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

351–360 of 397 posts

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#351

Post by kelnos »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #330
KoftaBob wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they demand exclusivity in their contracts Right off the bat, exclusivity clauses shouldn't be legal, it's the definition of anti-competitive.

I don't know where you live, but since this is about US law, this has no basis. This goes against the very 1st amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, and as the US Supreme Court has stated, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others. The only way you can take this position is IF one of the parties is subject…

Your comment seems to contradict itself. Freedom of association is constitutionally protected... but it's ok to strip it away if someone is subject to anti-trust action?

I'm not the person you're replying to, but I do live in the US, and unenforceable/illegal contract provisions are pretty common. What is fundamentally different between banning non-compete agreements, and banning exclusivity clauses?

Also I feel like you kinda have it backwards: an exclusivity clause restricts someone's freedom of association. While that's not automatically illegal (since 1A only applies to the government), exclusivity agreements like the ones we're talking about go against the spirit of the idea of freedom of association.

So yes, I'm totally fine with banning exclusivity clauses in contracts (maybe not in all cases; I'm sure there are times when they might be appropriate), and I don't think there's really any conflict with 1A. IANAL, of course.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#352

Post by mixmastamyk »

ryandrake wrote: post #176
kxrm wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone is complaining about Ticketmaster but they're still giving them their money, so how are they supposed to respond? They are not being financially incentivized to change their ways. That's a monopoly. The actual product being a luxury item has no bearing on whether a business practice is damaging to consumers. If I have no other choice but to buy tickets for a show through TM, I can't easily avoid them to ch…

You have a choice to not buy the ticket. This is like hating De Beers yet buying diamonds from them. Monopoly on a non-necessity: anyone can opt out. If they are breaking the law, the government should throw the book at them and yea they should have done it long ago, but also people should stop giving money to a company they hate, regardless of whether they are a monopoly.

I've indeed refused to use TM since 2020 or so, due to their auction pricing raising good ticket prices ~400%, eliminating the option of paper tickets, and making it increasingly impossible to see a show anonymously.

Know what effect it has had on them? That's right, zero. As consumers, we're not even gnats on an elephant's toenail in our ability to affect the outcome. Maybe you'd like to brainstorm another solution.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#353

Post by quesera »

dragonwriter wrote: post #348
quesera wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what rent-seeking means. They're just charging exorbitant fees to a customer base with no alternatives. Like prison phone companies.

> That's not what rent-seeking means. > They’re just charging exorbitant fees to a customer base with no alternatives. The term for that is “monopoly rent”, it is a subtype of economic rents (which are distinct from, but overlap, “rents” of goods or services for a finite time as distinct from sales.) Actions taken in pursuit of economic rents are called “rent-seeking”.

Rent-seeking is profiting from position without adding value.

Rent-seeking is not merely pricing your product as high as the market will bear.

Ticketmaster adds value. They just charge exorbitant fees.

...

Edit: But OK, you can argue that their full vertical integration (ticketing-venue-artist management) is maximizing their position for the furtherance of increasing their fees, and that would be rent-seeking. I don't see it that way, but I won't argue against interpreting them as a coercive monopolist, which is close enough.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#354

Post by kelnos »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #314
EasyMark wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still not a reason for the government to not bust up their rackets. It's about time someone stepped up and did something. I was hoping would be state based like Texas or California, but I'll take action from the feds I guess.

> not a reason for the government to not bust up their rackets Nobody in this thread has argued against enforcement.

Perhaps not, but your comment was a bit ambiguous as written. Telling an artist "tough luck" if they can't book a larger venue without TM/LN feels like saying there isn't really a problem to be solved here.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#355

Post by ascorbic »

paxys wrote: post #131
calgoo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah why does Taylor Swift not simply build multi-billion dollar stadiums in the middle of hundreds of cities across the country? Is she stupid?

They obviously don't need to be multi-billion dollar stadiums. They can be temporary structures or outdoor areas. 120k people watched Elton John on the main stage at Glastonbury last year, twice as many as attended most of the dates for the Eras tour. While not everywhere will have a space that's suitable for a 40-60k outdoor stage, a good number will.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#356

Post by kelnos »

zer00eyz wrote: post #331
crabmusket wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This entry in Matt Stoller's newsletter goes into a lot of detail on how this works: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/explosive-new-documents-u... > It’s easy to believe the worst about Live Nation, they have a bad reputation. But the reason I buy this particular story is because it is consistent with the behavior of many dominant middlemen firms in our economy, from pharmacy benefit managers to Amazon to big banks…

This is a pretty good write up. It's off the mark on one point. The artists aren't upset with their take. If they are it's because their own management has their hands deep in pockets, or just plain suck. Live Nation knows dam well who butters the bread. The history of Live Nation is that it is the decedent of bill graham presents. You might want to go look at the history of bill. There is a statement about his funer…

> The lesson of the last decade is that you dont need LN/TM to cover it up. Artist given choice will make tickets non transferable and just auction them off... the new starting bid will be the same as the current all in price.

That's fine, though, and arguably better. Right now the consensus among concert-goers seems to be, "man, this is all expensive, but looks like I'm getting screwed by [TicketMaster | the venue]; I bet $ARTIST thinks this sucks too". For artists who want to charge an arm and a leg to see them perform live, pricing a lot of people out, that ire should be directed at the artists, where it truly belongs.

And maybe that drives some fans away, and that's what artists need to see happen. But I don't believe that all artists who play ball with LN/TM are greedy like that. Certainly some are, and maybe even most are. But those who are not... well, they should be able to play in huge venues across the country and charge less for admission if they want to.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#357

Post by teeray »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #147
BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Radiohead does this, banning scalping and limiting prices/supply. It seems to work out pretty well with the fan base. May be due to the band having obsessive and largely left-wing fans

Robert Smith also came down hard on this, and as a glorious result, we saw The Cure for like $30/head last summer.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#358

Post by kelnos »

chefandy wrote: post #303
codazoda wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have tried a bunch of methods like demand based pricing, ID verification, electronic tickets, and lotteries. I suspect these things only work a little and each has its own problem side-effects.

Bands with the clout and fans lined up down the block the day before ticket sales open (e.g. Radiohead, The Cure, Pearl Jam) can do these things, and I'm glad they do. For the vast majority of acts– even well-known ones– it's absolutely not an option.

I think pretty much any act popular enough to headline at a large LiveNation venue can do this. Not even all that is necessary: just ID verification. Require each ticket to be associated with a real person's name at the time of purchase (and the ticketing platform should make it easier for people to find tickets next to or at least near their friends when they have to buy in separate orders).

Tickets aren't transferable. Ticket purchasing platform has a marketplace where people can resell tickets to others if they can't attend, and sale price is capped at whatever they paid in the first place. (Or the ticket issuers can partner with something that already exists, like StubHub, and contractually require the price caps.)

Each attendee must present their ID to enter the event. Names must match, no exceptions. I don't love the idea that you can't anonymously attend a concert (by walking up to the ticket counter and paying in cash, assuming any large venues even have box offices anymore), but I think the benefits of this scheme for the majority of purchasers far outweigh that negative.

This isn't hard. It's almost as if someone in the chain likes scalpers...

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#359

Post by kelnos »

lolinder wrote: post #212
carlosjobim wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Combatting scalping is the easiest thing ever. Just put the name of the attendee on each ticket and if you want to be nice you can have a buyback period until a certain date before the show, where the venue purchases back your ticket if you can't go.

And then what, check the ID of 50k people at the door?

Yes, absolutely. Adding an ID check to a ticket check and often a bag check and sometimes metal-detector wand check seems pretty minimal to me. Or have people scan their IDs themselves when they scan their tickets; pretty much every driver's license and state ID in the US has a barcode thing on the back. Of course have enough staff at the gates to deal with the exceptions or when things don't work right.

Regardless, this already happens: I went to a concert at Chase Center last year, and they were checking everyone's IDs, not even just a random sampling of them. When I went to EDC in Vegas last year, they were checking IDs at the shuttle stops on the strip. I believe they were only doing that for age verification, but if the ID is already out, that can easily turn into identity verification.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#360

Post by OccamsMirror »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #271
MichaelZuo wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has the DOJ ever won an argument against just vertical integration in the entire history of the US?

DOJ won against Paramount et al. in 1949. Consent decrees were in place for over 70 years. https://www.justice.gov/atr/paramount-decree-review

It is a very different world than the world of 1949.
Post reply on HN