Slashdot Mirror


Scalpers Bought Tickets With CAPTCHA-Busting Botnet

alphadogg writes "Three California men have pleaded guilty to charges they built a network of CAPTCHA-solving computers that flooded online ticket vendors and snatched up the very best seats for Bruce Springsteen concerts, Broadway productions and even TV tapings of Dancing with the Stars. The men ran a company called Wiseguy Tickets, and for years they had an inside track on some of the best seats in the house at many events. They scored about 1.5 million tickets after hiring Bulgarian programmers to build 'a nationwide network of computers that impersonated individual visitors' on websites such as Ticketmaster, MLB.com and LiveNation, the US Department of Justice (DoJ) said Thursday in a press release. The network would 'flood vendors computers at the exact moment that event tickets went on sale,' the DoJ said. They had to create shell corporations, register hundreds of fake Internet domains (one was stupidcellphone.com) and sign up for thousands of bogus e-mail addresses to make the scam work."

30 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Hrm by Alarindris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll never understand why "scalping" is illegal in the first place.

    Nothing they did seems unethical or immoral to me.

    If people are willing to pay more for a ticket, good for them.

    1. Re:Hrm by rotide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is, what stops you, as a scalper, from buying out every ticket you possibly can through whatever means necessary, and then jack the prices up? I have no problem with a guy buying 2 tickets and selling them if he can't go. The problem comes up when someone buys them all merely to resell them at a profit. It's the same idea behind the limits on purchases of heavily discounted items like TV's, etc. You can't just go in and buy them all just to turn around and sell them at a profit. With limited quantities (tickets, discounted items, etc) you have to put limits/rules in place or the only people buying them are those that want to profit off it.

    2. Re:Hrm by Alarindris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is, what stops you, as a scalper, from buying out every ticket you possibly can through whatever means necessary, and then jack the prices up?

      A. Less people buy the tickets and you make less money.
      B. Far less people buy the tickets and you lose money.

    3. Re:Hrm by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With limited quantities (tickets, discounted items, etc) you have to put limits/rules in place or the only people buying them are those that want to profit off it.

      No you don't need to put limits. Ticket scalping happens because the market is demonstrating that tickets are under priced. If someone buys all the tickets up as you say and than tries to sell them there is a maximum price at which he can expect to move the units. This is the price people are willing to pay to see the show. Lets say I purchase all the $15 dollar tickets to see my favorite band. They are not harmed, they sold their entire inventory of tickets at a price they were willing to offer the service of performing for; I might be able to sell those tickets at $20 each and make a tidy profit. If I try and sell them a $80 each most of them probably won't sell and I will lose my shirt because the self life of the inventory is right up until the show starts and after that its all worthless.

      Now if they want to stop ticket scalping the band should simply charge more. If they raise the price to the maximum they can expect to move all the inventory at lets say its $20, than I while I can still buy them all I wont because I can't even resell them all for $21.

      Really hot shows just need to up their prices. The performers would make more money and the ticket vendor sites would not get DDOSed, with 1000s of requests in the first moments of sale.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:Hrm by pjt33 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are not harmed, they sold their entire inventory of tickets at a price they were willing to offer the service of performing for

      The second part of this sentence doesn't imply the first. To throw out a hypothesis, it might be that the tickets were deliberately priced below what the market would bear because the aim was not solely to turn a profit on the concert but also to attract lots of impressionable teenagers who might then become life-long fans and spend more on the band over their lifetime than the yuppie who is prepared to pay more for the ticket.

      (Actually the biggest example which comes to mind of deliberate underpricing is the BBC Promenade series, and in particular the Last Night. If there were an open market in Last Night of the Proms tickets they'd probably sell for 100 GBP or more, but by making some tickets available to people who queue in person on the day they are able to achieve the aim of making it an event which pretty much anyone near enough London can attend).

    5. Re:Hrm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Problem is, the band wants all 100 seats in the venue to be filled. The scalpers don't give a shit if they sell all the tickets they bought, as long as they sell enough of them to profit. Buying all 100 tickets for $10 each and marking up the price to $100 each means they can sell 20 to the people who REALLY want to go (because the only way to get tickets is for $100, and everyone else who has any interest in the matter other than the money is screwed. The people who manage to get tickets are screwed because they're at a show that's at 1/5 capacity. The people who didn't go because of the wildly inflated price (that clearly the market bore) is out of their range. The band has a mediocre show at 1/5 capacity, which means 1/5 as many people going out and telling their friends how awesome it was and that they should buy the band's album and merch.

      This is part of why they don't "just raise prices". There's more than one factor involved here. But don't let that get in the way of the typical Slashdot-style "I understand one component of the problem a little bit so I have the obvious solution" commentary.

      My captcha: "raving". Of course.

    6. Re:Hrm by Phroggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ticket scalping happens because the market is demonstrating that tickets are under priced. If someone buys all the tickets up as you say and than tries to sell them there is a maximum price at which he can expect to move the units. This is the price people are willing to pay to see the show. Lets say I purchase all the $15 dollar tickets to see my favorite band. They are not harmed, they sold their entire inventory of tickets at a price they were willing to offer the service of performing for;

      Unless, of course, there is an intangible benefit to the band of having people in the audience that cannot afford to pay more than $15 per ticket, but can afford to spend the time it takes to purchase them the moment they go on sale (after closely following the band's announcements to find out exactly when that will be).

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    7. Re:Hrm by moz25 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whoa, that's brilliant! How about you call up the record industry executives to suggest they do just this! Obviously, none of them has ever thought "DUH, how about if WE jack up the prices?!?!?".

      Or it might just be that you're not looking at the whole picture and the only value of your analysis is that it demonstrates how a generally valid theory leads to woefully wrong conclusions if boundary conditions aren't taken into account.

    8. Re:Hrm by z4ce · · Score: 4, Informative

      You must never buy tickets from reseller sites. If the scalpers over purchase (and they often do) you can buy the tickets REALLY cheap right before the game/show. If you wait to the last second, you can often find them for 1/5th the list price.

    9. Re:Hrm by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The bands realize that if they price concerts out of the reach of all but a small percentage of their fans, they may eventually have no fans.

      In addition, a band gets a lot of cred when the concert is sold out. It feeds the hype machine. If the tickets are instead priced at the optimal economic point, the concert will not sell out. The word on the street is then that the band over-estimated itself, especially if they do more than one night and both nights fail to sell out.

      Some concerts are sold at lower prices out of a sense of gratitude to the fanbase. It's really ugly when a greedy bastard then snaps them all up and sells them for a huge markup.

    10. Re:Hrm by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Not only that, but unless the show sells out anyway, even at the inflated scalper prices, the band and the venue miss out on merchandising and refreshment sales.

      Finally, there's just the matter of not wanting to deal with profiteering jerks. My neighborhood held a community garage sale this morning. I hadn't done any spring cleaning in like 5 years so I had a ton of stuff to put out, bright and early when the event started at 8AM. At 7AM I've got ebay treasure hunters driving by screaming at me "got laptops?!? got jewelry!?!" People who just scout garage sales looking for underpriced stuff they can ebay. I didn't want to sell anything to those assholes. If I had something cheap, I wanted it to go to the poor as crap people who wandered in at 10am because they actually needed hand-me-down clothes and toys for their kids.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re:Hrm by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean (eg.) by actually being fans, knowing the music and cheering when you play the opening chord?

      Scalping take the tickets out of their hands and puts them in the hands of the idle rich who only go because they've got nothing better to do or are trying to impress somebody else who doesn't really want to be there either.

      The band should be the setting setting the prices and getting the profits, not some scumbags. They're the ones doing the work...

      --
      No sig today...
    12. Re:Hrm by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, I am certainly sympathetic to the argument that if the concert promoter sets the price of tickets wrong by making it too low, it's not necessarily *dishonest* for some third party to make a few bucks at arbitrage. Still, there's a few wrinkles in this scenario worth considering.

      First, what are you buying when you buy a ticket, a piece of paper? No. You are buying the right to attend an event. *If* the providers of that event stipulate that the right being sold is not transferable unless it is given away or the purchaser was acting as an agent for the planned attendee when he bought the ticket, then what has the purchaser bought from the scalper? A piece of paper. He *cannot* buy the right to attend the event because that right is not transferable. The scalper is encouraging the purchaser to attend the event fraudulently.

      Of course, you might say, "no harm, no foul." That's a different ethical approach, more utilitarian and less legalistic. Well, it's not necessarily the case that there is no harm. The economic relationship between the performer and the audience does not begin and end at the ticket price. There's merchandise sales, for example. The economically optimal price for the ticket, all things being equal, might result in fewer attendees, reducing merchandise sales and future sales of recordings and tickets. Some performers may not like playing to venues with many empty seats, and choose to the avoid larger venues. That harms the venue's owners.

      I believe if the performers and concert promoters are amenable to reselling tickets that's a *different* story; but if tickets are on sale at less than the price which maximizes gross revenue, that doesn't necessarily mean the price has been set too low.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  2. I think they just really liked springsteen by Rivalz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think I could spend 2 years in min security prison for 5-10 mil and be happy about it.
    Still a pretty good idea they should open a franchise.

    Prices are already screwed to hell for these events. I say good for them sorry they got caught.
    If they were smart they would have lived in a different country.
    I'm just curious but they had to have some serious start up money.
    Were they using stolen CC#'s or did they just have countless credit cards?
    You would think this would be pretty easy to track down the bank accounts that they use.
    Collect who's paying for what and go from there.

  3. Re:Capitalism at work by jhigh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Agreed. From where I sit, you have a group of guys that figured out a way to get the tickets first. It's not like they hacked anyone's servers and got tickets that they shouldn't have had access to. They bought them just like everyone else. How is this any different than getting all of your friends and family to hop on Ticketmaster the second tickets become available to increase your chances? Trust me, I know lots of people who do or have done this.

    I just don't get what the big deal is here.

    --
    Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
  4. Wow, there's a big difference there... by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bush administration: Defends corporate interests and their "right" to lock down on a market for maximum profit at the expense of the consumer.

    Obama administration: Defends corporate interests and their "right" to lock down on a market for maximum profit at the expense of the consumer.

    Holy shit, that is a profound change. I understand know why the people on the extreme right are up in arms over all this socialism.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  5. Re:Why is this a "scam"? by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually really big money men like Soros pay top dollar to have the fastest connections into the systems that run the exchanges. They also have computer systems running what ever algorithm they think will make a money that day sitting on their side of those connections waiting to pounce. Ever try to get in on a hot IPO as retail investor? You can't, ever try to unload something during a major sell off and wonder why it takes hours when the trade to buy it took seconds (sure some of that might be there are no buyers but..)? Most of this is because you at the back of the line when it comes to placing orders and people like Soros are up front.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  6. Buzzwords cloud the issue by fishbowl · · Score: 5, Informative

    Language like "hacking" and "scalping" tend to hide the actual crime here.

    The ticket purchase/sale is a contract, unlike some of the online transactions that people assume are contracts but are not. (There is a mutual agreement to terms, and consideration is exchanged for something of value.) The people who bought the tickets represented a fictitious identity while entering into a contract. This is a crime of fraud (not "hacking") and because of the electronic nature of the transaction and the intent, it constitute wire fraud.

    What I'm wondering is what the threat was that persuaded them to plead guilty.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    1. Re:Buzzwords cloud the issue by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The people who bought the tickets represented a fictitious identity while entering into a contract. This is a crime of fraud

      What I don't understand is that the ticket vendors seem to be so concerned that the ticket purchaser is a real person who won't resell the ticket. But that's a problem that has already been solved by the airline industry. Security requirements dictate that airline tickets be non-transferrable - they're assigned to a specific individual at the time of purchase. You buy your airline tickets, and when you get to the airport you have to prove you're the person whose name is on the ticket. A driver's license or passport is the most common ID, but you can use the credit card used to buy the ticket as well.

      If the ticket vendors really want to stop scalping, why don't they just attach a name to it at the time of sale? Then when a ticket holder tries to enter the venue, they can just cross-check the name associated with the ticket in the database with the ID proffered by the ticket holder. If you wish to buy a ticket as a gift, just make sure you use the recipient's name on the ticket. For people who suddenly can't attend the event, they can implement a buy-back system which credits the original purchaser with (say) 50% the ticket price. They can then sell that ticket to people waiting in a "standby" line the day of the event.

  7. Re:Capitalism at work by ovirto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your assumption is that if this is based on capitalism, there must be nothing wrong with it. I'm not exactly sure that's a good assumption. Take the recent credit derivatives debacle that threw our economy into a tailspin. Hey, Goldman Sachs and others created a product, people were willing to buy a product at a certain price. There's a risk element just like there is with any other security. That's capitalism, what's wrong with that? i think history demonstrates that, while based on capitalism, how unhealthy this activity was to our economy. As far as tickets go, let's say these tickets were priced at value that both the promoter and the artist agreed would be fair compensation. Their goal being to make some money for the work they produce while at the same time, setting the price in a range that allows a broad base of fans to enjoy. Scalpers come in, buy up the majority of the tickets and resell them at double the value. Sure, that's capitalism. But that act may have effectively shut out a large fan base that can't afford that new price. What's wrong with that? Well, from a market perspective, nothing (perhaps). It's supply and demand. But from a societal perspective, it starts to put a bigger wedge between the haves and have-nots. Entertainment/Sports/etc. becomes a industry that can be enjoyed only if you have a certain amount of wealth. In the long run, that may not be beneficial to that industry as the fan base drops. Keep in mind that the industry itself had set a price in order to maintain/increase fan base. It was the act of a third party that may have priced out a potential consumers.

  8. Re:Capitalism at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Capitalism: The new religion of the 21st and 22nd century. Like all religions, dare ye not question it! For God is in the numbers. Everything has a price - everything must go! Sell your soul for a buck, you won't need where we're going. The only rule is that money rules all. Dig in, pig out, eat not your fill but everything you can take. Fuck your neighbours, what's yours is yours and what's theirs should be yours too! For the free market is divine and it commands that the only true virtue is greed. So pile on, like rats atop a sinking ship, for he who can reach the highest will eventually touch the sun, and be made supreme!
    Welcome to paradise, don't mind the mess.

    Someone stop the planet, I want off.

  9. High Frequency Trading by Taur0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's the difference between this and High Frequency Trading? In both cases you're using very fast computers to give you an edge over normal people in buying items that you will then sell a short time later for a higher price to people willing to buy them.

  10. Re:Capitalism at work by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Goldman Sachs and others created a product, people were willing to buy a product at a certain price. There's a risk element just like there is with any other security. That's capitalism, what's wrong with that?

    There is nothing wrong with that but those MBS and other derivatives were marketed as being less risky than lots of those guys knew they in fact were. There is nothing wrong with derivatives, the problem had to do with FRAUD up and down the line. People applying for loans gave fraudulent information to brokers, brokers fraudulently modified the applications farther or simply passed on the documents as vetted without doing it. Banks wrote the loans and then sold them to other banks fraudulently claiming their application processes were secure when they were knowingly doing nothing to verify what brokers will telling them. Those other banks lumped those loans into baskets of vary quality claiming that it was diversification and reduced risk. The trouble was because of all the FRAUD up and down the line many many more of the loans in those baskets of high quality mortgages were actually low quality. Knowing this they marketed the securities any way FRAUDULENTLY insisting they were safe. Then people bought insure on the investment which by this point many of these investors might not have know there were problems but many still did know and in those cases the FRAUDULENTLY characterized the risk the the insurer who went with it because they wanted to have the business to show their investors. The insurers probably knew what was going on as well but because of all the other FRAUD they were able to claim most of their exposure was only to high quality assets and push up their stock prices that way. Then because people had the insurance which was to affordable they used more leverage than they otherwise would buy more of the same FRAUD laden crap and repeated the process until it was unsustainable.

    So the problem was not capitalism, but FRAUD and sadly none of the solutions actually involved prosecuting anyone from FRAUD.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  11. Re:Capitalism at work by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not like they hacked anyone's servers and got tickets that they shouldn't have had access to.

    It sounds like that's exactly what they did in order to build a botnet to purchase the tickets for them.

  12. Re:So? by MrQuacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesnt matter *how* they do it, the end result is the same. The artist wants $10/seat, but a fan ends up paying $50/seat because they have to go through a third party. Ticketmaster is just as bad as any scalper. This time they just got pissed because someone else beat them to it.

  13. Your own network = botnet? by xboxilve · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The 'botnet' these articles are talking about are their own dedicated servers, not virus infections like they are trying to imply. You don't need a botnet to crack captchas, you can use a server to queue up 1000's of captcha images and have third world workers solve them for a tenth of a cent. This entire case is basically just explaining someones business and then inserting and replacing words with ones that have bad connotations to get the public to think that they have solved a crime. Just replace the words 'computer network' with 'botnet', 'revenue' with 'ill-gotten gains', sending a web request with 'impersonating users', and throw in the words fraud, hacking, scheme, and bogus every other word and you can make anything look like organized crime.

  14. Re:Its not rocket science people.. by xboxilve · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if you sign up for gmail and say that you are from Beverly Hills 90210 and your name is Darth Vader then you should be convicted and go to jail for committing fraud against Google because you are using an assumed name?

    "In order to access certain Services, you may be required to provide information about yourself (such as identification or contact details) as part of the registration process for the Service, or as part of your continued use of the Services. You agree that any registration information you give to Google will always be accurate, correct and up to date."

  15. Re:Capitalism at work by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Exactly. Going through all that effort is a pretty clear demonstration they wanted the ticket more than other people who were not as highly motivated.

    If the true market value is higher than the face value, then I think the right of first sale should apply. I should be able to buy something for $X, and sell it for $2X if the market will support it.

    They weren't interested in paying more than other players, they were interested in hijacking access.. The free market model of capitalism requires all players to have equal information and access. In the real world this rarely happens because a few players will have some small to medium advantage over another player but that's just because information and access can't be perfectly distributed at the same time to all players. These guys registering thousands of placeholder domains and shell companies were artificially creating an INSANELY HUGE advantage for themselves and did not even vaguely represent a free market capitalism operation.

  16. The concert experience has pretty much been ruined by mrsnak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...by all the "legal" scalpers that control the market, Ticketmaster, Live Nation, etc. Great acts in small clubs where you can pay directly are where it's at.

  17. Re:Capitalism at work by pspahn · · Score: 3, Informative

    The price is based on fraudulent pretenses. If a show is sold out because of scalpers fraudulently acquiring tickets, the only realistic option a fan has to see the show is to pay a price that has been inflated because of that fraudulent activity.

    This isn't simply a matter of price speculation, it's market manipulation done in bad faith.

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.