Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Businesses The Almighty Buck The Internet Your Rights Online

New England Patriots Obtain Online Ticket Reseller Names 233

Billosaur writes "The New England Patriots sued on-line ticket re-seller StubHub (a subsidiary of eBay) to obtain the list of names of people who tried to buy or sell Patriots tickets using the service. StubHub lost an appeal in Massachusetts state court last week, and was compelled to hand over the list of 13,000 names. It is currently not clear what the Patriots organization intends to do with the names, but they have intimated that they may revoke the privileges of any season ticket holders on the list. The Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group, said the court order to turn over the names infringes on the privacy rights of Patriots fans. At issue is whether using the on-line service allows an end-run around team rules and Massachusetts state law, by allowing ticket holders to charge extreme mark-ups on their tickets." How does this ruling apply to other pieces of transient property?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New England Patriots Obtain Online Ticket Reseller Names

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 20, 2007 @01:36AM (#21052959)
    FUCK YOU!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 20, 2007 @01:37AM (#21052965)
    FTFA

    Team rules bar reselling game tickets for a profit. State law, though rarely enforced, restricts ticket markups to $2 above face value plus some service charges. Patriots tickets have been offered on StubHub at prices many times higher, including two 50-yard-line seats for New England's Dec. 16 game against the AFC rival New York Jets listed Thursday for $1,300.05 each. Their face value is $125.

    StubHub, one of the largest online ticket sellers, argued that the Patriots' request violated its confidentiality agreement with its customers and said the team wants to create a monopoly on the resale market for its own tickets.
    under state law tickets can be resold just at a very low profit though "the team rules" forbid any resale. that is anti-competitive though hording tickets and selling them at 10x what they are worth isn't any better. don't feel sorry for either side, neither is correct- both are screwing people over.
  • Re:To be fair... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wizbit ( 122290 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @01:41AM (#21052987)
    Bingo. I'm an occasional user of StubHub when I need to grab a few extra tickets last-minute, but the gouging that goes on (think Hanna Montana) for highly desirable and rare events just turns the whole model on its head. This kind of exclusivity in the NFL is generally limited to the playoffs, but if you have a perennial champion like the Pats, or just a huge market like NYC, "average" fans get the shaft during the regular season as well.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 20, 2007 @01:49AM (#21053041)
    You are all missing the most important point though. It is not that the Patriots have a right to find out which season ticket holder's are reselling their tickets. The big problem here is that instead of producing a list of season ticket holders and forcing Stubhub to only reveal information on these people, stubhub had to turn over ALL customer names to the patriots. I am not a season ticket holder. I am not a patriot ticket holder. Yet now they have my name and a list of tickets I may have bought or sold LEGALLY.
    This should scare you!!!
  • Re:To be fair... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 20, 2007 @02:14AM (#21053147)
    Is there a system where you need to provide ID that you bought the tickets?

    Something like;
    Paul Johnsmith buys 5 tickets, states he's the leader so all 5 of the tickets have "Johnsmith group".
    At entry presenting "Johnsmith Group" tickets, the father, Paul Johnsmith proves he's the group leader and they let him in.

    Paul buys 5 tickets, states he's the only person so the ticket has "Paul".
    At entry presenting "Paul" ticket, the father, Paul proves he's the owner.

    Then the ticket sellers could introduce a new service to charge a fee to change the details of the ticket to something else if the ticket details wasn't a fault of the company.

    The only problem I see is under 18s not being able to get in, this could be solved if they were accompanied by an adult friend who bought the tickets.
  • Re:To be fair... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Peter Cooper ( 660482 ) * on Saturday October 20, 2007 @02:20AM (#21053179) Homepage Journal
    so why should anyone have sympathy for organizations/individuals trying to profit from charity to society?

    Charity? I don't think sports teams are being "charitable" per-se for selling tickets at under market rate.. they do it to enforce their brand and keep up the excitement in customers who can't get tickets due to overdemand and who will then try to fight for them next time.

    They should just sell the damn things for market rate. I don't see beachside condos or Mercedes Benz cars being sold at under market simply to keep the proles happy.
  • Re:To be fair... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wizbit ( 122290 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @02:33AM (#21053237)
    And I don't see any car dealerships selling Maybach jerseys. There's a bigger market than just tickets, and it's overwhelmingly driven by the middle class. Make it impossible for blue collar fans to attend a game and you drive down merchandising opportunities elsewhere. The NFL already has what's mostly become an exclusively white collar event - it's called the Super Bowl.
  • by SnowZero ( 92219 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @02:34AM (#21053243)

    If I remember correctly, here in MA is is completely legal to resell tickets - just not for profit.
    If that's true, then law enforcement should be getting the list of names, not an NFL team. Are the Patriots now a law enforcement agency? Also, why do they need the list of people buying tickets?

    I think scalping sucks too, but you really can't fight the market and pretend there isn't scarcity.
  • by _xeno_ ( 155264 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @02:37AM (#21053263) Homepage Journal

    It's not even slightly like pirating music or movies.

    Tickets are by definition a scarce resource. There are a finite number of tickets for a finite number of seats, and once the tickets are all sold, that's it: there are no more tickets. Contrast that with pirating music which does not remove a copy of music from distribution.

    I'm going to skip any moral argument, but suffice it to say that it's not a "victimless crime" as it really does remove items that would otherwise be available to "legitimate" purchasers.

  • by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @03:00AM (#21053351) Homepage Journal
    The issue is the fact that they are selling the tickets above the face value.

    Why in the fuck else would people create a marketplace for the buying and selling of tickets if not to make profit on it?

    I'm all for people being enterprising and making a little money - say 10% or at most 20% above face value. But anything over that is taking advantage of the fans, and preying on their obsessive love of the sports they love.

    The same can be said for coin or comic book dealers. Does it matter that Action Comics #1 originally cost $0.10? If some dork is willing to pay $250,000 for it now, there's nothing wrong with selling it at that price.

    What teams make in endorsements, broadcast rights and merchandising is so substantial that they're already taking advantage of the fans by charging $50.00 or whatever per ticket.

    It's pure economics, when there is great demand for a product that is in limited supply, prices will rise. There were jackasses who paid $2,500 for Playstation 3 consoles because that was the only way they could get them. Should Sony have been able to sue to prevent people from reselling things that they legitimately bought? Why is that any worse than selling tickets at higher prices? What would be wrong with having an auction? If two people want the same ticket and are willing to bid against each other to buy them, why should the owner of the ticket be kept from allowing them to do so?

    LK

  • by LordLucless ( 582312 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @03:07AM (#21053391)
    I'm all for people being enterprising and making a little money - say 10% or at most 20% above face value. But anything over that is taking advantage of the fans, and preying on their obsessive love of the sports they love.

    That's right. But why stop there? Why shouldn't the government force, say, Apple to sell their products for no more than 10-20% markup - after all, anything more than that is taking advantage of Apple fanboys, and trendies who just have to have the latest chic tech. And excessive markup is a problem throughout the whole tech sector - in fact, why don't we just make the government responsible for setting the prices throughout the whole economy? Then, because human controls are so much better at maintaining a stable system than an open market, all the prices will be fair, for both the vendor and the consumer.

    Wait, is this sounding familiar [wikipedia.org] to anybody?

    The problem in this case is the "insanely loyal fans who will do just about anything to see a game". If some people are stupid enough to sell their house to see a game, then society and the government is not responsible for stopping them. That's the whole concept of freedom - you can do what you want, but when you do, you've got nobody to blame but yourself.
  • by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @03:20AM (#21053457) Homepage Journal
    I'll likely never be able to attend major sporting events because scalpers quickly scoop up all of the tickets and price them out of range of the normal fan.

    What's stopping you from going to the place that the scalpers go and getting a ticket for yourself?

    LK
  • by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @03:21AM (#21053463)
    The fact is that the scalpers legally bought the tickets, so why may they not resell them? The only issue should be if they don't declare the income for tax purposes.
  • by clarkkent09 ( 1104833 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @03:30AM (#21053489)
    I'm all for people being enterprising and making a little money - say 10% or at most 20% above face value. But anything over that is taking advantage of the fans, and preying on their obsessive love of the sports they love.

    Sorry about the rant, but comments like this (and people who mod them up) drive me up the wall! Its amazing how many people simply don't this whole liberty business. Who exactly are you to decide how much profit someone else should make or not make? Should every business be restricted to making 10-20% profit or only the particular ones that you don't like? You know how much profit Starbucks makes on a cup of latte, or a perfume company on a tiny bottle of scented water that they sell for $75? What on earth is wrong with a person buying a ticket for $100 and then selling it for a $1,000, or a $1,000,000 if there is a buyer who wants the ticket and is willing to spend that much.

    If you have a house, and the property prices happen to go through the roof, would you sell it at below market value because you'd feel bad about making a profit on it? If you are selling your 1984 Corolla and some billionaire, for whatever reason, decides to offer you $100,000 for it would you refuse because thats too much profit for you? Well maybe you would, but that doesn't make it any less wrong to force other people to do it.

    If a team wants to attach whatever conditions they want to the sale of the ticket (such as resale not allowed) that is their business, but the state making the resale for profit illegal is simply ridiculous. Have they ever heard of retail in MA?
  • How so? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rix ( 54095 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @03:50AM (#21053559)
    Are their offices in Massachusetts? Do they have any presence in Massachusetts?

    If China bans baseball, should patriots.com be required to hand over a list of Chinese IPs which visited the site?
  • by begbiezen ( 1081757 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @04:59AM (#21053779)
    Do you really need that explained to you?
  • Re:To be fair... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by oldelpaso ( 851825 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @06:37AM (#21054093)
    Bingo. Steep price rises might sound like a good way to make money when every game is a sellout, but sports fans have long memories, and should the team's on-field performance fall on hard times those alienated would not return. Plus, ticket sales are only one part of revenue, merchandising and things like refreshments account for a significant proportion. I don't know if its the same in the US, but for the largest European football (soccer) clubs, gate money is a distant third behind TV and commercial revenue.

    In common with your "clubs need to protect their real supporters" theme, it is important to distinguish between the regular fan who bought tickets but for one reason or another cannot go to the game, and the organised rackets and ripoff merchants. If the Pats go after regular fans they will certainly experience a backlash, but if they focus on racketeers their fanbase will most likely give their full backing.
  • Re:To be fair... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by J-1000 ( 869558 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @09:11AM (#21054711)
    The price set by the venues IS the fair market price. They are the ones who do the market research, they are the ones with the customer relationship to maintain, and thus they set their ticket prices accordingly. When outside middlemen force their way into the equation it undermines not only the customer's best interests, but also the venues' as well.
  • by LordLucless ( 582312 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @09:12AM (#21054719)
    It's just the same as any other limited resource - it's just that that particular resource is limited enough that people can get a near-monopoly without significant investment. But in the end, its just the same as anything else - in fact, its the same thing we saw with the Playstation 3 earlier - limited supply, people grab up plenty, then flog em on eBay.

    I don't really have any problem with pre-order limits, or conditions on tickets that invalidate them if they're not held by the purchaser, or any other sort of controls imposed by the retailer, within their authority. It's additional government controls that I don't particularly like.
  • by NotQuiteReal ( 608241 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @09:45AM (#21054899) Journal
    by definition tickets are worth what willing buyers will pay.

    Seems to me the tickets are under-priced from the get-go.

    There wouldn't be a problem if sports teams, concert venues, etc. just charged scalper like fees to begin with, then discounted the unsold tickets closer to the event time, if needed.

    That gives all the profit to the right people, not artificial middle-men (scalpers).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 20, 2007 @11:10AM (#21055351)
    There are many people who think that the "free market" is actually "free" and "fair" in every case. These people believe that the market is infalliable and can not be manipulated and corrupted by others. These people are wrong.

    Liberty is all fine and dandy, but when other people are out to make a profit at any expense, other people suffer. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and this is why the government steps in (although corruption and greed at the top seems to be short-circuiting this step as well).
  • Re:To be fair... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kiatoa ( 66945 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @01:39PM (#21056425) Homepage
    What baffles me is the same people who are so religious about the magic of the free market get so indignant when tickets get marked up 1000% by a scalper. Either embrace the free market and accept the associated consequences or accept the fact that the free market doesn't always yield the most optimal solution to all social and economic problems. Tickets (to sporting events) and oil need the same treatment in my opinion. Tax away the *unearned* profits. I.e. pay the bills, give the investors a reasonable chunk of change and then give the rest to the government. The hope is that the government can then tax incomes a little less. In the case of the tickets the creative solution would be for the government to give out "sporting event stamps" to the less fortunate (about 90% of the population :-) ).
  • Re:To be fair... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by m0rph3us0 ( 549631 ) on Saturday October 20, 2007 @03:00PM (#21057101)
    With out the gouging the tickets would be unavailable for purchase. Thus you would have NO TICKETS. Fans don't "get the shaft" they get tickets at a price they are willing to pay.

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Working...