SINCE SCALPING IS ILLEGAL IN MANY STATES, SHOULDN'T IT BE ILLEGAL NATIONWIDE?

How about the reverse of that logic. It's legal in MOST states, so why shouldn't it be legal in ALL states? Unfortunately, the feds have not seen fit to protect the rights of ticket resellers, although at least one or two "nobody" legislators believed they had found the alchemists' heralded Philosophers' Stone which would have turned their nowhere careers into gold. They have tried to muster support (and most importantly, publicity) for bills that proposed to wipe out free enterprise ticket sales altogether. Of course, being the lawyers that they are, their fellow congressmen told them that it went against the very tenets of the constitution and didn't stand a chance of becoming a law, much less one that would last for long without being struck down by the federal courts, so they have gone nowhere. Many politicians like to use the ticket business as a whipping boy to whip up support for them as self-dubbed "consumer watchdogs". Many people don't like ticket brokers for a number of reasons, but no one can seem come up with a viable legal or economic reason why reselling tickets is bad. Even the social/consumer arguments sound like a treatise from a liberal think tank. Could you imagine that any individual of average means would actually sell 4 front row tickets to a major concert for face price, when the going market rate may be 20 to 30 times face price even days before the event? Anybody that would do so needs a lobotomy and a better cause to waste money on, like starving children. Better yet, they should sell the tickets for top dollar and give the money to charity if they have a problem with it. What's amazing about the anti-ticket establishment is that their fanaticism with toppling free-enterprise is closely linked with the religious zealots who have been trying for thousands of years to force their beliefs down our collective throats, but it seems so strikingly close to a faded Hitler Youth movement.

In regards to the extra fees tacked on by authorized ticketing agents for mailing and/or handling fees, some people actually get upset over these rather small charges. Considering that they purchased their tickets directly from the authorized ticketing agent and were spared with having to pay a premium to obtain them on the secondary market, they should feel lucky. In defense of the authorized ticketing agents like Ticketmaster (which I am not very fond of either), these are legitimate and useful businesses, and their charges should also be determined in the marketplace, not by force of law. Government regulation of pricing in private transactions is unfair and unconstitutional to businesses and consumers alike and it does not work, period. The government realized that regulating airfares was a mistake, and the eventual demise of the regulations was a boon for consumers and ultimately blew some shaky carriers out of the marketplace, if you'll pardon the expression.

It's amazing to think about how Americans criticized the Soviets for over 40 years about their Socialist, anti-business policies, but there are a number of Americans who want the Government to exercise that same control over a free-enterprise business like the ticket industry, for no good cause other than they don't like having to compete with other buyers, or for their own personal or political agendas.


WHY DON'T PROMOTERS CHARGE A LOT MORE FOR THE GOOD TICKETS, THEREBY ELIMINATING THE SECONDARY MARKET AND/OR ITS PROFIT INCENTIVE, AND WHY IS STAGGERING PRICE LEVELS A GOOD IDEA, AND WHY ARE SO MANY SPORTS TEAMS AND CONCERT PROMOTERS DOING IT?

Staggering price levels, or creating different price level for different areas of seating, or a relatively new idea for concerts, but it's been used for years in sports.  The only problem is that since concert promoters are relatively new to the idea, and concertgoers are also new to it, there is a lot of grumbling over it, and in the case of the New Years Eve 1999 concert prices, the practice went overboard and backfired on the promoters as many shows were cancelled and most were not sold out.

If you believe in the socialist tenets that no one should charge above the norm, i.e., all tickets should be the same price and all tickets should made accessible to all people, then the idea of creating staggered price level is completely opposite of your basic ideals. Not to mention that it doesn't work. But let's assume for the sake of argument that you are a socialist, Leninist, Marxist who believes in a Utopian society and freedom from financial persecution for all, and let's also assume that you are living in a dream world, which you are . . .

There are many concerts in which the artist or promoter will set 2 to 4 ticket price levels which will be commensurate with the seating locations. But no matter what a promoter charges for a ticket, there always seems to be room for profit, and in the end, it's the fan who takes the hit, therefore, staggered pricing does not work from the fan's prospective; rather, it only some of the money out of brokers pockets and redirects it to the promoters.  Artists and promoters have long wanted a piece of the secondary market, and they go after it whenever they can. The Stones played a U.S. arena tour in 1997 with ticket prices as high as $300 each for the best seats. Don't expect this to be abnormal in the future. You can expect that other large future tours, such as Pink Floyd, Madonna, or The Eagles could set prices that high or higher. The Eagles last U.S. tour was almost $100 for any seat in the house, and a complete sellout everywhere. Barbra Streisand had $250 minimum tickets for her show in Vegas that was broadcast on HBO in the mid 90s. Other artists like John Mellencamp have recently had prices of $100 for the best seats. And for their New Years Eve 1999 show, The Eagles were charging $1,000 for the good seats! And Cher & Rod Stewart both have had prices upwards of $85 each, and they join a number of artists who are doing the same, including Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel.

This does cut the brokers out of a lot of profit, but it also cuts into the very heart of what the artist and the fans don't want to see --- a financial lockout for many of them. Why? Many fans will not pay the higher prices; at least with lower prices, you will see more tickets getting into the hands of fans who can afford them. College students who like the Stones just didn't have $600 of disposable income for a pair of tickets. Even middle to upper-middle income families can't squeeze it out of their budget without it hurting enough to reconsider the purchase. And the higher a ticket's face price, the higher it will invariably sell for in the secondary market. So running up the face prices of tickets to dissuade higher secondary market pricing has the opposite effect. Also, it has a negative effect in the public relations of an artist's fan base. U2 found this out with their "Pop-Mart" tour.

Many country acts and/or their promoters will withhold a number of seats in the first few rows for their fan clubs or for radio promotions. Do you think that's morally proper to give precedence to people who join a club (which generally charges a fee to join) or to radio stations in lieu of cash for promotion? My counterpoint to that is, the main reason they do that is because of MONEY . . . Giving the fans a good seat helps to bolster an artist's image, which in turn will help prop up the sales of their next CD so that they will make more MONEY . . . And promoters give tickets away in exchange for radio ads in hopes that they will sell more tickets and make more MONEY, or, in the case of a sold-out show, because it is part of the deal cut with the radio station, who wants those tickets in order to beef up its listenership, which will increase its ratings, which means they can charge their advertisers more MONEY.

So in the long run, you can say the rich (artists and promoters) get richer, the poor (the fans) get poorer, and the brokers "middle it" for what it's worth. So if you tend to lean towards socialist values, blame your favorite artists for indulging in capitalism, and not the brokers. They are just more of a symptom that a virus. The real virus here is demand.  But in many cases, the redirecting of profits can be positive, as you'll see below . . .


WHY DOES THE MOST EXPENSIVE TICKET IN SPORTS, A MASTERS GOLF TOURNAMENT BADGE, SELL FOR AS MUCH AS 100 TIMES IT'S FACE PRICE ON THE STREET, AND WHAT CAN AUGUSTA NATIONAL DO TO REDIRECT THE PROFITS, AND WHY WILL IT NOT AFFECT THE STREET PRICE?

Augusta National, home of the Masters Golf Tournament, issues Tournament Badges only to its members, the "patrons". They had to start a waiting list in 1972, and they had to cut off the waiting list in 1978.  They place strict demands on the patrons in regards to the transfer of them, basically demanding that patrons not resell them to the public, but invariably, many badges are available each year in the secondary market.  The badge allows you entrance to all 4 tournament rounds.  If these badges were not controlled so restrictively and more readily available, the secondary market price would drop drastically from the average $4,500+ each year.

In fact, the policy of issuing a 4-day badge for only $100, a price which was 100 times below the street price for the 2000 Masters the week of the tournament is not only archaic, it's fiscally irresponsible to ignore the market price.  Many sports franchises look to street prices before they consider a ticket price increase to gauge demand.  Augusta National is losing many millions of dollars by not updating their policy and scrapping the badges entirely for the membership at-large and instead issuing 4-day ticket books just as every other golf tournament in the world does.  They could easily get $1,000 for a 4-day ticket book which would allow admission for all 4 tournament rounds and allow the patrons to choose what days they want to attend each year if they don't want to attend all 4 days and don't want to resell the tickets they don't use.  And the waiting list or even the public at-large would easily purchase all the remaining unsold tickets each year.   This would give Augusta National 10 times more money than they normally receive, money that normally goes into the patrons' pocket by and large, not the brokers pockets.  Surely no sane person would sell any commodity, including a Masters badge, for thousands less than they could easily get, right?  It seems that most patrons who choose to sell their badges in direct conflict with the club's rules generally ask $2,500 to $4,000 per badge in a normal year.

What would the redirection of money mean?  For starters, the money could be used by the Augusta National itself for its own purposes.  It could also be given to the USGA, or the players, or charities, or the city of Augusta, or whatever.  No matter what they do with the money, wouldn't it certainly serve a better purpose than lining the pockets of patrons?  After all, don't the badges belong to the club, and can't they can do what they see fit to with them, though I'm sure they do have bylaws covering this as any association would, but wouldn't price increases certainly be within their control?  Almost no matter what they charge, even a 10 fold increase in prices is not going to stop the free market resale chain of patrons-to-brokers-to-customers.  At least with a strong price increase, the profits could be rechanneled in a method that would certainly make Augusta National happy and make certainly sense to virtually anyone who is not a patron that would have to cough up the price increase.  It would certainly increase the number of resales which, though surely not preferred by Augusta National, would be a natural by-product of increased access, and doesn't affect their profit anyway, except that merchandising would certainly rise as there would certainly be more new people experiencing the Masters, and that's more exposure, which would mean higher TV ratings and more money earned by the club in the long run on the TV rights.  If you buy a cap on Thursday, you probably won't buy another on Friday, but if you have new people coming in on Friday, Saturday & Sunday, there is a higher probability of merchandise sales and more money earned on the licensing in the long run by the club.  So increasing access actually would seem to have a benefit directly to the club itself.  Sure, the club announces that there are 56 minutes of golf in their telecast to maximize viewing pleasure, but who really cares about that?  If the commercial breaks were a little longer, it really wouldn't hurt that much.  But this policy is costing someone possibily millions of dollars in future revenue, once again, money that could be redirected to  worthwhile private and/or public causes.  But what do I know?  Who cares about that?

Who would complain about an extra minute of commercials every half hour and increased ticket prices?  Would the patrons, as the money would coming out of their pocket?  Still, I can't imagine anyone putting together a feasible non-personal argument against it.  Don't forget that Augusta National, just like many golf clubs, had no black members until 1990.  They apparently weren't too swift in adapting to society's changes in that category.  Although they maintain that no blacks were prohibited from being invited, no blacks were invited until after 18 members of Congress sent a letter to the them asking for a change in policy and they said that there was no policy against blacks being invited, but they did not act and invite any minorities until they changed the rules in 1974 and extended an automatic invitation to anyone who won a PGA Tour event, and Lee Elder became the first black besides the familiar black caddies to participate in the Masters in 1975.  Now, 2 minority golfers have won the Masters in the last 4 years and Tiger Woods is the darling of the Golf industry and the Masters patrons.  For every patron who would object to it, there's probably 10 more who would gladly pay it, and if not, there's plenty on the waiting list that probably would, not to mention the general public. They should also charge at least $50 for Monday, $100 for Tuesday, and $150 for Wednesday to better reflect the market prices. This would also bring in many millions more in revenue, as the current prices for the practice rounds are appx. $17 per day for Monday & Tuesday, and $22 for Wednesday!  

This is money that can be used for charities in and around Augusta, to promote amateur golf, to help disabled people learn the game and inner city kids, it could be divvied up between the players by adding it to the purse, it could be given to the City of Augusta for whatever public works they see fit, and it could just be put back into the club's coffers and used to promote the Masters Tournament, or maybe a little of all of the above.

To act as though the transfer of Masters tournament badges and practice round tickets doesn't happen is to ignore the true reality --- practice rounds sell at retail on the secondary market for $200 to $450 each depending on the day and badges sell for an average of $4,500 each on the secondary market to a high of $10,000 in 2000.  Sure, they can maintain their policy of non-transfers just as other sports teams and promoters do; just because it happens doesn't mean they have to endorse it.  This would only be a method to increase revenue for Augusta National that could be use for worthwhile purposes and the 4-day ticket book would allow patrons the flexibility to purchase the rounds they want each year without losing their rights to the days they don't want, thereby saving money if they plan on attending and not reselling the tickets.  It would certainly better reflect the secondary market prices each year.  Car manufacturers make cars that can go upwards of 120 miles an hour, but although they don't endorse those speeds, they also don't put governors on the cars to keep the drivers from doing so just in case an emergency should arise, after all, the car, once bought, belongs to the customer, and like a government, the Masters belongs to the fans, as it wouldn't be a tournament at all without the fans, and I'm not just talking about the patrons.  Who would broadcast it if nobody cared?

In other words, Augusta National may be depriving themselves and many worthy charities and causes of millions of dollars each year.  But it begs the question of whether they care or not about that?  Certainly they've thought about all this, right?  Golf is considered by many to be an elitists' game that wastes more land space than cemeteries, so would it surprise anyone if common sense and "pro bono" causes aren't necessarily attractive to such a group?  I'll let you be the judge of that.


WHY DON'T PROMOTERS AUCTION OFF THE BEST TICKETS?

Some acts even give away the best seats to charities, in which the tickets are sold at auction (is this scalping?) to the highest bidder and the proceeds are given to charity. Now, hopefully, a worthwhile charity will benefit from this, but it's more of a "PR" stunt trumpeted loudly by the promoter in order to benefit the event's ticket sales. These auctions make a lot of ground noise, but they are very unpopular with the fans. Also, doesn't that make the charity & the promoter a broker in some sense, i.e., reselling tickets for money or other consideration? And if you are a believer in the one-price-for-all policy, and equal access, does it matter what the cause is? After all, not everybody agrees with every cause, no matter how charitable the cause is. I personally don't agree with giving money or aid to foreign countries until our country is made as free and clear of homeless and hungry people as possible. We are certainly not doing enough here at home. Some people believe that virtually all charities are nothing more than a siphon for greedy businessmen behind the scenes who profit from public sympathy. That may or may not be true, but they may be right --- remember the case of the United Way executive who was being paid close to $500,000 a year in salary and benefits? There are a number of companies who profit from raising money for charity. But if not for their help, many charities would not raise enough money to operate.
 

WHY AREN'T TICKETS NONTRANSFERABLE OR RESTRICTED TO MEMBERS ONLY OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT?

This is easy. To do so, a method would have to be employed to not only register the tickets in each individual purchaser's name, it would also have to register the guests who attend as well. This would also include tickets given away for promotion by the promoter to radio stations and the like. This would slow sales down to a trickle. Also, some method would have to be employed to insure that the registered person who bought the ticket uses that ticket. Venues don't want to do this, because it increases their cost and time in admitting patrons. We've heard virtually every possible method which could be employed to restrict tickets to the purchaser and their guests, but so far, none have been foolproof or even close to it, being either unfeasible due to their cost/effort/time or they would be unpopular with the masses. How many times have you ever made plans to go to an event and something happened which forced you to get rid of the tickets? Wouldn't you hate it if not only did you miss the event, but you also lost out on your investment as well? If brokers can't transfer their tickets, neither can others. Non-transferability would not be a popular choice.  Augusta National, The home of the Masters Golf Tournament, has tried for years to limit admission to members only, but it hasn't worked at all; in fact, it has served to drive prices up to the stratosphere, and now the Masters badge is the highest-priced ticket year-in and year-out in the entire world.  Just another lesson that you can't cure the ills of the marketplace by controlling prices.


WHY DON'T THE PROMOTERS OFFER ONLY GENERAL ADMISSION TICKETS LIKE MANY ROCK ARTISTS?

"Festival Seating", "GA's", or General Admission seating all mean the same thing, and that's possible death. No, not to ticket brokers; they can sell GA's to sold-out events easier than they sell reserved seating. No haggling on location, it's all the same, and there's one price. Many ticket brokers will load up on GA lawn seating for amphitheater events because most people will request cheap seating, and there's less downside risk/exposure to the investment, as they cost less and are easier to sell. A ticket broker can triple its investment when the B.O. is $25-$30 and the market is $75-$95 for the same ticket.

The death part pertains to the perils involved in Festival Seating. In 1981, at a Who concert in Cincinnati, 11 kids died when they were trampled to death by crowds of concertgoers who rushed the doors to get the best seats because all seats were General Admission only. In the aftermath, festival seating was outlawed in Cincinnati, and it should be outlawed nationwide for events with more than 1,000 people in attendance that has fixed seating. Any general admission "festival seating" concert is a disaster waiting to happen. Not to mention the legions of fans who are willing to pay for good reserved seating that either won't attend or will leave disappointed by a bad seating location. Some promoters use limited General Admission on the floor only for moshing, which can also be quite dangerous itself. Needless to say, this is another bad idea to curtail the ticket brokering business.
 

DIDN'T THE ATLANTA OLYMPICS HAD A FEDERAL LAW AGAINST RESELLING TICKETS? HOW COULD THEY DO THAT AND WHY CAN'T ALL STATES DO THE SAME?

Speaking of Olympics tickets, let's delve a little deeper into this discussion. ACOG (The Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games in Atlanta), stated that Olympics tickets were considered "merchandise" (which is ludicrous), and therefore, the reselling of Olympics tickets was against Federal and State laws as Olympics tickets were covered under a clause outlawing resale's of Olympic merchandising without express written consent of the ACOG (Actually, this law applies to all merchandise which is trademarked; I also have a response for this at the end of the response to this question).

First consider this: ACOG stated that 80% of the opening ceremonies tickets were not available for sale. Where were they? They were given to corporate sponsors and countries competing in the Olympics. Why? Corporate sponsors were offered various sponsorship packages in which they could contribute from $50,000+ and receive tickets. And these tickets were choice tickets indeed. This is where the choice tickets went! Well, cry foul all you want to, but the fact is, while still unsold and in their possession, these tickets belonged to ACOG to do with as they please, and that's what they did . . . they pleased themselves by pleasing their sponsors. Now what is this? Looks like they traded tickets for money at a price above the face price of the tickets, but in exchange for doing so, they received promotional consideration. In other words, ACOG provided a "service" in exchange for this premium, and in return, the sponsors received premium tickets. Sounds like the ticket brokering business, doesn't it?

If you want to cry foul over something, the real reason you should have gotten upset over the Atlanta Olympic ticket hubbub is because ACOG told people that they couldn't resell their tickets, but apparently it was okay for ACOG to do so itself. There seemed to be no legitimate stance for this position, and it was a very arrogant stance, indeed! And to top it all off, the biggest resellers of Olympic tickets were those same companies' employees, who now had choice tickets for sold out events in the best seating locations and were asking big bucks and getting it. And if the tickets weren't sold, they had nothing to lose, as many of them were given to them by the company, or they paid for them and planned on using them if they were not sold. Once again, I say there's nothing wrong with them doing this, I'm just amazed that ACOG (wrongly) believed that they had the right to tell a person not to sell the assets (tickets) for a profit, assets which they had purchased with their own money, though ACOG was eagerly doing it themselves.

ACOG also tiered the price levels of the tickets with high variations, like $265, $133, & $80 for the same event. Many events featuring games involving Team USA were priced higher than non-USA games. And some events were only $11 per ticket. Does this sound like ticket brokering to you? If not, you're in major denial. I didn't say that it was wrong; rather, the point is that if you're against ticket brokering for whatever reasons, you should be against all forms and not be prejudiced or selective. Ticket brokers invented tiered pricing and they survive through it, but now many concert promoters and every major sports team in America has tiered pricing.

In response to the "illegal sale of tickets covered by laws against reselling of licensed merchandise, I have a number of arguments why I believe that position is without merit. The laws that apply to merchandising are put in place, in my opinion, to protect two things, 1) The trademark/logo of a manufacturer, i.e., its reputation, and 2) the design of a product, i.e., its product and income base.

This law would seem to apply to a person reselling a T-shirt which has a specific original design, or one which has a logo affixed to it, such as the Olympic logo. However, without a specific design characteristic like the Olympic t-shirts have; they are just like other shirts which can be readily bought at your local Wal-Mart, and with the logo removed entirely, they are just another t-shirt. Then again, it wouldn't be considered an Olympic t-shirt without the Olympic logo; in other words, who would want such an item? A song which has different lyrics, music and melody from another song is a different song entirely, right?

The reason you would purchase an Olympic shirt is because it has the Olympic logo on it. But if Olympic tickets had nothing on them except typewriter print to state that they were Olympic tickets, like many concert tickets do, nobody would care. All they want is to be admitted; the Olympic logo means nothing. Therefore, if an artist, promoter, venue, or authorized ticketing agent (such as Ticketmaster) used this law as a means of curbing the secondary ticket market, it would seem to be futile. The Ticketmaster "TM" logo does appear on their concert tickets, and sometimes the logo of the performer appears as well; however, tickets are not valued in either the primary or secondary market based upon either one of these logos appearing on the ticket. They are there for advertising purposes only, and in no way affect the value, such value being relative to the actual appearance of the performer, among a number of other factors. Also bear in mind that the ticket represents a right owned by the seller of such, and the seller should be able to assign these rights for a fee just as you can sell your car to another person without fear of violating the rights to GM's trademark logo which appears on all GM cars. And in many cases, vehicles are valued to some degree by the name of the manufacturer, i.e., some people prefer GM cars, some prefer Mercedes, etc., yet it doesn't mean that the auto companies can prohibit resale's in the secondary market for those reasons.
 

WHAT ABOUT THAT METHOD OF HIRING BUMS AND KIDS TO STAND IN LINE AND PURCHASE TICKETS ON BEHALF OF TICKET BROKERS?

There was an isolated incident where a broker allegedly paid homeless people to stand in line as proxies to buy tickets for a Bruce Springsteen concert. Other than a few biased individuals to who reported it (for the record, there were a number of people there who never saw anything out of the ordinary), there was no proof that it even occurred.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that it did, and also assume that it occurs all the time. It doesn't mean anything except for the fact that it was alleged to have been done by a ticket broker. In fact, a proxy buyer in line is almost the norm. what is proxy buyer? It's a person who stands in line in place of another person that wants the tickets. There are a lot of proxy buyers in line --- mothers buying tickets for their kids, girlfriends buying tickets for their boyfriends, fraternity brothers buying tickets for the whole fraternity, etc. They may or may not be getting paid for their service, but they are still doing it for some form of consideration, even if only for love and affection. Anyone (with certain age limits in some cases) can stand in line and buy tickets to an event. And what they do with the tickets they buy is their own business, plain and simple. So, if a person did indeed hire another to purchase tickets for an event by standing in line, that's a private transaction between two people and should be nobody else's business.

People hire proxies/agents to perform a number of services, and this is just one more service that some people are willing to provide. In fact, ANYONE can get some people together and get them in line to buy tickets. Authorized ticketing agencies generally frown upon this practice, but in actuality, they should have no right to interfere with this private contract. In fact, any buyer can buy tickets in line and turn around and sell part or all of them to another person. It's not at all unusual to see a ticket broker standing outside an outlet offering money for extra tickets at an on-sale date. Many people do buy tickets for other people, saving them time and money in doing so, and they may or may not charge a fee to them for doing it. Sometimes it may be bartering a favor for a favor, but it's still a transaction in which a proxy buyer receives consideration for buying tickets for another person who is not present. A rose is a rose is a rose.

Either way you look at this, these are all examples of buying by proxy. Anytime you buy more than 1 ticket, you are purchasing as a proxy buyer, and whether you charge a service to do so or not is nobody's business but the person you charge (or not charge) for doing so.

The point being made here is that if you're against ticket buying by proxy, for whatever reasons, don't be a hypocrite. Take a position --- you should be against all forms and not be prejudiced or selective. In other words, endorse a law to make everybody show up and buy their own ticket, which is just as ridiculous as the other foolproof ideas.
 

WHY CAN'T PROMOTERS & ARTISTS JUST NOT ALLOW THE RESELLING OF TICKETS TO THEIR EVENT? AFTER ALL, DON'T THE TICKETS ULTIMATELY BELONG TO THEM?  ISN'T A TICKET A REVOCABLE LICENSE?

Promoters & authorized ticketing agencies argue they issue a private license to each buyer in the form of a ticket, and that it is a revocable license, and they further argue that once the ticket is sold in the secondary market, the license is void. This is generally stated in very fine print on the back of most tickets. This is the same place where is states that the ticket has no cash value. First and foremost, a license is a right of use granted to an entity by the owner of the underlying property, so that the user may use what the owner owns under the guidelines of the owner. The user has no ownership of the asset upon which the license is issued for, only the right to use, like a tenant, and most importantly, that license to use MAY NOT be transferred under any circumstances, for profit or otherwise.

The problem here is that the promoters don't mind the ticket being given away or sold for face price. Therefore, they have no problem with the actual transference of the ticket; it's only when a person makes money on the transaction. And why should anyone in America have any right to tell you when you can profit and by how much? They have no right after making a sale of a ticket to a primary buyer to tell that person what amount they can sell it for and what the terms of transference can be, especially if they grant any allowance to transfer it. Probably the main reason for this objection is because they can't share in the profit on resale's, although they state other faulty reasons such as it being an attempt to thwart counterfeiting. I have already bludgeoned this argument, and if they specifically allow any transfer, they should not arbitrarily disallow certain transfers when they are themselves no party to the transaction; the reseller should owe no fiduciary right to the promoter or authorized ticketing agency.

Another small additional counterpoint is that the "licensing" agreement is made with the original primary buyer, and once it is sold by that buyer to another buyer, say, a ticket broker, the original agreement does not extend beyond that transaction, as the new owner made no agreement with the original issuer, especially if the ticket is sold to the new buyer under the terms listed. Furthermore, the "license" states that a person cannot receive more than face price upon resale, automatically guaranteeing that the primary buyer will lose money on the transaction, as it will not be able to recoup its costs of acquiring the tickets, which include the service charge (this is not considered to be part of the face price according the various state laws, as these charges are stated in the laws as being an additional sum added to the face price), the mailing fees, and the buyer's own personal expenses in acquiring the tickets, e.g., time, traveling expenses, phone expenses, credit card interest, etc.; i.e., that the premium charged is a separate service charge commensurate with the amount of expenses incurred by the seller.

Another point to argue is that a license, to be truly effective, should be a written agreement between the parties involved. In a separate issue, it's been held true in real estate matters that if an owner of real property makes an oral agreement with you to allow you to use its land for hunting that the owner is in effect issuing you a license to use, but this license and the rights attached to it are very shaky and very gray indeed if not in written form; pretty much in the same boat as an oral contract. Some states has actually come to recognize this as a "tenancy at will"; i.e., the owner can revoke the license for any reason, not just a violation of the terms. That is because an oral license is not truly an asset which can be bartered, sold or exchange with ease, if it truly can be sold at all, because there is no true written framework which states that an owner has actually granted anything, and even if the rights are confirmed by the owner orally, they can be orally revoked pretty much at will as well. However, a ticket represents a certified voucher of what the issuer will do for the bearer of the ticket, and it states exactly what the bearer will receive, i.e., the seating location. But nowhere on the ticket does it state that it belongs to a particular person by name, therefore there must an implied understanding that ANY bearer may use it if no bearer is stated, much like a bearer bond which can be cashed by the possessor of such. This is a case of the old saying "It's the exception that proves the rule"; if there is no specific exception made, there is no rule.

Another valid point is made by ticket brokers that the premium paid for a ticket is a service charge which is paid "in addition to the face price of the ticket". In other words, in a situation where the face price of a ticket is $30, and the price charged by the ticket broker is $100, the ticket is considered by the broker to have been sold for the face price of $30, and the $70 premium is considered a service fee. This argument can be further validated by the fact that securities (stock) is generally sold without sales tax due, and that the ticket, though an asset, is considered an intangible rights asset like stock and is not subject to a tangibles tax such as state and local sales taxes. Some have even argued that it should be treated as an investment and therefore a capital gain, thereby avoiding social security taxes in the case of an individual's profit for tax purposes, but the tax man has generally held the position that inventory items held for the prime objective of resale will result in ordinary income and are not subject to capital gain treatment, nor can they be depreciated. This seems to be true also with stock traders who "make a market" in a particular stock.

Still another point to make is the case of proper notice. Who can read the fine print on the back of a ticket, and how many people actually know that it's there? This notice is not plainly stated on the ticket for the buyer to see, and any subsequent buyers will not see the ticket before the purchase on the secondary market, as they usually do not have the opportunity to examine the ticket so closely as to be able to read this fine print; they generally don't know it exists. Therefore, the notice is weak and ineffective, and certainly not proper due diligence to provide notice on the part of the authorized ticketing agency.

Once again, referring to basic real estate law (as it's taken from common English land law and has been perfected over hundreds of years), deed restrictions are covenants which state the limitations a person has in regards to the use of land purchased by a subsequent buyer. Though deed restrictions are pretty valid, they can sometimes be overturned if they are proven in court to represent an undue and unnecessary restriction which inhibit an owner's rights to use its land to it's highest and utmost use, so long as that use doesn't interfere with the rights of other property owners in the area, and "highest and best use" is the supreme rule of value in real estate. And these are registered instruments, a transaction between two named individuals/entities! A ticket is a unilateral contract at best; the promoter agrees to provide what's stated on the ticket, but the owner basically has no obligation to fulfill the rights and use the ticket. Further, it does not state on the ticket that the face price will only be refunded to the original buyer if the event is cancelled. It is this reason alone that I stated unequivocally that a ticket has no inherent "face value" unless the event is cancelled, as the original issuer will not offer any "value' for it after it has been sold, unless the event is cancelled, in which case they offer a refund, and at that time only would a ticket have any "face value". The only monetary value a ticket has is its market value.

As stated earlier, GM can't tell buyers what they can do with GM cars after they are sold by their dealers, and neither should artists/venues/promoters/etc. Promoters shouldn't have a basis to recall or void any ticket unless either requested by the primary buyer in the case of a theft or loss, or unless they recall all the tickets issued.

Imagine getting a call from the builder of your home telling you that they will void your deed if you sell it for more than you paid for it!
 

ARE THE LOTTERIES AND RULES USED BY VARIOUS BOX OFFICES TO SELECT WHO GETS TO BUY TICKETS FAIR TO CONSUMERS?

There's a lot of injustice in the so-called "fair" ticket lottery conducted by the various authorized ticketing agencies (including Ticketmaster), and I offer a comparison. At the height of Communism in the U.S.S.R., there was a shortage of available goods, such as food and toiletries. Since capitalism and money were frowned upon by the communist government, they came up with a "equal and fair" socialist method to distribute the goods. No matter how much money they had or how much they were willing to pay (which doesn't matter because nobody had money anyway), no matter how long they were willing to stand in line, no matter how bad they wanted something, they had to follow these socialist rules. Even if someone was willing to sell or trade for what they want at an agreed upon price in a private transaction between two consenting people, it was considered "black market" trade and forbidden. Does this sound familiar to you?

In a society such as America's which uses a capitalist system as the backbone of the economy, there can never be true equality. Nobody said life was fair --- it's survival of the fittest. But ironically, this is the most fair approach available. People who would hard and study should be rewarded with more money, and if they have more money to bid with, they will receive the rewards of their hard work rather than those who have not worked hard to acquire capital. It's true that there are people who have money and have not worked for it, but there again, nobody said life was going to be completely fair. Right now, the best method I've found in our society is by rewarding people financially. And if a wealthy man outbids a student for a pair of tickets, that's the way our system works. It works that way with all commodities. It ought to make every student want to work harder to get into the same financial position, but it seems to somehow bring the opposite effect on those who have no ambition and who would rather point their fingers and cry foul than stake their own claim in the world.

Lotteries do cut out the nuisance factor of "camping out", that's granted.  But how much of a nuisance is it compared to the reality that what they really do is cut out the so-called "real" fans. Think about this --- "real" fans call themselves that because they want to feel more important than rest of the ticket buyers, yet paradoxically, they feel that everyone should have the equal right to purchase a ticket at face price. Therefore, the lottery system is instituted, and ironically, many of these "real" fans are left out in the cold many times without tickets. In my opinion, a "real" fan would gladly stand in line for days or pay 20 times the face price, whichever they feel is easiest for them. Instead, some bozo who happens to see a line forming walks up and draws the lucky number. What does all this mean?

Ticket lotteries are a bad idea because:

(a) Lotteries allow no weight to be given to those who have the most desire to obtain the tickets.

(b) Lotteries strand many "real" fans without tickets.

(c) By placing restrictions on the obtaining of tickets, ticket lotteries cause the secondary market to spike to exorbitant prices on the same tickets that normally would have fetched far less money if lines were allowed because good tickets are harder to obtain and there are more people without good tickets who have a strong desire for good seats, and some people will pay literally anything for those seats.

(d) Lotteries cause the opposite effect of what they were trying to do, which makes it a bad idea in the first place.

(e) Lotteries are a bad socialistic idea to an economic matter which can only be resolved by the free-enterprise marketplace, as supply and demand is the best control of prices and quality of service. Ask the airlines about that one.

Fair? What's more fair than auctioning off your tickets for the highest price they'll bring in the market? That's what business owners all across this nation do everyday with their goods and services; in fact, our nation's economy and the entire world's financial markets rely upon this sole principle. Stockbrokers were just as vilified 200 years ago as ticket brokers are now, but they now have a very large exchange set up for them to trade their wares in an orderly and regulated market every day. In other words, they got out of the streets the ticket brokers are still in.

You work hard to get through 4 or more years of higher learning or ply your trade hard so you can make enough money to enjoy the finer things in life. It's your money to do with however you please, so long as another person's (or society's) civil rights are not harmed by your actions. No one has the right to drive unless they have a drivers' license, and one has the right to attend a concert unless they have a ticket. It isn't mentioned once in the Constitution and its amendments.
 

Go to page 5

Back to page 3

Back to the home page
 

This web page and its entire contents (c) 1996 TIXFAQ. All rights reserved.
Use of any part of this text is subject to these guidelines.