Slashdot Mirror


Scalpers Earned $25M Gaming Online Ticket Sellers

SeattleGameboy writes "An indictment has been issued for online ticket brokers known as 'Wiseguy Tickets and Seats of San Francisco.' From 2002 to 2009, they used bots, server farms, and CAPTCHA hacking to buy vast number of premium tickets (Springsteen, Miley Cyrus, NFL, MLB playoffs, etc.) and made $25 million in profits. 'They wrote a script that impersonated users trying to access Facebook, and downloaded hundreds of thousands of possible CAPTCHA challenges from reCAPTCHA. They identified the file ID of each CAPTCHA challenge and created a database of CAPTCHA "answers" to correspond to each ID. The bot would then identify the file ID of a challenge at Ticketmaster and feed back the corresponding answer. The bot also mimicked human behavior by occasionally making mistakes in typing the answer, the authorities said.' I guess you can break any system like CAPTCHA if you want it badly enough."

82 of 574 comments (clear)

  1. What a lot of work. by dtmos · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wouldn't it have been easier just to make the money legitimately?

    1. Re:What a lot of work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, 25 million USD is easy to make legitimately, that's why everyone is doing it!

    2. Re:What a lot of work. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      To be honest I don't see what they have done wrong. Their actions are no different from normal retailing. You buy low at a bulk supplier and sell high to individuals.

      Sellers could cut them out by raising their prices so that demand matches supply.

    3. Re:What a lot of work. by xtracto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, 25 million USD is easy to make legitimately, that's why everyone is doing it!

      guess you can break any system like CAPTCHA if you want it badly enough."

      Moreover, this shows that the used security mechanism is worth at least 25 million USD.

      The problem is that the CAPTCHA approach is flawed. Any similar type of challenge-response system can be abused for illegal activity. At the very end, the only thing an attacker has to ensure is that the cost of obtaining enough challenge-responses is less than the outcome of the illegal activity.

      Say, if they pay a group of Chinnese guys USD $0.39 an hour, you can get a fair amount of human identifying challenge-response answers.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    4. Re:What a lot of work. by RuBLed · · Score: 2, Informative

      They are an unnecessary middle man. In line with your comparison, they are hoarding the goods from the ones selling to individuals themselves then raise the price because they now have most of the supply.

    5. Re:What a lot of work. by Arathrael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sellers could cut them out by raising their prices so that demand matches supply.

      And wouldn't that be great? Instead of the venue, artists, promoters, ticketing agencies, etc., all covering their costs and making a healthy profit, they could... make a bigger profit. Woohoo!

      Of course, for the millions of people attending events, they'd be spending a lot more than they were, or able to attend fewer events, especially if they want to sit in anything remotely resembling a good seat. And front row seats would only be affordable by billionaires and the five richest kings of Europe. But hey, people who were already making a healthy profit would make even more! Hurrah!

      Or, maybe, just maybe, in the interests of culture, fixed price ticketing is actually a good thing...

    6. Re:What a lot of work. by dtmos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The indictment actually states that, ". . .Wiseguys and its owners made more than $20 million in profits. . ." (p. 2 of the indictment), so let's start with the $20 million number.

      Keep in mind that:

      (a) The $20 million was made over an eight-year period, 2002-2009, so the average was $2.5 million/year;

      (b) The profit of the enterprise was split among the two principals (the CFO received $165,000 and the programmer received $150,000, natch...), so that brings it down to an average of $1.25 million/year for the two principals (I think we can agree that the salaried guys did not do well in their risk/reward ratio calculations); and

      (c) The "profit" figure used in indictments is nearly always what a legitimate businessperson would call "gross profit," meaning, to quote Wikipedia, "the difference between revenue and the cost of making a product or providing a service, before deducting overhead, payroll, taxation, and interest payments." As a criminal enterprise, these guys didn't have to worry about taxation (at least, the correct amount of taxation), but they did have to pay the salaries of the other 10-15 people working for Wiseguys Tickets, Inc., and all the other expenses associated with running the enterprise (computers ... ). All of that would have to come out that $1.25 million/year/indictable person. A quick look through the indictment shows the several persons on staff in the US being paid from $55k to $142k/year each, and the ones in Bulgaria being paid from $1 to $1.5k/month each, so you do the math.

      The point being, the retirement plan associated with these types of schemes is typically poor, as it's usually at a federally-funded establishment. These guys ran a small tech company with overseas offices, and could have done the same legitimately at a salary of probably $150k/year which, once benefits were included, would be equivalent to $250k/year in cash (to make a direct comparison to their criminal enterprise). In a legitimate business, the CEO also would have had significant stock options and other perks given to him by the company's board to motivate him to grow the company. With even moderate growth over that period, the CEO could be very well-off. As I say, it's easier to make money legitimately.

      And you sleep better.

    7. Re:What a lot of work. by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice work. You forgot one thing when discussing what "easier" means -- entry into market.

      Let's use porn as an example. Legitimate media is extremely competitive. Want to start a TV station? A Newspaper? Put out a movie? Music? Those things are dominated by incumbent players who do not like new competition. On the other hand, porn is forced into a low profile, so even though there are big players in the industry, brand names and other matters of high public notice barely even exist. So nearly anyone can make porn.

      And since we are talking about event tickets, we are also talking about a pretty well limited and controlled market. It would be unthinkable for someone to just appear out of thin air and start making that kind of money legitimately. Scalpers, on the other hand, are delivering the premium goods with no need of marketing, reputation or other complications required for legitimate business.

      So when you are talking about "easy" there are other aspects to consider.

    8. Re:What a lot of work. by Comboman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So then how do you distribute tickets, other than having a mad, random rush to sell them in the first few seconds they are on sale?

      How about an auction? The first tickets released would get bid up to insane levels by superfans/rich a-holes who want to guarantee they get a seat. Once that high demand level is filled, the medium demand audience bids up tickets to medium prices, then whatever is left over purchased at lower prices by the low demand audience. This type of price discrimination allows multiple price points for otherwise identical products without having a middleman (i.e. the scalper) cutting into the profits of the artists/promoters/venues.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    9. Re:What a lot of work. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wouldn't it have been easier just to make the money legitimately?

      I'm still trying to figure out how what these guys did was wrong.

      The real criminals are the monopolists at Live Nation and Ticketmaster, whose merger will create an entity that controls over eighty percent of the live concert promotions business, and who already demand a $12.50 "service" charge for the privilege of being able to buy a ticket online and another $2.50 just so you can print the ticket out on your own printer. (I guess that last fee is just a penalty they make you pay because you are saving them the cost of having to print and ship a ticket. No good deed goes unpunished, you know.)

      The question now, is "just how high can ticket prices go?".

      There used to be mom-and-pop music promoters in just about every town in America, putting on live music in bars, parks, gymnasiums and VFW halls. They've created musical venues that allow musicians of all types to ply their wares and make a living. That's going to end now that Live Nation/Ticketmaster are going to create a $4.4 billion behemoth that's going to put the small promoters out of business and control nearly every single live venue.

      You know what? These scalpers aren't the problem here. When a system sucks this bad, why shouldn't scalpers game it? You want a "free market" system? Welcome to life.

      Personally, I stopped going to the "big" concerts some years ago specifically because of the Ticketmasters and Live Nations (now one entity), and I go to see music in much smaller venues as often as I can, hoping to support the music and not put money in a monopoly. Now, that's going to be harder because at some level almost every dollar spent on live music will be going to these bastards. Maybe I'll just start putting all my entertainment dollars into the hats and guitar cases of the many excellent buskers that inhabit the streets of my city (at least once winter ends).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:What a lot of work. by ottothecow · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Paying people to solve the captchas won't work as well as building a database of possible captchas... Ticketmaster only gives you something like a 2 minute window to complete the process so you can't just have somebody hammering through captcha's for a few hours every day...you need access to all of them in the few minutes after the tickets go on sale (as opposed to making fake email accounts or something where the timing is not important).

      The real flaw here is that the captchas were reused and identifiable when reused. It sounds like the file name for the image didn't even change...If no two users of any site ever saw the same captcha, this database technique would not work.

      --
      Bottles.
    11. Re:What a lot of work. by Ambiguous+Puzuma · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I want to know is, why was a few hundred thousand reCAPTCHA challenges enough to have a reasonable chance of getting a duplicate? Shouldn't the number of possible challenges be several orders of magnitude higher to discourage this kind of attack?

    12. Re:What a lot of work. by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      While I'm not a fan by ANY stretch of the imagination of scalpers...I'm a bit puzzled as to exactly what laws were broken here?

      It did mention they may have hacked into Ticketmasters systems, and if they did break in, ok, I can see that.

      However, using scripts/applications to log into a site and buy tickets, I don't see how that is illegal? They are just using a program to mimic what human could do on a website that only reacts to input and doesn't care itself if a human or a scripts is behind the computer connection being made.

      Is it against the law to study and make a database of captcha's?

      Like I said..I hate scalpers, they grab all the best tickets for places that allow scalping, and even in states where you can't scalp, they grab the tickets and sell to people outside the state keeping locals from getting tix (since they can't by law pay more than face value).

      But, I have a hard time viewing the mere fact that someone devised and used a program to auto-purchase tickets as being something illegal? What if an enterprising person that really loved going to shows did the same type thing to ensure that he could buy the best seats for a show that went on sale for himself and his friends? Same principal? In the old days when you had to call in for tix, would they have arrested people for having speed dial (new at the time) and using it to an advantage over people dialing by hand? Hmmm....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:What a lot of work. by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that the CAPTCHA approach is flawed. Any similar type of challenge-response system can be abused for illegal activity.

      I met a guy who was a pilot in Vietnam. They had (and still have) a system where everyone carries a card with a grid of numbers and letters on it, and you can authenticate someone over the radio by picking a couple spots on the grid and they respond with, for example, the character adjacent to them. Well, he forgot his card one day and was queried by a controlling agency using the authentication card. He told them to stand by, switched frequencies, and issued the same challenge to another agency. They responded, and he switched back and passed it along to successfully authenticate himself.

      --


      Evil is the money of root.
  2. Why is it illegal? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They didn't rob the bank.

    They didn't print fake dollar bill.

    Every single dollar that they paid good money for purchasing the tickets are REAL money.

    What's illegal about what they have done??

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Why is it illegal? by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Impersonating a person, resale of tickets where (commercial) resale is illegal, fraud, illegal use of computer resources (botnets) and pissed of alot of people who actually wanted to buy tickets but were unable to.
      When AC/DC toured last year these asses their botnets overloaded the official ticketsale sites preventing any real customer to even access them, in Belgium the sites were unreachable 2 days before the sale even started.
      If i had my way, ticket scalpers would be scalped for real.

    2. Re:Why is it illegal? by peragrin · · Score: 2, Informative

      that's just it they paid retail for tickets so the artist and the stadiums made the money they thought they were going to anyways.

      scalpers usually buy tickets at normal prices and then sell them for more. now sometimes they do under cut the theaters or staduims but most of their money is on big games. were the $30 cheep seats suddenly become worth $70 or more.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:Why is it illegal? by asdf7890 · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's illegal about what they have done??

      There system obtained access to resource (the tickets) under false pretences (pretending to be different individual people rather than one organisation). That, I believe, is fraud.

      Anyway, the poster you replied to stated "legitimately", not "legally". In common parlance "legitimate" covers both "legal" and "moral", and taking advantage of people in this way is generally seen as NotTheDoneThing. If you had to pay twice as much (or sometimes it can be several times as much) for something that you wanted simply because a group like that had gamed the market, would you be happy to pay up and consider that everything was proper and above board?

    4. Re:Why is it illegal? by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Copyright?
      Where the hell does copyright come into this?
      They're not printing extra tickets.

      So if 20.000 tickets are sold for $50 each, thats $1M, of which half goes to the artist. Simple math. BUT, if 1000 of those tickets are sold for say, $100, by the terms of the contract, the artist is supposed to get half of 19.000x$50 + 1000x$100 and who pays the extra ?

      Nobody.
      and that's how it should be.
      If the artist wanted $50 per ticket rather than $25 per ticket then they should have sold them for more in the first place.

      If I make a game, print 20,000 disks and sell for $50 each, thats $1M and if I've got a particularly lucrative contract as the developer I get half. Simple math.
      BUT, if 1000 of those tickets are bough by someone, I get my 250K cut and then they sell those games second hand to someone else for $100 each and make a profit then that's their buisness.
      I've already got my cut.
      I have no right to a cut of their second hand sales.

      If I wanted more then I should have charged more in the first place.

    5. Re:Why is it illegal? by jabberw0k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Horsefeathers.

      All the parties have already made their money on the tickets.

      The "scalper" only makes money by selling a scarce item at what the market will bear. Had the tickets been priced higher, he could only lose money. Besides, it's a dicey business because if as a "scalper," you set your price too high, you're gonna lose everything.

      Pure supply and demand. "Scalping" is the best proof of free markets anywhere.

    6. Re:Why is it illegal? by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then simply don't buy the overpriced tickets, and these guys will go out of business very quickly. If people are stupid enough to pay the hiked up prices, why shouldn't these guys do it? I fail to see anything illegal in what they're doing any more than if a supermarket buys up a whole bunch of coffee or rice and sells it on to their customers at a higher price, or McDonalds and Burger King making insane profits on their drinks.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:Why is it illegal? by Mattskimo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Breaking a ToS is not necessarily itself illegal. It is grounds for the stadium to refuse you admission but they are allowed to do this regardless, for any reason or often for no reason at all. It would be like buying currency on a MMO, generally against the ToS and once could reasonably expect account suspensions or bans to be dished out but doing so is not a criminal offense.

    8. Re:Why is it illegal? by Doug+Neal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really.

      From the same page: "Left-libertarianism combines the libertarian premise that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership with the egalitarian premise that natural resources should be shared equally."

    9. Re:Why is it illegal? by dziban303 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Failing to follow the terms of service of a website is not a criminal act in itself. A website is not Congress or Parliament or El Presidente, and they do not get to create any laws that have any effect outside of their own website. Sure, they can ban you, but they can't arrest you.

    10. Re:Why is it illegal? by somersault · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, if the supermarket doesn't just buy up "a whole bunch of coffee" but is basically waiting at the pier when the ship loaded with coffee arrives and buys all of it although they only needed 0.1% of it for themselves then it is dishonest and they're clearly trying to exploit others.

      What are you talking about? Their job is to sell stuff. If they can sell 100% of it, then they need 100% of it.

      Also, this is a classic case of where "voting with your money" just doesn't work because the profit margins and the demand are both so high that even if you could get say, 80% of the prospective customers to agree not to buy from scalpers you'd still be looking at them selling a boatload of tickets

      That is people voting with their money. If they are stupid enough to value the tickets to a live concert so highly, then that in fact shows the "real" value of the tickets to the fans.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    11. Re:Why is it illegal? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, Mr. "libertarian," just who you do you propose stops this scalping? The government?

      Your question presupposes that it is necessary, desirable or even possible to stop it. Attempts to stop tickets from selling at a price people are willing to pay for them is like trying to stop the tide from coming in. The only question is whether the price will be charged by the original ticket seller or a scalper.

    12. Re:Why is it illegal? by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're assuming there is something wrong with scalping in the first place. These evens are all optional to attend. If someone pays more for a ticket than face value why is that a problem? The scarcity of the ticket drove the price up and the person who paid did their own personal value calculation for the ticket.

      If you're for banning scalping do you also want to ban people who sell tickets below face value? I routinely wait till a couple days before an event and pay less than face value for tickets (if you're willing to go to a weekday sporting even for example). Should that also be stopped?

    13. Re:Why is it illegal? by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You missed the point. The scalper did you a service by even giving you the chance to see the concert. If there were no scalpers and every ticket sold was legit then there would be no tickets on ebay and your action of missing the ticket sale means you have zero options to attend.

      Would you prefer that the concert simply have been priced at the scalpers prices from the get go? At least that way there might be some tickets left when you finally got around to checking the box office.

    14. Re:Why is it illegal? by BetterSense · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it's possible to make money by scalping tickets, then clearly the tickets are underpriced. The scalpers in that case are providing a valuable service of holding back inventory for those that are willing to pay a little extra for the opportunity to purchase a ticket closer to the event date.

    15. Re:Why is it illegal? by Maniacal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would start up a tire company, make the tires, and sell them for $400. I would undercut the tire "scalpers" and make the other guy feel stupid for selling something for $25 when it was clearly worth $400-$500.

      --
      MG
    16. Re:Why is it illegal? by Enry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you missed the point.

      The scalpers are scooping up tickets and skewing the price. MrKaos pointed out that out:

      Before ticket sales via the net I never missed out on tickets, now I'm almost certain I'll never get the tickets I want because the scalpers are so effective.

      With scalpers in action, he's unable to get tickets anymore and is forced to use scalpers. Without them, he's able to get his tickets directly even a few days after they went on sale.

    17. Re:Why is it illegal? by twidarkling · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You missed the point. The scalper did you a service by even giving you the chance to see the concert. If there were no scalpers and every ticket sold was legit then there would be no tickets on ebay and your action of missing the ticket sale means you have zero options to attend.

      Logical fallacy present. You're assuming tickets would have sold at the same rate whether scalpers were present or not. This is pretty laughable (appeal to ridicule *points and laughs* ). If there wasn't monetary interests being indulged, you'd have much slower movement of tickets by people with legitimate interests involved. This is patently obvious simply because there's fewer people involved. Scalpers create *artificial* demand. They are the antithesis of free market. After all, they don't care if they sell ALL their tickets, just that they make a profit, so the more they buy, the higher they can set *their* per ticket price, and the fewer overall they'd have to sell. Scalpers don't provide a service, they break the system.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    18. Re:Why is it illegal? by eln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no real problem with small-scale scalping. The problem with these large-scale operations is they artificially create scarcity by buying up every available ticket. A ticket that you could normally go up to the window and buy at face value is unavailable to you unless you pay inflated prices because the scalper has bought every ticket. They're inserting themselves as a middleman in a market that needs no middleman, and making things cost more for everyone else.

    19. Re:Why is it illegal? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Scalpers create the scarcity.

      Venues compete on price, location and other stuff. This brings prices down. When scalpers step in, the venue has already been locked in. There is no more competition.

      If the band or the label were to scalp, it would create a lot of bad blood. If the venue were to scalp, nobody would play there. The practice is so negative, that venues who actively discourage scalping get better acts.

      I'm not a big believer in passing more laws, but it should be easy to create laws saying that advertising a ticket for more than 150% of the list price is "Scalping". Enforcement is hard, but having the laws on the books can at least discourage it from being done openly. Venues often spend a lot on having doormen looking for scalpers, offering tickets at the door and other tricks to stop these guys.

      As for why it shouldn't be illegal to charge less? it's a fictional problem. You don't have people bidding down the prices of tickets before an event.

    20. Re:Why is it illegal? by FatSean · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a long-winded explanation of a remarkably simplistic observation.

      The artifical scarcity produced by the scalpers who make it harder for people to find the tickets is important.

      Isn't this what TicketMaster does in the real world? Buys out the box office and marks up the tickets?

      What's good for the goose...

      --
      Blar.
    21. Re:Why is it illegal? by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with (digital) scalping is that the organized scalper will swamp the servers with thousands of connections at once, thus preventing many honest customers from getting a ticket or even to be able to connect to the servers.

      It's like if you're wanting to goto a venue to buy some food & finding all the entries blocked by a gang, you can eighter buy the food from the gang for insanely inflated prices, or hope the gang leaves before the stock is gone completely.

    22. Re:Why is it illegal? by BetterSense · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One is not free to invent any business model he chooses and then gripe about how his competition is not "allowed under his business model". That's called having a bad business model.

    23. Re:Why is it illegal? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Informative

      IANAL, but I think parent is right in saying that these guys have actually not done anything illegal

      Did you even consider reading the indictment? It's linked to from TFA. Or are you just going to assume you know all the facts, and make your judgement? Maybe the government lawyers were just winging it when they wrote up a 43-count federal indictment, right? Here's a hint: one of the things they did was break into other people's networks to steal source code. Maybe that's not illegal in your world, but it is in the one where they got charged.

      BTW, writing "IANAL" is not an excuse for ignorance. I've never studied law either, I just clicked on the indictment because I was wondering exactly what they did that was illegal.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    24. Re:Why is it illegal? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A broker looking to make an arbitrage profit is not the antithesis of the free market. They've found a pricing discrepancy in the supply/demand chain, and it's so far out of whack that they can still profit without moving 100% of their goods. That is precisely the free market.

      The only system being broken is the one where the venue sets a "fair price". That fair price is turning out to be much lower than the price the consumer is considering worthwhile. The venues are doing a terrible job pricing supply/demand for the more popular concerts. That's great for the consumer, so great that a marketplace has grown up around exploiting the arbitrage.

      You know, I find it really sad that the term "fair price", as offered by the seller himself, is denigrated that way. Not just in your post, but in countless posts in this discussion.

      Apparently not jacking up prices as high as you can - even if the markup is 500% and beyond - and screw everyone not able to afford it - is bad because it's a "market inefficiency". And scalpers are the good guys because they "fix" this "inefficiency", and as we all know, the only goal worth pursuing is an "efficient market" - it's a thing by itself, to be reached much like nirvana. If some people just want to be nice to other people - well, too bad, 'cause that's "inefficient".

      Yet, when we look at this while taking the actual utility or harm done to the society, scalpers are clearly harmful. They don't produce any useful product. They don't offer any useful service (to remind, we're talking about the kind that buys 100% of tickets in the first few minutes after they go on sale, not low-scale resale). The only ultimate effect of adding a scalper to the picture is that customers end up paying more for exact same thing.

      All in all, this story, and the comments to it, show a good example of why I consider unconstrained free market worship a form of sociopathy.

    25. Re:Why is it illegal? by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The artifical scarcity produced by the scalpers who make it harder for people to find the tickets is important.

      Do you think scalpers are buying and burning tickets to provide scarcity? The scarcity is caused by the size of the venue. It's real scarcity and there are only so many seats to go around. So what's the best way to distribute tickets? The click lottery or through a market mechanism? Right now we have both since people can win the click lottery, or if they don't they can buy tickets at true market value.

  3. Wiseguy?! by mrthoughtful · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Any company calling itself "Wiseguy" is surely going to pull some heat. It's like having a prescription signed "Dr A. Fraud."

    --
    This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
  4. Well done. by aerthling · · Score: 4, Funny

    $25m seems an entirely adequate reward for circumventing reCAPTCHA.

  5. Anti scalpers scheme that works... by BartholomewBernsteyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In his Glitter and Doom tour, Tom Waits pioneered an effective anti scalpers scheme.

    Tickets for Waits' summer shows were limited to two per person but, in an effort to beat ticket touts, a valid I.D. (passport or driving licence) matching the name on the ticket was required to gain entry. Any concert-goer who did not have a valid I.D. or was found to be in possession of a ticket that had been resold – electronic scanners were employed – was not allowed in and did not get a refund.

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glitter_and_Doom_Tour#Tickets

    1. Re:Anti scalpers scheme that works... by Canazza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That wouldn't stop scalpers. Idiots would still buy them, especially if they claimed that these tickets didn't need ID.

      The buyer wouldn't get into the concert, be out of pocket, and the scammer would have upped and legged it long before.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    2. Re:Anti scalpers scheme that works... by noackjr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tickets for Waits' summer shows were limited to two per person but, in an effort to beat ticket touts, a valid I.D. (passport or driving licence) matching the name on the ticket was required to gain entry. Any concert-goer who did not have a valid I.D. or was found to be in possession of a ticket that had been resold – electronic scanners were employed – was not allowed in and did not get a refund.

      If you RTFA (I know...), you'll note:

      The perpetrators took orders from ticket brokers, who were required to provide credit card numbers and account holder names in advance of a purchase so they could be programmed into the bot.

      All they would have to do to defeat the ID requirement is add that to the list of items they need to purchase the tickets. And people would still pay extra to them because 1) they wouldn't have to try very hard to get a ticket, and 2) they would have a much higher chance of getting a ticket.

    3. Re:Anti scalpers scheme that works... by gnasher719 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In his Glitter and Doom tour, Tom Waits pioneered an effective anti scalpers scheme.

      A different, simple scheme that benefits the artist: Once the venue is sold out (say 90% to scalpers) announce another concert on the next day. If that gets sold out, do another and so on. Result: Lots of money for the artist, who will play in many sold out but mostly empty halls. No money for scalpers.

    4. Re:Anti scalpers scheme that works... by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You really have no idea how venues work do you? You can't just say "Oh, I need another week worth of shows" once the tickets start to go on sale. The Venues have been booked up for months by that point. You also have appointments in neighboring cities a couple of days later. Artists don't just show up at the Pepsi center and go "I'd like to have a concert on Wednesday."

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  6. why browser knows captcha id by tokul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    why user agent knows all info required to identify captcha and why this identification info is unique. Somebody designed weak captcha system and it was broken. End of story.

  7. Dutch Auction by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about a dutch auction?

    Start the price offensively high, and drop it as the concert date approaches. The organiser gets paid the price the market will bear, the scalpers are out of the loop - because by definition, anyone willing to pay a stupid price for a guaranteed ticket will already have paid it.

    You still get the same effective problem - that rich fans are prioritised over poor fans, but more money goes to the artist and the organiser, so they could throw a few benefit concerts or something to sweeten the deal.

    1. Re:Dutch Auction by twisteddk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I like the idea, but for all practical intents it's almost impossible to do.
      Because you'd then have to auction off each seat in an order determined by order of importance, which would be logistically a nightmare with up to 100.000 seats available for an event.

      For instance: I can afford to pay $500 for two tickets to a concert, but I want the best possible. If I wait for the best tickets to drop in price, they may sell out before they reach the pricelevel I'm willing to pay, so I need to buy the second best tickets, but these sold out at $100 even earlier. So the company sells a pair of tickets at $100 that it could have gotten $500 for. so they have to sell each seat (or section) before they sell the next to get the best price. Thus the guys dealing in the "resellers" market still get to earn a living, because this is impractical to do.

      Rather each buyer could enter a maximum value they'd be willing to pay, and then those with the highest bids would get the best tickets and so on downwards. But again, this would mean people will bid lower than what they really wanted to pay, because the percieved value of the ticket drops with its desirability (like locatin, seating, visibility etc.) and with no guarantee of a desired location, you'd bid only what you percieve the worst tickets to be worth. And thus a new black market will appear.

      I dont see a better way (and equally simple for both costumers and sellers alike) to do it than with the current fixed pricing schemes.

      --
      --- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
    2. Re:Dutch Auction by oever · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The 'clock' in a dutch auction takes about 30 seconds to go to zero. That means that a sequential auction for 100.000 tickets would take about a month. That should give all people interested ample opportunity to attempt to buy a ticket at the desired price.

      However, just like the stock exchange, the day price of a ticket would depend on psychological factors. That means that the price would fluctuate and the a price that is perceived high one day is percieved low another day. This creates opportunity for ticket trading.

      A better system for the artists would be to do parallel ebay-style bidding. You start by bidding $10 and if there are less people bidding more than $10 than there are tickets, you get a ticket. At a specified time the bidding is frozen and you either have a ticket or not.

      For the concert-goers, this system has the disadvantage that they are not sure of a ticket until the bidding expires.

      --
      DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
    3. Re:Dutch Auction by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about a dutch auction?

      Start the price offensively high, and drop it as the concert date approaches. The organiser gets paid the price the market will bear, the scalpers are out of the loop - because by definition, anyone willing to pay a stupid price for a guaranteed ticket will already have paid it.

      You still get the same effective problem - that rich fans are prioritised over poor fans, but more money goes to the artist and the organiser, so they could throw a few benefit concerts or something to sweeten the deal.

      The problem is promoters and talent want two things - sold out venues and maximum price per ticket. Scalpers act as a hedge against lost sales and inaccurate demand / pricing - they take the risk of getting stuck with tickets or losing money; something promoters don't want to accept themselves. Dutch auctions would probably condition people to wait because they learn prices will fill - which causes prices to fall - and promoters have no idea how much money they make nad when. They hate scalpers because, in their mind, they are taking "their" money; and convenientlyignore the risk mitigation role.

      Laws barring reselling of tickets, IMHO, merely serve to restrict the market and raise ticket prices overall so promoters can make more money. There is no rational reason to bar ticket reselling anymore than to bar reselling of any other good.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:Dutch Auction by jonadab · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > If I wait for the best tickets to drop in price,
      > they may sell out before they reach the pricelevel
      > I'm willing to pay, so I need to buy the second best
      > tickets, but these sold out at $100 even earlier.

      This is easily solved, and along with it the problem that some people might rank the seats differently than others (e.g., one guy wants to be right in front of the speakers, and somebody else would rather be near the center of the stage).

      The solution is simple: all the tickets are the same price on any given day. Let's say you start selling the tickets 100 days before the event, at ludicrously obscene prices (say, a million bucks a seat). You wait, because you don't have a million bucks, and if you did you wouldn't spend it on tickets for a single concert, because you're at least partially sane. So you wait. Each day the price goes down. After a week or so, it's down to eighty grand per seat, which you still can't afford, but only four tickets have sold, to some billionaire who just had to be next to the center aisle in the front row no matter what. When the price comes down to twenty grand per seat, a couple of CEOs snap up the private VIP booth, and a lunatic-fringe extreme fan from Ann Arbor sells his truck and buys a front-row seat. But there are still seats available in the front row, and the price is coming down...

      Furthermore, this system and the current system aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. They could split up the seats in a predetermined way and sell some of them at fixed prices and others in the manner described above. The proportions (how many tickets are sold each way) would be up to the organizers of the concert, I suppose (though it might also be a negotiating point when you're trying to book popular performers).

      For simplicity, we'll say you divide the seats in half down the middle of the center aisle. All the seats left of center are sold for the same low price of $150/seat (or whatever) until they're gone, but the seats to the right of the center aisle are priced obscenely high at first, and then the price gradually drops until they're all sold out (probably somewhere in the $250-$500 range, though of course the exact price is going to depend on the popularity of the performers and various other factors).

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    5. Re:Dutch Auction by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This makes plenty of sense. In any concert there are bandings of seating with a price attached. The better the view, the more expensive the seat. This is worked out in advance by the venue based on their 'values', but really it is the view and values of the ticket holder that matter.

      So, price starts at $1 million and slowly drops as the cut off date for purchasing a ticket approaches.

      If the guy who spent $1 million for his seat wants to sit to the left side of the back row - who are we to tell him he can't have that seat. The price of the seat drops until you feel you can afford it and check - nope, you don't want to pay $500 for the seats left, but in two hours time it's $200 and there's still a few left you'd pay that for.

      You could automate it by placing a highest bid price label onto each of the seating brackets and let a script pick you up a seat when it hits your price. If you're feeling risky, you could wait a little as seats in that area sell out - snapping a couple up at the last moment.

      Concert providers should be happy, this would pretty much enable them to scam the maximum amount available for every seat in the house.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    6. Re:Dutch Auction by rho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt that most of the "scalped" tickets are actually sold by scalpers. Most are probably sold by friends and employees of the event and/or venue.

      Think about it--before tickets go on sale, roadies and janitors get a chance to buy premium seats at face value, maybe even with an employee discount. The performers don't care, the venue doesn't have to pay employment taxes on this unofficial employee benefit, and the employee gets some extra cash.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
  8. What is the ethical difference? by wheelema · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Between WiseGuy's and Goldman Sachs? Both use computers to game their respective markets.

    1. Re:What is the ethical difference? by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they donate to politicians?

      Seems to be the difference between acceptable and not acceptable is how in favor you are with the politicians who write the laws.

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  9. This is pretty ridiculous... by chaboud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not illegal to resell tickets above face value in most states (check out stub hub for TicketMaster's very own foray into person-to-person ticket sales), and business can be conducted in alternate states with more lax restrictions on ticket resale.

    Beyond that, smoking a CAPTCHA system with a bit of cleverness is not hacking or unauthorized access in any reasonable way. This is just a ridiculous attempt to criminalize scuzzy, crappy, opportunistic behavior on the part of one party (scalpers) at the expense of another scuzzy, crappy, opportunistic party (TicketMaster). This strikes me as another case of people trying to misuse the law to remedy the unexpected (only by idiots) defeat of a faulty system. If one reads the article, it seems like Wiseguys (seriously? That's your name?) made purchases on behalf of ticket brokers (ticket-broker is to scalper as escort is to hooker) with detection-avoiding measures in place to keep TicketMaster from blocking the regulars.

    It's an attempt by TicketMaster to wipe the egg off of their face, a face that most of America hates with a passion. Perhaps they should find a better way (reverse auction, anyone?) to find the natural market price instead of using time-release scarcity to spur impulse-buys that inevitably result in person-to-person ticket resale later on stub hub where they get to come back for a second skim off the top...

    Oh.. right...

  10. Re:There is a far easier way to 'break' CAPTCHA by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That probably works for creating hotmail accounts to send spam from, but not if you need to solve hundreds of thousands of capatchas in the space of a couple of seconds at 7am when the tickets are released for sale.

  11. It worked for Waits but it won't for Cyrus by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the United States, state-issued IDs are associated with age-restricted products and services. A minor can't drive, vote, get a job, see an R-rated movie, or buy tobacco, alcohol, lottery tickets, or over-the-counter medication. So a lot of children just don't have a state-issued ID. Requiring every ticket holder to have a valid ID to attend a concert would block such children from attending. That would work for Tom Waits but not for any of several acts that are popular with preteens, such as the Jonas Brothers or Miley Cyrus.

  12. Are you telling me... by cvtan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    that Stubhub is owned by Ticketmaster? I can't believe this. The last two times I tried to get into concerts at the Rochester Auditorium Theater and the War Memorial (Blue Cross Arena), it was difficult. Somehow all the good seats vanished almost immediately. But no, there are seats that magically appear on Stubhub. All you have to do is pay $300 for a $75 seat. Infuriated, I refused (obviously, I've been out of the loop for a while). So for one concert I bought tickets from someone on eBay (double the face value!) and for the other I just got cheap tickets in a poor location. Apparently this kind of poor service has no effect since the venues are sold out anyway. This makes me not want to go to events like this and just buy the DVD! Maybe you have to be a teenager to put up with this BS. I still have the antiquated belief that ticket resellers should not make more money than the artists or promoters. You don't see Wallstreet brokers doing this. Oh, wait...

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    1. Re:Are you telling me... by inviolet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      that Stubhub is owned by Ticketmaster? I can't believe this. The last two times I tried to get into concerts at the Rochester Auditorium Theater and the War Memorial (Blue Cross Arena), it was difficult. Somehow all the good seats vanished almost immediately. But no, there are seats that magically appear on Stubhub. All you have to do is pay $300 for a $75 seat. Infuriated, I refused (obviously, I've been out of the loop for a while). So for one concert I bought tickets from someone on eBay (double the face value!) and for the other I just got cheap tickets in a poor location. Apparently this kind of poor service has no effect since the venues are sold out anyway.

      Wow do you ever need a semester of Micro 101. The "face value" of a ticket is just noise -- it has little bearing on the actual value of a ticket. The actual value can only be determined by a market that is allowed to clear.

      Since the auditorium is full despite the 300+% markups, the face value must be incorrect. And now you are bent out of shape because the incorrect face value set your expectations erroneously low.

      Ticketmaster uses artificially low face values in order to give the scalpers, who are its risk-mitigation division, some wiggle room. Scalpers could not perform their service if they had to buy the tickets (and hence risk getting stuck with excess inventory) at their full real value.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  13. Bigger scum than TicketMaster in same business! by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow ,,,,

  14. $25 million gaming dollars by bryan1945 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is this like the South Park episode where Butters earned $300 million theoretical Internet dollars?

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  15. So, umm, the difference is...? by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, if you've no moral qualms about what you're doing.

    So, when we're talking about people already doing stuff that's immoral and often illegal, if the only barrier the captcha offers is "Sure, if you've no moral qualms about what you're doing"... then it seems to me like the most useless gimmick ever. Does anyone actually think that the kind of people we needed captchas against would go, "man, I only wanted to cheat, scam and pollute with email and link spam, but OMG breaking a captcha would be just morally _wrong_. I just can't do _that_."?

    Plus, that was not the argument made back then for this crap. Everyone was ranting about how it's such a great defense. If you just tried to point out the ways it can be circumvented, everyone would treat you like you're some kind of a crazy conspiracy theorist.

    Well, now it's been officially done, and it's been done for almost a decade, judging by how long these guys operated. Now what?

    I'm not saying this as schadenfreude, but I find it genuinely sad that for so long millions of users have been outright excluded from some services, in the name of a solution which just simply doesn't work.

    Some captchas are getting so obnoxious, that even I have trouble with some two times out of three, and God help you if you have eyesight problems. And most audio versions I never could decode in the first place. I guess the garbled, low signal to noise thing might not be that bad if you're a native English speaker, but God help you if you aren't.

    And for what? For a stupid solution that only works if you have a moral problem with breaking it?

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  16. there's a small town in the mountains by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    every sunday a guy shows up with 20 bags of flour. the townspeople line up and buy the flour from the guy, $2/ a bag

    one sunday, this asshole shows up really early, buys all 20 bags for $40, turns around and faces the townsfolk and says "ok, that will be $5 a bag from each of you"

    understand the illegality yet?

    incidentally, this puts the lie to libertarians and free market fundamentalists who believe the market is healthiest when left alone. a healthy market needs to be heavily policed by the government to be healthy, solid fact. because of exactly this sort of market manipulation, of which there are thousand such slimy schemes. there will always be assholes who find natural market imperfections and insert themselves as artificial middle men and gouge the marketplace. they add no value. they parasitically insert themselves in the marketplace and suck it dry

    anyone can appreciate how they hurt our economy and hurt the marketplace and the free flow of goods. its a form of robbery what they do, but its diffuse, not specific, and so some people like you can't appreciate their evil up front. i hope you appreciate it now

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:there's a small town in the mountains by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      understand the illegality yet?

      Nope.. if the townspeople simply refuse to buy the flour at that price (either doing without flour for the week or buying from a different location), the asshole is down $40. If people know that most of what they're paying is pure profit and yet still pay the price, they're simply idiots. This is exactly how a free market is supposed to work.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:there's a small town in the mountains by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perfectly, if people are willing to pay $5/bag for it. If they're not, then the guy will have 19 useless bags of flour. What will most likely happen is someone else will come in and offer cheaper flour, it's the nature of the market since such a high price will create a deadweight loss. Free market at work.

      At the end of the day, isn't that what the supermarket does anyways? They buy flour for $x and then they resell it for $x+$y. What keeps them in check? Competition from other supermarkets.

    3. Re:there's a small town in the mountains by Aquitaine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >> understand the illegality yet?

      No.

      >> , and so some people like you can't appreciate their evil up front.

      Good thing we have you around to protect us from ourselves!

      This is mickey mouse Econ 101 stuff. The only way your scenario ends in 'people starve' is if there is only one supplier of flour (i.e. flour is controlled by a monopoly). Even libertarians (many of us, anyway) agree that monopolies have to be treated a little differently, at least in cases where the nebulous 'public good' is involved -- typically infrastructure or telecom where you have private companies gaining access to both public and private land and need some oversight.

      This is certainly not the case with your flour example, though let's give you a pass on the analogy since someone else can make more-or-less identical flour, which is tough to do with a Springsteen concert.

      There are a variety of methods for ticket sellers to combat scalping, and a variety of reasons (which vary by state and country) which often restrict a vendor from selling the same product at two different prices based on the buyer. For example, ticketmaster can charge me $100 for an orchestra seat and $60 for a balcony seat, but (AFIAK) they can't charge me $100 for an orchestra seat but then make my buddy pay $140 for another orchestra seat at the same time; they can raise all their prices or have 'early bird discounts' but those things affect all transactions. They can only sub-divide on a limited scale, e.g. 'American express discount' or other things which apply to fairly large groups but not individuals. So you have a certain degree of rigidity that is being forced on the market, since there are clearly some people who would pay $200 for an orchestra seat, but pricing all their orchestra seats at $200 would never fly -- so they sell them to scalpers who can turn around and sell them at whatever price they want through a variety of outlets. Those prices can change every day (we'd never put up with Ticketmaster doing that) because there are effectively multiple small markets as opposed to a single larger one.

      As for whether or not all this should be legal, the practical reality is that it's very tough to eradicate when you have a static, tiered market that actually wants to behave like a funnel. You'd pretty much have to mandate that tickets be linked to the actual person attending at the time of purchase, which means no resales, no gifts, no last-minute 'oh crap i can't go who wants to buy my ticket?' A simple, free-market solution would be to give somebody a 'lock-in' ticket price in which they could voluntarily tie the ticket to themselves (non-transferable) and get a lower price - that would cut into the scalping market quite a lot. I'd guess that it isn't legal to do as the ability to re-sell something that you've bought is usually quite well protected, but that's a question for the law and not a free market criticism.

  17. Love/hate relationship by pongo000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ticket scalpers and domain squatters: Love 'em or hate 'em!

    Sometimes I believe /.ers are pissed at these types because they didn't think of the idea first.

    It's a free market (after all, don't markets want to be free?)...I say kudos to them for figuring out how to scam the scam.

  18. they STARVE genius if they don't buy the flour by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    seriously, my example above is not some hypothetical. its going on right now in a thousand markets around the world, always has been, and always will. it adds no value to the economy, its a form of parasitism. you do understand that it is a form of robbery, right? please tell me your neurons can fire on that obvious concept

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:they STARVE genius if they don't buy the flour by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not a form of robbery, it's what happens in a free market, and if people don't buy the food (seriously, you think they'll starve after a week? I don't know how long flour lasts though). Unless it's happening all over the board then they can get other forms of food. If they all die then the scalpers would lose all their customers anyway, so they'll bring their prices down until most people can actually afford it. Yes, some people will still not be able to afford it, but that's how these things work in non socialist countries. Otherwise by your reasoning anyone that ever makes a profit is simply a robber and a parasite. In this case the scalper doesn't really add any value, but what he is doing is not illegal, and the townsfolk can also go to a different source, unless they guy has some kind of monopoly (which is in fact illegal).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:they STARVE genius if they don't buy the flour by MooseMuffin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."

  19. "Bots" were their own, not bot farm by michaelmalak · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Although the indictment makes heavy use of the word "bot", Wiseguys did not use viruses or trojans to create their bot farm. They paid for it themselves, with their own computers, purchasing varied IP addresses from varied ISPs across the U.S. to prevent Ticketmaster's et al IP address blocking.

    In the old days, ticket wholesalers would hire hobos to stand in physical line. In the Internet era, is it now necessary for ticket wholesalers to not only put a hobo in front of a computer, but to apply for a credit card for the hobo as well? And this is because Slashdot readers now all of a sudden support click-through EULA's on websites? The crux of the indictment is that Wiseguys defeated Ticketmaster's et al human identification by defeating Captchas and using purchased varied IP addresses.

    The ticket windows (Ticketmaster et al) are trying to engage in price control, which never works. Ticket windows had limited success in outlawing ticket brokers. Now in the Internet era it seems ticket windows have discovered a legal avenue to harass the ticket brokers by calling automated Captcha completion "hacking".

    Wiseguys never engaged in malware or theft. They merely sought to purchase what the ticket windows had for sale in response to the market distortions -- in the form of price controls -- the ticket windows had set up.

  20. WHo is at fault....both of course. by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you leave the door open, then you are stupid for letting in the flies, if you leave the screendoor closed but the main door open, you are stupid in thinking it will be enough to stop a robber, and if you only use a metal plated door, you are stupid in thinking it will stop the terminator. CAPTCHAs have never really worked, even to the new image and text combo ones, i saw that came close once, but it was based on a few QA style system, so not 1 or 2 but 3 or 4 questions about the person just like when you call a phone bank service.

    Anyways, the best way to really get security is with the secureid system, i have used and see its enormous advantage, the ID switches every so often, so even if you know the main password, you need the id to add the last part to concatenate to the rest. However, how many people log unto a website are able to have a system like that that can be verified other then companies giving their employees these. In this situation, I would say, make ticket sales phone based only. If this is something that is time sensitive and that in order to avoid one guy getting all the tickets based on a software that runs, then make it phone based only.

    If you have a website ECommerce site, and it is used to sell products, the person logging to buy up all your products only makes you more money, but tickets is not in the same league as let's say buying a laptop or iphone off the internet. People are not too lazy that calling by phone will get them a secured ticket, but then again it would fall on ticketmaster to handle to cost of the phone lines...
    which is something they want to avoid, unless they invest almost the same amount in R&D for a better system then what they got...either way, I guess I wont be going to see Metallica anytime soon.

  21. its called anticompetitive practices by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    monopolies, cartels, price gouging, barriers to entry, price fixing, etc...

    these are the enemy of capitalism, not a part of capitalism. capitalism is the refinement of competition to achieve a maximum of efficiency. anticompetitive practices therefore have no place in natural capitalism. anticompetitive practices therefore are a greater threat to capitalism than communism

    its illegal most everywhere robbery is also illegal, because its the same thing as robbery, but diffuse rather than specific

    please educate yourself

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticompetitive

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  22. Except, as here, it can be done in advance by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Informative

    Except, as here, it can be done in advance. Once you can generate an ID of that image -- and that can mean simply a hash value of it -- you can store it in a database, and use it in that small window of oportunity when you need it.

    Virtually every captcha I've seen applies a transformation or two of that image, from a small set of effects. So effectively you can end up with just one image for a given word, or a small finite set of distinct images. Add to that the fact that most use words from the dictionary, and the set of data you must store is actually very manageable.

    Some transformations can even be filtered out before you hash, even if you don't automatically do an OCR on the word afterwards anyway. E.g., mixing colours can just mean you filter it to black and white before hashing, or theoretical more complex stuff (which I haven't seen actually used) can be defeated by contour tracing before you hash.

    Once you have a way to get people to crack those for you, be it by reusing them for a "free" porn site or just paying some chinese kid a dollar an hour to crack captchas for you, you essentially just need some kind of caching to squeeze that information in the actual time window.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  23. Scalpers are legitimate by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Scalping is a legitimate profession that serves a useful spot in the market. They provide convenience for customers, and help event ticket pricers determine what people are willing to pay. Not to mention the "scalpers" who are individuals trying to get their money back, for whatever reason - whether due to time conflict, or emergency financial situation, etc.

    Or rather, scalping *would* be a legitimate profession, if people would embrace them, rather than try to shut them down.

  24. its illegal by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticompetitive

    It is usually difficult to practise anti-competitive practices unless the parties involved have significant market power or government backing.

    Monopolies and oligopolies are often accused of, and sometimes found guilty of, anti-competitive practices. For this reason, company mergers are often examined closely by government regulators to avoid reducing competition in an industry.

    Although anti-competitive practices often enrich those who practice them, they are generally believed to have a negative effect on the economy as a whole, and to disadvantage competing firms and consumers who are not able to avoid their effects, generating a significant social cost. For these reasons, most countries have competition laws to prevent anti-competitive practices, and government regulators to aid the enforcement of these laws.

    what the hell is wrong with you people?

    this is pretty obvious basic simple economics here. is it really true that a lot people out there believe this anticompetitive bullshit is acceptable, even legal? do you not see the common sense basis for how this sort of practice destroys the marketplace, if you don't readily appreciate the simple illegality of the practice?

    one would think all of this is obvious and simple conceptually

    i find it hard to believe so many of you think this is fair or legal or acceptable on any moral, legal, or philosophical basis

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  25. Original Live Aid and the Scalpers Scalped! by AGMW · · Score: 4, Informative
    I was lucky enough to get a couple of tickets to the original Live Aid gig in Wembley and the word went out that there were tickets still for sale at the box office and to not buy from the scalpers. After an hour or so the scalpers realised they were never going to sell any tickets, even at reduced prices (because everyone was so intent on helping the 'cause' and the scalpers had already bought their tickets!) that they gave up and handed in all the tickets to the box office where they were re-sold by the event to raise yet-more cash!

    But isn't it similar to the success spammers have with spamming? If no one answered the spam emails they'd go out of business, and it's the same with the scalpers ... if you simply don't buy off them they will also go out of business!

    That said, I don't see what's wrong with it and how you can make general scalping illegal and yet still permit Joe Schmo to sell a couple of spare gig tickets if some of his mates can't make it on the day?

    --
    Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
    handmadehands.co.uk
  26. Re:you bring up a good point by Maniacal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds like capitalism to me. He's taking a risk by buying up all the flour. If he prices it over what people are willing to pay they won't buy it and he'll lose money. Some other smart business man will call his contact in the town over, buy up a bunch of flour there and sell it in this town for a 200% markup. He'll make a profit, undercut the 400% profit guy and put him out of business if he doesn't lower his prices. Some other smart business man will see the demand for flour booming and will buy up some high quality flour and sell it at an even higher price to folks who can afford, and desire, higher quality.

    The original 2 guys make money, the 3 new guys make money. 4-5 other guys get jobs hauling flour. The other towns that make flour increase their sales. I like it.

    --
    MG
  27. Mod parent up by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm really getting tired of this argument that scalpers don't cause any harm, as if driving up prices simply to create profit for a middleman never had any externalities.

    Excuse me, but a piece of my tax money went to funding the creation of this stadium in our city. The point to building that stadium was to attract large acts and attractions to the city, making it a more enjoyable place to live. Now you're going to tell me that when those acts come to town, only the upper third of the city is going to be able to afford that concert. I guess it's great for them, but it's a raw deal for the rest of us.

    There is a cultural concern for people. Ask an artist how he feels when his concert only goes 60% full because of unsold scalper tickets, and what effect that word of mouth about low-event concerts where the only audience members are the ones with the largest wallets. Does that have an effect on album sales, merchandise sales in the future? Ask your son what kind of cultural connection he has the local sports team - much worse the Yankees, or the Lakers - when he's never seen them play live, and likely never will since the ticket prices are so high. What effect does that have on the future sales of jerseys, on the number of people in the city that ignore the team altogether? No, really, honest question - what is the actual effect of inflated prices that don't go to benefit the team itself? Maybe the team did an economic study that showed that they make more money in the long run if prices are held to a certain level, provided scalping externalities don't come into play.

    I'm gonna say something here that's going to get me modded -1 socialist, but what good does that extra ticket price do? It isn't going to benefit the artist or team directly. It won't provide upkeep for the stadium. It's paying someone else just for the privilege of saying that they'll put the tickets up on eBay for you. What do you think would happen if a city - instead of trying to outlaw scalping - enacted a scalping tax? When you sell a ticket, you owe 50% of your profit over the original resale price of the ticket. For the individual seller, this means that if you have tickets that you just want to get rid of, then you can sell them at original price without penalty. For the big name scalpers, it means that those sales at least go back into helping the city that helped to provide space for the attraction in the first place. Just a thought.

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.