intend, they could go about it differently; other posters suggest venues happily allow touts to take the risk away from the venue. A random lottery would be perfectly legal, and allow the ticket distribution to be random, if the venues desired this.

I'd also note, any company that actually did this, might not be able to maintain shareholders, since some companies aren't supposed to be anything but self-interested by design. Bands could always insist, though.

Post reply on HN