Live data from Hacker News

Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

wsj.com

371–380 of 397 posts

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#371
post #111
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your stance is that preventing monopolies, as required by law, is _bad_ for consumers?

Historically, what do monopolies do when they capture a market is the opposite of lower prices and increase choice for the consumer.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#372
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How did they stop scalping?

Most venues in NYC seem to use an app called dice for ticket distribution. You can only resell on the app and only at or below the original price. Not foolproof, but seems to work pretty well in nyc, but in a less populated area might be hard if people cant sell the tickets and start complaining.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So rationing? I wouldn't call that fantastic. Why should someone who's barely interested but willing to go for $10 more deserving of a seat than a super fan willing to save up to shell out $150 for a seat?

Why should a rich fan get priority over a poor superfan? Every system has its tradeoffs.

because theyre willing to pay more

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#374
post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Obama administration was pro-monopolist basically across the board for eight straight years. It might be more accurate to say that rubber-stamping mergers maxed-out under the Obama DoJ. Comcast - NBCUniversal (2011) AT&T - T-Mobile (2011) Express Scripts - Medco Health Solutions (2012) Google - Motorola Mobility (2012) Anheuser-Busch InBev - Grupo Modelo (2013) US Airways - American Airlines (2013) Oracle - Sun…

The proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile was cancelled after the Obama DoJ said they were opposed and filed a lawsuit to stop it.

That's a good catch. It's what I get for relying on GPT3.5+memory -enough time to properly vet the results.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the economist say that? If Taylor swift made every penny, then what reason would the business that operates the venue have to operate?

Some people would like to see all the ticket money go to Taylor, and then she pays for the venue, credit card fees, and such herself. As it is, those get funneled off earlier in the process, and people get annoyed.

But why would Swift (or other artists for that matter) want to start their own ticket processing companies? They're not, they're going to want to contract that out. And if you're going to contract out the ticket processing from the get-go, they're the ones literally collecting the money from people buying tickets in the first place.

And I really don't get your example with credit card fees. You're suggesting the credit card processor not collect the fee at the point of sale and instead send all the money straight to Swift's bank account and then expect her to turn around later and cut a check? How is that more efficient than just having them collect their fee at the point of sale? It is just shuffling money and complicating it unnecessarily.

And once again, would most artists really even want to personally get involved in handling all the mechanics of who pays who when and how? I doubt it, they'll once again probably just contract that part out as well. They have a lot of work they need to do as the performer to get ready for the show. So once again it'll still just be some middleman they hire to do all this financial plumbing.

I agree, it looks like there's a certain level of monopoly with TM/LN in this space, and it sounds like artists pretty much need to take the whole package or none of if the artist wants to play at major venues. Maybe allowing these things to split up and be a bit more competitive will reduce prices, make things better for the artists, or whatever. Maybe forcing these people to separate just creates more friction and it gets harder to put on a big show or ends up more expensive overall.

In the end, these middlemen will continue to exist in some form because they do provide value, especially at the scale of putting on a show for many tens of thousands of people.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#376

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…

> 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.

Freedom of association like... an exclusivity clause?

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should a rich fan get priority over a poor superfan? Every system has its tradeoffs.

The best systems are the points based systems where fans are rewarded for being fans. E.g. people who had seen all Chiefs games for 3 seasons would be allocated a higher chance of getting a Superbowl ticket. What you don't want is people flying in for finals and paying $10k to see just the final game.

My point is that it depends what you are optimizing for.

Your system is fantastic if you want to make sure that people who have invested the most money in the past get priority over those willing to pay the most for a future game. It still works against fans who can't afford season tickets. With your system a corporate lawyer that buys season tickets to hand out as perks to clients will get priority over a "true" fan who can only afford to go to three or four games a year.

As I said, EVERY system has its tradeoffs.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#378
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are but the DoJ is getting involved 30 years too late. They crushed all of the meaningful competition that long ago. Even breaking the company up into parts wouldn't suddenly fix the industry.

Lots of music venues in NY use an app called "DICE", Eventbrite is also a thing

And Weezevent is quite popular in some European countries.

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#379
post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>> but it's ok to strip it away if someone is subject to anti-trust action?

The 1st amendment is not absolute if there's competing laws against it. Which i believe is your point, or at least helps your argument as you will see below.

>>> unenforceable/illegal contract provisions are pretty common.

Agreed, for the same reason that it is illegal to sell your body parts. This is because the illegal provisions (freely entered between consenting adults) would be in direct conflict with another established law, and the constitutionality of said law would have been brought up in front of (higher) courts to debate whether X type of association does not run afoul of other rights.

>>> What is fundamentally different between banning non-compete agreements, and banning exclusivity clauses?

There's nothing fundamentally different except the former is now law, under the 13th amendment [1]. The latter has yet to do so. So you could be correct. The 13th amendment is a better pillar vs going strictly against the 1st amendment for (reasons).

[1] https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/02/rebecca-zietlow-13...

Re: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people would like to see all the ticket money go to Taylor, and then she pays for the venue, credit card fees, and such herself. As it is, those get funneled off earlier in the process, and people get annoyed.

But why would Swift (or other artists for that matter) want to start their own ticket processing companies? They're not, they're going to want to contract that out. And if you're going to contract out the ticket processing from the get-go, they're the ones literally collecting the money from people buying tickets in the first place. And I really don't get your example with credit card fees. You're suggesting the cred…

It's what people want, so they feel better about things. It's pointless and silly, because it's all fungible.

In general the public doesn't like how the sausage is made, and if you reveal parts of the making they get angry about it - even if everyone involved basically agrees it's for the best.

(Ask the random Swift fan how much the A/V company is paid to manage the equipment and they'll probably be off by an order of magnitude or more - the most famous example of this kind of thinking is "I can make eggs at home, how come a restaurant is so expensive?")

Post reply on HN