Slashdot Mirror
Congress Joins Battle Against Ticket Bots (csoonline.com)
itwbennett writes: A pair of companion bills now pending in the House and Senate would define the use of bots to buy tickets as an 'unfair and deceptive practice' under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act. It would also become a federal crime, and create a right of action so that private parties can sue in federal court to recover damages. But if a similar law in Tennessee is any example, making the practice illegal doesn't make it any easier to find the people responsible for the bots. The Tennessean reported a year ago that, 'despite the apparent prevalence of the practice, no one has been prosecuted for this hard-to-prove crime in Davidson County.' This may be just another example of members of Congress not understanding the problem, but some experts say that making the bots illegal is at least a start. 'It helps to shine a light on a problem,' says Rami Essaid, cofounder and CEO of Distil Networks.
They aren't bot's posting to Slashdot!
But, I see this as another example of laws trying to chase technology.
Here I was thinking congress was going to outlaw photo-radar, red-light cameras and the pending use of drones to spy on citizens in order to more 'efficiently' write them tickets.
Silly me!
You see, if buying the tickets with bots is illegal, it would now be lawful to do something nasty like turn away bot-purchased tickets at the door. You might not be able to identify them it time to block the transaction but if you can reasonably identify them you can stomp them later. Even if you have a relatively low detection rate the blowback might be nasty against the re-sellers. Of course you'll take your own blowback too.
Legal precedent: possession of stolen property is a crime
The only thing that will accomplish is pushing part of the profits to China because that is were the bots will move to.
Why can't it be up to individual ticket sellers to set their own policies/terms of service? Why does the law need to get involved? What if I want to sell tickets to bots? Am I not allowed to?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
NOT
I had a moment of hope that this was congress taking on red light ticket bots ... but not at all close; it's congress taking sides in crooks v.s. crooks.
This is such an important issue lols.
The only way to avoid bot purchasing, he said, is to avoid the Internet entirely. Some artists, like the rock band Foo Fighters, held a "Beat the Bots" day a year ago in advance of their tour, where the only way to buy tickets was in person at box offices nationwide. The tickets weren’t available online until more than a week later.
Sell your tickets at box offices first for some period of time, then later make them available online. Pretty much removes the justification for scalper bots entirely.
Some venues have been taking action on this. Like first 15 rows are will-call window only. Cannot transfer to another person after initial purchase.
How is this any different from High Frequency Trading?
Because one made regular (ungodly large) campaign contributions to the loops in Washington and the other one does not?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
It's a short hop from outlawing ticked-buying bots to also outlawing automated stock-trading software. This might be just the thing that the ordinary man needs to take back control of the economy.
Why should it be illegal? Why should I care about this? If something is too expensive because the ticket face price is too much, or the reseller's price is too high, I don't go. I don't see what the problem is.
I don't respond to AC's.
All the ticket sellers have to do is use reverse auction style ticket pricing. Start with (very) high prices when the tickets initially go on sale then drop the price on a day-by-day basis as the event gets closer.
That way there is no practical way to buy low sell high.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Why would you want to screw over your fans by selling all your tickets to scalpers?
Even if it's based on the policies of the seller, there is opportunity for law enforcement or the courts to get involved in order to protect the conditions of that particular sale. (If those conditions aren't enforced or cannot be, then they really don't exist.)
But a blanket law? I'm with you, there's really not a need and this is really little different from any case where the seller is providing a limited number of goods/services for a cost that is lower than supply/demand would dictate.
Which makes me ask, why don't they sell the tickets early for a very large cost which is reduced on a schedule until they are either sold out or until the event date? That would mostly get rid of such a market, as the bots would be buying tickets they may not be able to sell for any profit.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Why would you want to screw over your fans by selling all your tickets to scalpers?
Because you are actually running the scalping operation so that you can claim fraudulently low face value for the tickets.
Ticket master would charge these huge prices if they could but they have a near monopoly and know users, govt, and artists would rebel if they went to a supply/demand price like scalpers.
So they are price limited. So scalpers are making profits they want. Not sure why they really care, since they sell out anyway. Maybe just tired of complaints from customers.
Either way this is a non issue, fuck ticketmaster. Why do we as a nation care about issues with some middleman profiting off of purely discretionary spending on entertainment?
I don't understand why this is a problem for the ticket seller. Once the money for the tickets changes hands, who cares after that? Plus, what's wrong with reselling tickets? Right of first sale is something we see getting stomped on pretty darn often.
I see the same thing happening at RV parks and hotels when a popular event comes to town. As soon as it is available, all spaces at the RV park get purchased.
If ticket sellers want to do something, just raise prices. There will be a price point where the bot purchasers will be priced out of the market, and they will go away. Basic invisible hand economics.
I don't think bots are the issue, eliminate the sites which allow scalpers to sell for more than face value. Unless something has changed Ticketmaster famously operated one and would redirect unsuspecting buyers to it.
If you really wanted the sale to happen, you'd just sell a big block of tickets to the owner of the bot in a single transaction rather than having them beat up your server and pay extra costs for thousands of credit card transactions.
And a (high) commission to transfer the ticket. Look at how airlines sell tickets. Then if you want, put it in your ToS that hoarding tickets is not ok and ban the ones who buy lots and then transfer them.
Airlines for example, run algorithms to set the price as high as possible.
The idea of a reverse auction is probably the best suggestion on how to cure the problem to date. Start out with prices 100 times as much as normal, and after a time have the ticket prices drop. The site could even allow people to place a bid and if the tickets are sold out for that area or tow, it would automatically purchase them for the buyer once the price dropped to what was asked.
Whenever there are calls for legislation, this can become a very bad thing pretty quickly, if the problem cannot be solved any other way.
For example, a RV park that has a limited amount of spaces can do a number of things. For example, a lottery that people put into for a few months before reservations start, which allow people to reserve a spot. Said lottery is weighted, giving a higher chance of someone getting a spot the more times they frequent the park. This not just brings more business, but also gives preference to frequent customers; a win/win.
A lottery for tickets could also be done for a venue, with the above setup. The more time one frequents a place, the higher chance of them getting a nice spot come the big show. Heck, both the lottery and reverse auction could be combined where a frequent patron of a place can score their tickets at the normal price, while the rest go on sale at the higher prices, dropping as time goes on. Of course, someone can sell their ticket, but encouraging more people to visit a place, even if they do this, can be a good thing overall for a venue's health.
Because they obviously could have charged more. That money could've been mine, dammit!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Because I don't give a shit about the fans as long as I have sold out concerts? Duh?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If a bot buying and selling tickets bothers you, then don't sell your tickets to a bot.
Why would you want to screw over your fans by selling all your tickets to scalpers?
If you set your prices properly, there should be no margin for scalpers. Scalpers are a symptom of a market failure. Trying to fix the problem with legislation is doomed to failure. Laws should not be protecting dumb business practices.
What ends up happening is that if 3/4 the tickets are taken up by bots, and they only sell 1/2 their tickets you still have a venue that looks empty. Concessions are down, and the talent complains because the seats aren't filled.
If ticket sellers want to do something, just raise prices. There will be a price point where the bot purchasers will be priced out of the market, and they will go away. Basic invisible hand economics.
But then you start pricing out more and more fans, and as a musician, I don't want that.
That said, there's an easier way to handle this without getting the government involved. The venues just need to add a "tickets are non-transferable" clause to their tickets, and then enforce it.
Yep. I know there's a video game event thing that always "sells out" instantly that no one I know attends. It "sells out" because scalpers buy up all the badges the instant they are on sale and then sell them for many times face value. (In fact, I know someone who does just this: stalks the selling website, buys as many as he can, and then eBays them at a huge markup.)
The problem is that, rather than raise the cost so that it isn't cost-effective to do this, they insist on setting the low price. So attendance is abysmal but they always "sell out" of tickets, because the appearance of "selling out" is I guess more important to them than raising the price to what the market will actually bear.
And this exchange from, "Raising Gazorpazorp" (Season 1, Episode 7):
Rick: "Well obviously Summer, it appears the lower tier of this society is being manipulated through sex and advanced technology by a hidden ruling class. Sound familiar?"
Summer: (*gasps*) "Ticketmaster."
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Not all vendors want to be rapacious capitalists. Maximizing revenue is not always the single unitary objective, especially when it comes to artists. Many bands honestly want their die hard fans to come and enjoy the show at a fair price. By only charging $50 when they could have charged $200 and still sold out they know that some of their younger or at least less wealthy fans will be able to have a chance to come see. Bots negate this and put the rapacious capitalism back into place.
I would prefer to see a lottery system where everyone puts in their real names and seating preferences for all party members and at the appointed times a computer algorithm doles out the tickets. Everyone has to show ID to get in, and tickets are only exchangeable at a live human ticket office with both parties present. Instead I find the current system to be such a sham that I have only gone to one concert in the last 10 years, and we bought the tickets through the legit ticket office, and Weird Al was just fantastic.
You can split the diff. Use a technology that scans the credit card, confirms the "reservation", and then prints the tickets at the door. Now, only the original purchaser can attend with his party.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This might indeed be what's happening. Don't forget that Ticketmaster, the biggest online seller of tickets, also owns the biggest scalping site.
Who's to say that they don't just sell large numbers of tickets directly to their subsidiary company?
I don't read AC A human right
Because I'm fine with the capitalist system, I'm for holding 'dutch auctions'. IE a section of seating is sold by people putting in what they're *willing* to pay, then the system sells that lot of seats for the lowest winning bid price (IE if there's 1k bids on 100 seats, the 100th highest bidder sets the price over the 101st, and the #1 bidder is probably not paying anything near what he bid). Keep about 10% of the seats back to catch late-comers, as you hand out tickets early enough to make travel plans.
Whether you charge ~10% more for the held back seats, because late-comers are willing to pay more on average, or keep the same price can be 'studied'.
This leaves minimal room for scalpers, as the people willing to pay more got their seats.
Step 2, to help ensure a full concert and get some of their poorer/younger fans in, well, these aren't the types who would be traveling anyways.
So:
1. Hand out tickets as prizes in radio competitions and such.
2. Sell any remaining 10% tickets, back at their original prices, at the door.
3. Advertise that once the pre-show starts, all *pre-existing* tickets are now invalid and sell any unclaimed spots at reduced fire sale prices(actual percentage starting at 90% and decreasing). You'll be nice and re-assign anybody who shows up with a ticket an open spot if their original one was resold, in case of late arrivals. The important part is that there's no profit margin for buying from a scalper, and margins for profit for them are minimal - rather than being able to raise rates, there's a good chance that they'd be stuck with an unsellable ticket, that the attraction can effectively sell again.
I don't read AC A human right
When I saw the story headline about congress taking a stand against ticket bots, I thought "Hurrah! Finally, somebody with some oomph taking a stand against red light cameras". Imagine my disappointment when it turned out it was just a story about scalpers.
The solution is a reverse auction. You set a high initial price, say, 30 days before the event. Some people will pay that price, because they want to be sure to get a seat. Then you lower the price by a few percent each day. If sales are lagging, you lower the price faster. If sales are ahead of predictions, you lower the price more slowly. Frugal people may wait, to get a lower price, but then they run the risk of getting nothing. You end up with no empty seats (unless people are unwilling to attend at any price), everyone pays what they think it is worth, and, since there is no margin for scalpers, all the money goes to support the venue and the performers.
Or we could just pass a law, raise taxes, and hire more police.
Because theres no such thing as individual ticket sellers.
Theres ticketmonster and.... nothing else.
By only charging $50 when they could have charged $200 and still sold out they know that some of their younger or at least less wealthy fans will be able to have a chance to come see. Bots negate this and put the rapacious capitalism back into place
Exactly. The people doing this are the ones ruining it for everyone else.
What the bots (read: the people running the bots) do is not much different than a schoolyard bully elbowing his way into the lunch line ahead of you to grab the last couple of desserts that you wanted, and then offering to sell them to you at an inflated price.
Is it legal? Mmmmmm...maybe. Possibly. The fact is that I'm not really sure whether or not it's legal...but I know it's wrong in the greater scheme of things.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
There are three problems here all working at once:
1. it's legal (marginally)
2. its very profitable
3. it's difficult to catch
4. although the public hates it, most of them continue to facillitate it anyway
You won't see any serious progress until you scratch off at least two items off that list. Honestly, #4 isn't likely to go away ever simply because as another poster roughly put it, there are enough stupid or fanatical people out there to keep them in business even if you try to "vote with your wallet". It just doesn't work in a limited edition, fan-based market. If the scalpers can manage to sell even just half the tickets they bought, for four times the price they paid, they're totally ok with that.
So going after #1 is currently the "low hanging fruit" and is the logical first step, to get the law's assistance. As the number of problems get taken care of, the remaining problems become a much more powerful point of leverage. So despite all the people grousing about how "this doesn't solve the problem!", yeah, we know that. But you've got to start somewhere, there is no one-step miracle cure.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
...using auction sniping programs on Ebay. After that, using aimbots in counterstrike. You heard it here first.
That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard, and I get to weigh in because I'm a gigging musician as well.
If a family member can't get all the tickets for their group, then that really sucks ass.
Secondly, if the venue looks empty, then that's because the scalper couldn't sell all the tickets in the first place, which means the venue actually sold more than they would have anyway, so they have little to complain about.
I don't think you SHOULD have any legal say about what I do with my tickets I purchase; they're mine. This sets an AWFUL precedent.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
I mean, it's really a shame about gun-related deaths, traffic deaths that outnumber even those, crumbling infrastructure that makes us look closer to third-world every day, and higher infant mortality numbers than seen anywhere else in the western world, but at least they've taken a firm hand on ticket scalpers. It's like the f-ing cavalry showing up in the nick of time to save us. Thanks, really! Signed, America
How exactly would that work? I mean i usually buy 5or6 tickets so we can all sit together. The people going to the concert with me pay me back. There has been a time or two that i couldn't go and gave my ticket to someone else too. Once was a funeral and the other was some inservice meeting at work called up by corporate a week before and attendance was mandatory.
So how would that work? Or do you think it should be a thing of the past?
I'm surprised no-one uses the well-known word for describing the practice: "Scalping".
Buying up a restricted supply of anything in the hopes of doing *this*:
- sell (a ticket) for a popular event at a price higher than the official one.
They miss the point though - using automation to buy up tickets isn't illegal. The part that is unfair is the reselling at extortionate prices that defines the scalping activity. What if I want to buy lots of tickets for a party?
"Gateways" - Doing something that can lead to an illegal act:
e.g. Purchasing a firearm can lead to shooting and murdering people. We don't do this because murder is illegal. The law is applied at the point of the illegal activity.
"Cramming/Spamming" - Doing something quickly in the hopes of frustrating or misleading others:
e.g. High-Frequency Trading; which is perfectly legal when the banks do it. Law doesn't prevent this and shouldn't prevent this.
You can't win the argument for this new law whichever way you look at it. Scalping is already illegal but it happens anyway. Adding new laws won't make the enforcement magically happen.
Also:
No. "It helps to shine a light on a problem,".
Laws aren't meant to shine lights on problems. Laws are meant to declare behaviors that are illegal. The problem is some politico-head is looking at laws as being some form of elastic society-control. You push the law button and the society changes accordingly. Just like you change the interest rate and the financial system changes accordingly. At the bottom of this process is a bunch of people in jail or broke (also accordingly). That light you're shining on the problem is a Maglite - the cop can also spin it around and beat you over the head with it.
Newsflash: The cops aren't going where all the lights are shining, they seem to be going where the money is:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/asset-forfeiture-abuse
as for the ticket bots... I don't really care, and a federal law is going a little far... let the companies figure out how to stop it if they really want to. Have you seen the crazy fees ticketmaster charges? I would rather something be done about that if anything.
It also leaves little room for large groups like families to buy a lot of tickets early at a sane price. I say let the free market decide. If scalpers are buying up all the tickets, it was priced too low, and if the scalpers couldn't sell all the tickets, then frankly the show wouldn't have sold them either, and did sell more because of the scalpers, so the venue has little to complain about.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
At the time of booking you need to declare the name of the purchaser. And show ID at the time of usage. Indian Railways uses such a system. (Only one member of the party who booked the tickets has to show the id.)
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
EXACTLY.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
Because then large groups like families could never afford to get tickets together early. That's not better.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
a ticket lottery fixes a lot of issues for high demand evens and cuts down on ticket scalping.
One issues with a rush to buy is when you have 2-3 people buying tickets for one person as you can end up with one person being the intended user getting 2-3 tickets under there name that can be some events must be under each persons name or at other events max X people under one name.
Let's say someone thinks they may not be able to make the time so they ask some to or even some try's to gift one with out telling that person. And it trun that the person is free to go on line and to try buy tickets.
Ticket lottery system also makes it more fair across times zones.
It can also reduce errors with web sites / systems being over loaded that in some cases lead to stuck sessions / double billing / lost tickets where you some who got billed but did not get a ticket. / Where you got billed but some how the other part system put you into wait list (do not have a ticket but can get one if people drop out)
If they want to fix it, they should restrict transfers on tickets --- make tickets only refundable. NOT transferrable unless are still at least N tickets available for sale at the time the transfer is requested; once all the tickets are sold out, no transfer of a ticket to a different owner.
Also, within 5 days of ticket purchase, you should be required to register the legal name of each person who will be attending, and/or visit a ticket kiosk to have a picture taken and recorded with the ticket.
Any attempt will be refused for admission to the event using the ticket by a person that ticket was not registered to.
By disallowing transfers, and only allowing refunds (Refunded tickets can then be resold by the event administration company); they cannot be scalped in the first place.
If you set your prices properly, there should be no margin for scalpers.
There is typically guaranteed to eventually be more demand for tickets than available seats, for a popular event. Organizers want their fans to attend their event; setting an extortionate price would generate ill will. Instead, they choose to use TIME to decide who gets in ----- Whoever pays first, gets their tickets. Unfortunately, this doesn't account for scalpers who have significant motivation to rush to the head of the line and commit resources to hogging tickets.
Also, Except when scalpers manage to buy up all the tickets, then they are essentially manipulating the market by buying tickets that other people want and expecting to resell them.
That problem seems easy to fix: make prices decreasing exponentially in time. That way there is no profit to be made by being the first buyer.
What the bots (read: the people running the bots) do is not much different than a schoolyard bully elbowing his way into the lunch line ahead of you to grab the last couple of desserts that you wanted, and then offering to sell them to you at an inflated price.
I disagree, that's a bad analogy. It's more like the schoolyard bully getting to the line before you (without any elbowing or bad behavior at all, but maybe he can run faster), grabbing up all the desserts, and selling them to you at an inflated price. You should have gotten to the line faster.
The only argument I've found against this practice that really holds water is the idea that the performers want to keep tickets affordable so all their fans have a fair chance to attend, instead of jacking up the prices so only the wealthy fans can.
I don't see how that's any worse though. In this system the venue sells the tickets to whoever pays the most. Bots buy all the tickets and sell them to whoever pays the most. The only difference is who gets those profits, the venue or the bots.
But this system could be improved even more than bots. If the venue feels it is important to make it accessible to groups, they can prioritize group seating, e.g. every other row is reserved for groups larger than X. Those rows may discount faster because they probably won't sell as fast. Eventually the rows for groups smaller than X will be sold out and the others will slowly open up.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
I disagree, that's a bad analogy. It's more like the schoolyard bully getting to the line before you (without any elbowing or bad behavior at all, but maybe he can run faster), grabbing up all the desserts, and selling them to you at an inflated price. You should have gotten to the line faster.
But that's just it...you can be in line before them, and their massive, tidal-wave hammering of the site with their botnet means you still lose out.
Saying, "You should have gotten to the line faster" is like saying "You should have bought those tickets before anyone else could", or possibly, "You should have run your own botnet to make sure you had a fighting chance."
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I haven't worked out the math, but this would be my scenario. Pretend people like to go to events at big full venues (this is how I enjoy sports events, sold out). Then the profit maximizing ticket sales will not fill the stadium because further restricting supply at a higher price will increase profit. So the scalper can come in, buy all the tickets, and then sell the profit maximizing price and quantity. The only problem is that the owner wanted to make a little less money per game/show and make it a good experience. Once the word gets out that the park is often empty, the value of the tickets go down. The bot owner can then move on. The owner is stuck holding the bag trying to convince people that demand that WAS there is still there...
Are you talking about my proposal, or the current situation?
Under my proposal, if you want 14 connected seats, pick a big enough seating area and put your bid in. Either you get all 14 seats or you get none, but at least you know that everybody that got seats paid more than you.
The case situation where the lowest winning bidder wanted 14 seats when only 10 were available can be handled by flexing the 10% 'held for a later time' margin a bit. Either you increase it and the people wanting to buy the seats don't get them(but you get to charge everybody else a bit more), or they get them and you don't have quite as many seats left for late buyers.
I don't read AC A human right
You can split the diff. Use a technology that scans the credit card, confirms the "reservation", and then prints the tickets at the door. Now, only the original purchaser can attend with his party.
This is wrong because you don't want to punish people who's plans for that weekend were changed by circumstance. I've had vacation plans ruined before because of a serious illness in one of the people involved. Locking the ticket to a CC number means that the original owners can't even GIVE the tickets away for free. Most concerts and such do not allow you to cancel reservations after a certain date. It would be better to give the FBI something legitimate to do for once and have them locate and prosecute all the bot owners.
When anyone, flesh or otherwise, buys up large numbers of event tickets in hopes of reselling at a profit, he is second-guessing the event operator. In the long run, this is a very risky way to make a living because sports and concert promoters know their business and have spent years getting good at judging what their markets will bear. If ticket resellers consistently made money on speculative purchase of tickets, rather than on resale fees and commissions, the event operators are just as consistently underpricing their events.
In the real world, this just doesn't happen. A speculator might make one or two killings, but eventually he always gets wiped out.
The idea of a reverse auction is probably the best suggestion on how to cure the problem to date. Start out with prices 100 times as much as normal, and after a time have the ticket prices drop. The site could even allow people to place a bid and if the tickets are sold out for that area or tow, it would automatically purchase them for the buyer once the price dropped to what was asked.
On one hand, as a business person, I agree with you 100%. This is absolutely the most rational way to squeeze scalpers out of the market and maximize profit for the musician/event/whatever performer. If these people were economically rational, this unquestionably should be how all tickets are sold.
On the other hand, I think we are generally pretty aware that rock musicians et. al. are remarkably stupid when it comes to money. I had always wondered why these people were clearly cheating themselves out of profit by pricing tickets the way they do, and my question was answered by an episode of NPR's Planet Money podcast. It turns out that the answer is altruism - of a sort - on the part of the "artists."
Most rock musicians apparently hate the idea that only rich fans will be able to go to their concerts - which would likely be the result in a reverse-auction scenario. Instead, they prefer to keep ticket prices low in a (possibly naive?) attempt to ensure that their concert tickets are accessible to all their fans. They are willing to sacrifice the revenue they, by any economic theory, should be collecting by offering tickets in a market-based environment, in order to gamble that some average fans will be able to beat the scalpers and buy tickets at a low face value. Musicians also seem to be particularly worried about the perception that their events are only available to the rich (because of high face value prices), although in practice this is mainly what happens because of scalping.
Interestingly, they noted that Kid Rock - who I would never have picked out of a lineup for intelligence - was actually taking some steps towards defeating scalpers while maintaining low ticket prices by offering certain tickets only to members of his fan club through a lottery. So some musicians at least are taking steps to deter the scalpers... although not the obviously economically rational one that you pointed out above.
"95% of all Slashdot
So flavorous, eventbrite, and wanttickets don't exist?
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
That would apply if you're just hanging the ticket on your wall as a small expensive painting.
If you're using the ticket to gain admission to a venue, the venue isn't yours. You don't own the venue, and the owner of the venue can let in anyone he wants to let in. If he only wants to let in people who purchased tickets without reselling them, that's his prerogative. He has no obligation to let you in just because you bought a ticket from someone else.
That's not necessarily a capitalist system. The ticket is permission from the property owner to enter. The property owner can give permission anyone he chooses since after all it is his property.
Selling the ticket is only capitalism to the extent that it doesn't force anything on the property owner. In other words, selling the ticket is itself capitalist, but using the ticket as a credential is not--if you buy a ticket and use it as a credential, the property owner doesn't need to let you in. The owner can't keep you from hanging it on your wall or putting it in a museum, of course.
It's like getting invited to a party and trying to sell the party invitation. If someone is a party invitation collector, he's free to buy it--just not to use it to get into the party, which he still doesn't own.
In any other market, the practice of scalping is known as "arbitrage" and is generally regarded as a good thing.
Possession of stolen properly is only a crime if a reasonable person would have a belief that the property is stolen.
They let me buy shares and then resell them. All told, I don't see much of a difference. If an artist makes 100 prints, I can buy them all and resell them. I don't see much of a difference.
More often then not, the ticketmasters decide to sell their tickets on a friday or saturday at 09:00. That's when I'm at work. So for me to get a ticket, I'd have to take half the day off and still not be sure to actually get the ticket or use the services of the resellers.
It's kind of crazy that the window in which you can buy tickets is often just 5 minutes, and if you have a job you're out of luck.
Thirty days before the event you offer tickets for $500, each day the price for remaining tickets goes down about 10%. A few early purchasers are hard core fans, desperate to see the event. Most are just the idle rich, buying a ticket in case they choose to attend, if they can't make it they'll just throw the ticket away, no matter.
About 10 days before the event, with only a few dozen tickets sold so far, scalpers buy up all the remaining tickets for $67
A week before the event, Bob discovers your event. Bob really wants to see the event.
"Too bad", you tell Bob, "if you really wanted to see it you needed to pay $500 three weeks ago". "But I didn't know then".
Bob pays a scalper $250 for a ticket. He's really glad he got to see it. Shame it was so empty though, kind of destroyed the atmosphere. The scalper made an overall profit of $8000 on your event selling tickets for $250 to about a third of the audience, and throwing away the remaining two thirds. You give up and go get a job selling useless "investments" to old people too confused to argue.
> define the use of bots to buy tickets as an 'unfair and deceptive practice'
If they would eliminate the purchase of _stock_ with bots, It would help stabilize our economy. High speed trading has all but eliminated the possibility of profit for small traders. Also, the extremely tight coupling of instant sale and purchase must _inevitably_ cause positive feedback loops. That is not because any one high frequency trader's algorithms lack negative feedback, but because if the phase lag between two high speeds is at all significant, they will eventually get roughly 180 degrees out of phase and form positive feedback loops. There is a reasonable article about it, in understandable English, at http://www.surlytrader.com/the...,
There is a huge problem with this which is that groups of people want to be able to sit together.
The only way to guarantee that all of you group can sit together is to allow a single purchaser to get X number of seats in a single transaction.
Not being able to sit with your friends is a deal breaker for most people, even if you love the performer.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
What if you happen to have the disposable income to buy a ticket at the full price, but your best friend does not and you both wish to sit together?
You either will have to subsidize your friend and eat the difference yourself or wait until the tickets reach a price that both you and your friend can both afford.
Now, how likely do you think it would be that both people just choose not to attend the show based on the negative feelings of unfairness over the situation? I think it is a non zero percent chance...
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Most rock musicians apparently hate the idea that only rich fans will be able to go to their concerts - which would likely be the result in a reverse-auction scenario. Instead, they prefer to keep ticket prices low in a (possibly naive?) attempt to ensure that their concert tickets are accessible to all their fans.
And there's nothing wrong with that, but if they really wanted to beat the "scalpers" and ensure that their tickets go to the "right" people, they should require photo ID to use the tickets, and make them non-transferable. That wouldn't technically prevent bots from buying tickets, but it would make the tickets useless to them, since a ticket originally issued to John Q. Bot couldn't be used by anyone else.
If someone has a schedule conflict or changes their mind about attending, they can just cancel their ticket(s) for a refund (full or partial) from the original issuer.
A lottery system is another good idea to level the playing field, so long as the tickets are awarded in reasonable-sized groups, to avoid splitting up families and friends who want to attend the event together.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
There is a huge problem with this which is that groups of people want to be able to sit together.
There is no reason why you wouldn't be able to buy groups of tickets. You would just need to know the names of everyone in your group so that they can get personalized tickets matching their photo IDs. If anyone later chooses not to attend they can get a refund for just that one ticket, and perhaps transfer their seat to someone else in the same group to keep the group together.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Selling to the highest bidder is the economically optimal arrangement for distributing goods, all else being equal, but it's not unreasonable for a performer to have a particular audience in mind which may not equate to those who would be able to pay the highest prices for tickets. The venue has the right to decide who they let in to their property, but rather than countering "scalpers" with legislation, the way to implement this is to take steps to ensure that tickets are non-transferable.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Locking the ticket to a CC number means that the original owners can't even GIVE the tickets away for free. Most concerts and such do not allow you to cancel reservations after a certain date.
So make that part of the policy: you can always return your ticket to the issuer for a (time-discounted) refund. The issuer can then resell those tickets, or give them away in a lottery—whatever makes sense for that particular show.
They could even make the tickets transferable through the issuer, knowing that your ID and credit card were only used to purchase a small number of tickets. Repeated abuse would be countered by a loss of transfer privileges.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
What about companies or other entities who want to purchase a bunch of tickets to raffle off or hand out as prizes?
Sitting together is no longer as much of a concern perhaps, but you don't know who would end up getting the ticket.
Would this practice have to become illegal too?
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
The solution is a reverse auction. You set a high initial price, say, 30 days before the event. Some people will pay that price, because they want to be sure to get a seat. Then you lower the price by a few percent each day.
So the scalpers just buy everything at the high price instantly and still resell them at a higher price. How does a reverse auction prevent that?
That would be up to the venue. They could make exceptions for vetted organizations, or issue a limited number of one-time transferable tickets (probably at higher prices). If it's for a company event they could issue tickets usable only by employees of that company. Any such arrangements would be under contract between the issuer and the other organization, and not open to the general public.
Or they could just say that you have to do your raffles/prizes with vouchers and buy the actual tickets after you know who wins. Of course, in that case they might run out of tickets before you get around to buying them, so you'd better have a backup plan. They have no obligation to support alternative means of distributing tickets. They may be OK with handing out tickets as prizes, or the may want to maintain control over distribution themselves.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Am I missing something? Use a complex CAPTCHA. Isn't this how you normally deal with bots on a website? Why should the government get to decide how I purchase tickets if I use my legaly obtained currency.
So the scalpers just buy everything at the high price instantly and still resell them at a higher price. How does a reverse auction prevent that?
Because if the scalpers were really able to sell them for a higher price, then your initial price was too low.
What about companies or other entities who want to purchase a bunch of tickets to raffle off or hand out as prizes?
The organizers might say that this is not allowed, especially if the event has already sold out. Those companies or other entities could just pick another prize besides tickets, or the organizer might decide that X number of tickets are allowed to be sold for use with verified raffles/prize events.
I suppose the company that wants to do a raffle goes through a process of paying to reserve the tickets for non-profit raffle/redistribution, which requires declaring the date of the raffle, paying for the reservation on the tickets, then having notarized, a "No-resale " contract and applying for an extension/exception on the requirement to register, providing they promise to supply the registration information electronically, on the date of the raffle.
If they're a community or church org, then the applicant also shows proof of their non-profit status. If they're a publication, TV channel, or radio station, they show proof through their press credentials. If they're another kind of corporate entity, then they show proof of their incorporation, including description of their business, and prove/confirm/verify they are not a holding company, or small shell company, they are well-capitalized/have significant financial resources, and are an actual company providing a good or service to the public, the kind of business they are in has no remote relation to arbitrage, financial instruments, or ticket reselling, etc, etc.
If they allow you to reserve tickets for 5 days, before completely claiming and registering the ticket to set the attendee in stone, then you can still buy tickets and hold your raffle, as long as the event is not sold out. and you hold your raffle promptly. You just have the winner register the tickets, still within the initial delay period.
If you miss the 5 day cutoff, then you pay an extra $100 for a X day extension, or the tickets get auto-refunded minus an administrative charge; either way, you can still work out ONE transfer by having them not registered at first and the initial registration after buying/reserving them be to the intended recipient.
* the concept doesn't work so well for announcing raffle prizes a month before doing the raffle.
In any other market, the practice of scalping is known as "arbitrage" and is generally regarded as a good thing.
It's a good thing here. The only people really upset about this is Ticketmaster. They have had the law changed multiple times and they still aren't getting as big a cut of this market as they want to. Anytime someone other than Ticketmaster finds a way to profit, Ticketmaster runs to congress.