Jay Leno Freaks Out That The Unemployed Might Prefer Money Over Free Leno Tickets

from the let's-explain-the-free-market... dept

Nearly four years ago, we wrote about Bob Geldof's odd freak-out against eBay when it was discovered that ticketholders to his LiveAid event were selling the tickets on eBay. This was silly for a variety of reasons -- including the misdirected anger at eBay. But, more importantly, we couldn't figure out who this was harming, at all. Geldof had chosen to give out the tickets for free -- and some people preferred to have money rather than the tickets. Others would get the tickets they valued more. Everyone's better off. Where's the problem?

Apparently, Jay Leno needs that same lesson, and economist Greg Mankiw is explaining it to him. Leno went to Michigan and gave out free tickets to unemployed workers in the state -- and then complained when people put the tickets up for sale on eBay. Remember, these are unemployed people. For many of them, do you think they'd prefer some extra cash or the opportunity to see Leno live? Hell, do you think they'd be better off with cash or the free trip to Leno? Obviously, some greatly prefer the cash -- and it actually seems quite mean of Leno to try to deny them that cash by demanding that eBay take down the auctions.

Filed Under: economics, jay leno, tickets, unemployment

Ticketmaster Collaborates With Artists And Promoters To Shove Scalpers Aside

from the nothing-at-face-value dept

Ticketmaster is the sort of company that lots of people love to hate. It's long been dogged by complaints that it is anti-competitive -- complaints which have gathered pace with its recent move to merge with Live Nation. The company has done plenty of things to try to drive scalpers out of business before, in hopes of sucking up their profit margins, and its latest move will further endear itself to fans. The WSJ reports that Ticketmaster is collaborating with artists and concert promoters to sell premium-priced tickets to shows on its TicketExchange site, and making them look as if they're being sold by fans. Trent Reznor explains the situation in the eminently reasonable way we've come to expect, saying that artists know they could charge much higher prices to some of their fans, but they "don't want to come off as greedy pricks asking that much, even though the market says its value is that high." So instead, they feed them to the reseller market, or as in this case, become the reseller themselves, but obfuscate that fact.

Ticketmaster execs decry the scalper market, and claim it's not fair to artists, who don't get any of the scalper's profits; under the TicketExchange deals, it divides the revenues with artists and concert promoters. This is all pretty bizarre: if Ticketmaster wants to jack up ticket prices, it seems like it would just raise them upfront. It's also not clear why the company thinks that it's abhorrent for scalpers to charge consumers high prices, but it's perfectly okay for Ticketmaster to charge them prices over the tickets' face value. This news will hardly endear the company further to consumers, and probably won't help it with government regulators, either.

Filed Under: scalpers, tickets, trent reznor
Companies: live nation, ticketmaster

Another YouTube Speeder Found Not Guilty Due To Lack Of Evidence

from the be-careful-when-you-speed-and-youtube dept

It seems that it's becoming somewhat common for police to scour YouTube for videos of people filming themselves speeding. However, at the same time, we're seeing at least a few of the tickets handed out for such YouTube speeding thrown out. The latest is over in the UK, where a guy charged with speeding due to a YouTube video has been found not guilty because there's not enough evidence that he was the one actually driving the car -- or that the car was really traveling at the speed shown on the speedometer. This doesn't mean that folks posting their speeding videos on YouTube won't still be fined, but it appears that (at least in the UK) courts are making sure that there's enough actual evidence there to make the fines stick.

Filed Under: fines, speeding, tickets, uk, video
Companies: youtube

Craigslist Forced To Cough Up Name Of Oscars Ticket Seller To The Movie Industry

from the but-why? dept

Apparently, the Motion Picture Academy, the folks who put on the Oscars (also known as "The Academy Awards"), say that the tickets to that event are non-transferable. That's fine. It's their event, they can set up whatever rules they want. However, where it gets strange, is that they are now suing a bunch of folks who tried to sell their tickets online, and even got a judge to force Craigslist to reveal the name of a seller in order to sue him.

So, here's my confusion: if the tickets are non-transferable, why not just check IDs at the door and not let those who were not given tickets?

As for forcing Craigslist to reveal the name of the seller, why is that allowed? The Academy can have whatever rules it wants in terms of letting in or not letting in people, but what law was broken by the seller, and what makes it so that Craigslist should be forced to give up the name of an anonymous seller? All the Academy had to do was not let the person in the door, but apparently it chose not to run things that way. But that's the Academy's choice, not a legal issue the requires revealing the name of an anonymous seller.

Furthermore, the Academy's explanation for this also seems ridiculous: "If you don't know who's inside the theater, it's very difficult to provide security." Really? Most places that provide security don't know the names of everyone who's there and they seem to do just fine. And, again, if knowing who's in there is such a big deal, then why not identify them as they enter, and verify that they're supposed to be there? None of that would then involve lawsuits. But, then again, this is the movie industry, which has shown a penchant for lawsuits over actually thinking things through and taking the easier path.

Filed Under: academy rules, craigslist, non-transferable, oscars, privacy, tickets
Companies: motion picture academy

UK Politicians Support Having Musicians Paid Multiple Times If Tix Are Resold

from the first-sale-is-for-suckers dept

A month ago, we noted that the managers of some well-known bands were pushing for a rule that would require anyone reselling concert tickets to contribute some of their profits back to the musician. It's difficult to see how this is reasonable. If anything it sounds like double dipping. In a normal transaction, after you've sold something, you no longer have a right to have any say over what the buyer does with his purchase. If he sells it for more money, that's his to keep. That certainly seems fair to everyone. What is clouding this when it comes to ticket sales is that professional ticket resellers have been monopolizing the ticket business, figuring out ways (sometimes using questionable means) to buy up all hot tickets within seconds of them going on sale. They then quickly turn around and resell them, sometimes at greatly inflated prices. This is upsetting many fans for completely understandable reasons -- and so the government is trying to figure out what to do about these "touts" (which in the US we call "scalpers").

The recommended policy starts off well by saying it's not a good idea to ban ticket sales, but then supports requiring any resale to kick back some of the profit to the musician or sports team. That actually seems like the worst of all world's situation. That's unlikely to stop ticket resales and jacked up prices, and it actually rewards the artists for getting the tickets into the hands of resellers. It gives those performers a chance to double dip on much higher ticket sale prices, while allowing them to shrug and say that they really priced them at an affordable level. There are ways to deal with the issues raised by ticket resales, none of which require government intervention -- but it's difficult to see how the proposed solution does anything at all to help, while doing plenty to eat away at the concept of having ownership of a product you actually bought.

Filed Under: first sale, reselling tickers, scalping, tickets, touts, uk

New England Patriots Spying On Ticket Resales; Court Forces Stubhub To Hand Over Ticket Seller Names

from the privacy?-schmivacy dept

We've heard plenty of stories about organizations trying to ban the resale of tickets to events. It seems a bit silly to tell someone who bought a ticket to a concert or a sporting event that they're not allowed to resell it, but apparently some event organizers feel differently -- especially when the tickets are sold at greater than face value. The New England Patriots apparently are so adamant that people shouldn't be reselling their tickets for profit that they've convinced a court to force ticket resale marketplace StubHub to hand over the names of everyone who resold Patriots tickets for above face value. This seems like a rather large privacy violation -- and it clearly violates Stubhub's own terms of service (which is why the company fought it in court). You could understand being forced to turn over such information in a criminal lawsuit, but this is the New England Patriots requesting and getting the private info of sellers. For a team that just got into some trouble for spying on opposing teams, spying on their fans' private transactions doesn't seem like a step forward.

Filed Under: football, privacy, resale, scalping, tickets
Companies: ebay, new england patriots, stubhub