Ticketmaster Will No Longer Refund Postponed Shows (digitalmusicnews.com) 196
Ticketmaster has quietly changed its refund policy to no longer cover postponed or rescheduled shows. Now, the Live Nation company's refund policy simply says: "Refunds are available if your event is canceled." From a report: It's hardly a secret that the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis has brought the live-event industry to a screeching halt. Responding both to government mandates and health concerns, promoters have canceled (or delayed) sporting events, concerts, and essentially all other audience-based entertainment functions. And predictably, a substantial number of would-be attendees are looking to receive refunds for the tickets they bought prior to the pandemic. In responding to this unprecedented cluster of repayment requests, Ticketmaster has quietly changed its refund policy to cover only canceled events -- not the many functions that promoters have indefinitely "postponed" or rescheduled to a date/time that some ticketholders cannot make.
They can do that. (Score:3)
Re:They can do that. (Score:5, Informative)
They can't do that in Quebec, under such a situation, the consumer has a right for a refund. The period would be between the expected show date and before any make up date.
There is also a simple clause in the law that says that customers can't waive rights granted in the laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this to also be the case in Europe. And it seems at least the T&Cs in Ireland still reflect this:
11.3 Rescheduling: If an event for which you have purchased Tickets or Packages is rescheduled, Tickets and Packages will usually be valid for the new date (or you will be offered Tickets or Packages of a value corresponding with your original Tickets or Packages for the rescheduled event, subject to availability). If you notify us within the specified deadline that you are unable to attend the re
Re: (Score:2)
Over here (Germany) gouvernment set a special rule in place for the current situation. Tickets for events canceled since the closedown are refunded in vouchers instead of cash. The voucher is good for two years and refunded then as cash if not redeemed. If the venue survived and is not out of buisness.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't do that in Quebec, under such a situation, the consumer has a right for a refund.
Like some other commenter said below: we used to have similar rights in Germany, too. However due to corona we new only get vouchers AND we have to bail out companies with our taxes.
Consumer rights are a fair weather affair. When shit hits the fan they're the first to go out the window.
Re: (Score:2)
As it should be. The thing is you didn't buy a ticket to a Metallica concert. You bought a ticket to the Metallica concert on Apr 17th at venue X. Why you chose that one and not the one last year, or one in another city or venue your choice. But requiring your "event" to be cancelled to get a refund fundamentally misunderstands what an event is. A specific thing at a specific location at a specific time. Everything else is arbritrary imo, it's allowing the seller to chose for the buyer what criteria was imp
Re: (Score:2)
This may not be the case in America. That's somebody else's problem.
But thanks for the warning to never trust a ticket tout, be they at the door, or online.
Do American's have the automatic right to refund on anything brought using a credit card
Re: (Score:2)
They can change the terms, and they do all the time. In the contract you agree to when you purchase the ticket, you agree that they can change the terms at any time, with a certain amount of notice. That notice could be as little as posting something in the "Food and Culture" section of the New York Time, below the fold. And you have 15 days to notify them, in writing that you don't accept those changes, or they go into affect.
Could you fight it and win? Well, the other fun thing is you agreed to forced
Re: (Score:3)
What in the hell are you talking s it?
Of course they’ll get paid. The ticket company should have the money since you know, the consumers already paid them for the tickets. They’re merely giving back what the customers gave them to begin with, not giving them a gift from their bank account. Sure they’ll lose some overhead, but that is baked into the sale price of non-cancelled tickets many times over. The risk of refunds is one of the reasons why Ticketmaster charges they markup they do
Re:They can do that. (Score:4, Informative)
Believe it or not, when you buy a ticket, some of the money goes to the people PROVIDING THE EVENT rather than just the people selling the tickets.
Since the event is not being provided (or at least not under the terms the ticket was bought) it stands to reason that Ticketmaster can claw back the money from the venue. I'll grant that their overhead (using your math, 92% of their 10%) is already paid out to employees, etc, but frankly, if you're going to corner the entire ticket market to where it's almost impossible to buy event tickets without you... that's the risk you take being a monopoly.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention I'd guess there is probably insurance for just such eventualities. Maybe not at an industry wide level but for each individual tour, event. Ie I'm guessing when the Rolling Stones goes on a 20 city tour that the event organizers have some sort of coverage in case Mick dies at city 4. Hell wasn't that one of the conspiracy theories about Michael Jackson? That his insurance was worth more to people than he was alive as a 50 something fading star?
They might not have opted for insurance choosing
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is those insurance policies are very specific and in this circumstance there are all kinds of stories about business continuity insurance denying claims at all costs. Here's a story where a company *specifically* had pandemic insurance, but still got denied:
https://www.khou.com/article/n... [khou.com]
Insurance companies themselves are not equipped to pay *everyone at once*, they are expecting in the most extreme case a geographic region to be afflicted. A global pandemic is just beyond the scope of what they r
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of insurance companies handle the wider geographical risk by using reinsurance companies, but those to probably don't assume a world wide, simultaneous issue either. At some point there's some risk events that are just too large for it to be reasonable to plan for.
That said there still would have been other options. They could have said they'll still process refunds in FIFO order as funds become available. I'm sure there's a lot of people who wouldn't care but I think a lot of customers would understa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This can be chased all over the place, but the short of it is that it isn't so straightforward and business as usual does not anticipate this scenario.
For one, I imagine it's not like all the money for an event is only spent the second the event starts. Various expenses are incurred ahead of the event.
For another, various expenses associated with that time will happen with or without an event. Taxes, leases, at least basic staffing (even an empty venue needs security guards). Frequently one event being res
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The money clearly exists, it was transferred to TicketMaster in the first place.
TicketMaster is a ticket broker. Brokers aren't the sellers, they are intermediaries who facilitate the transaction between the buyer and seller. For this service they get a transaction fee, Your money already went to the sellers.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoever you gave the money to, sold you the service.
Maybe in your State there is no definition of who is responsible for providing a service, but in most places in the world it is this way. The broker is who sold you the thing, they're the one on the hook if they can't actually provision it. "But we gave your money to somebody else" doesn't change that in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't have the money, then they should be required to issue equivalent shares of stock to the ticket holders.
Additionally, BK law should contain a special provisions that ticket or voucher holders (of any kind) have #1 priority for recovery during BK proceedings. This would cover tickets issued by ticketing orgs like ticketmaster, airlines, etc.
All tickets and vouchers, of any kind, should be fully negotiable (transferable), for a nominal fee (5% of price) in the case of tickers/vouchers where the b
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They can do that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would they be able to alter the refund policy AFTER the sale? That's a pretty douchy thing to do...
Re: (Score:2)
They can’t in any country but the US and I’m sure some third world-ish places like Canada. (I kid, I kid) Honestly, they can’t do it here either, but nobody will enforce it.
Re: (Score:2)
When somebody is the Ticketmaster, the authority is total. And that's the way it's got to be.
From Rick and Morty [wikipedia.org], Season 1, Episode 7, Raising Gazorpazorp [fandom.com]:
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: (gasp) Ticketmaster!
Re: (Score:3)
When somebody is the Ticketmaster, the authority is total. And that's the way it's got to be.
And the rest of us... We're the Ticketslaves.
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of stuff is bullshit.
All ticketholders getting fucked should dispute the credit card charges and the banks should stick it to Ticketmaster like a platoon of horny marines in a whorehouse.
Survival (Score:5, Insightful)
It's likely more that they have to do that to survive at this point. Monetary reserves for eating losses of having no real operational cash flow for weeks to months is something that no successful company really can have, because that would mean absurd margins and not investing/paying out profits but sitting on the money like Scrooge McDuck. Essentially behaving like the mythical "evil rich" that is in the mind of every communist as opposed to how actual real life wealthy people behave. Reinvest your capital to produce economic activity and more profit that comes with it.
So how much operational reserve does Ticketmaster and similar companies who's primary source of cash flow is handling public access to live events have? My guess would be "maybe a month". And every company that works with them is probably on even weaker ground.
We're looking at a lot of bankruptcies, as this is an industry that cannot operate at all during the pandemic lockdown. Their cash flow got effectively zeroed out overnight by something they have no ability to control or address in any meaningful way. It's the very definition of force majeure event. And more and more companies will have to switch from normal operations to "try to survive" mode over next few weeks. And that will see things like denying refunds and other points that are only possible when the company is operating normally.
Re:Survival (Score:5, Insightful)
And how in hell would the world be a worse place without Ticketmaster selling all the tickets to scalpers before the rest of us can buy them at a reasonable price?
Re:Survival (Score:4, Informative)
I've no idea, because I'm not talking about utopian ideas of making a better world by destroying existing structures because like everything else in life, they're flawed.
Instead I'm talking about how real world economics work and how they interact with the current events.
Re: (Score:2)
And how in hell would the world be a worse place without Ticketmaster selling all the tickets to scalpers before the rest of us can buy them at a reasonable price?
Ticketmaster actually put a lot of effort into reducing scalping, primarily since they want to run a second hand market place to double dip on the ticket sale. On top of that I'm not sure what your minor side issue has to do with the loss of a major international event platform that promotes and provides a platform for shows big and small across the entire world.
It's like saying Ford is going under and declaring it no loss because they had a crap website. I'm not sure why you got modded up for that comment.
Re:Survival (Score:5, Insightful)
They want to be middle men, but don't want to face the legal consequences of that.
In the UK your contract is with the seller, i.e. Ticketmaster, not the venue or the performer. If they can't deliver the event on the date specified then you get a refund, or you can accept their offer of a postponement if it suits you.
It's not your problem if Ticketmaster can't recover the funds from the venue or performer, or if that takes them months. They chose to put themselves in that position and it was very lucrative for them.
Everyone is trying to wriggle out of consumer laws at the moment. Airlines want to postpone and won't refund until they cancel the flight the day before it is due to fly. Now more than ever we need to uphold those laws.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to be middle men, but don't want to face the legal consequences of that.
In the UK your contract is with the seller, i.e. Ticketmaster, not the venue or the performer. If they can't deliver the event on the date specified then you get a refund, or you can accept their offer of a postponement if it suits you.
It's not your problem if Ticketmaster can't recover the funds from the venue or performer, or if that takes them months. They chose to put themselves in that position and it was very lucrative for them.
Everyone is trying to wriggle out of consumer laws at the moment. Airlines want to postpone and won't refund until they cancel the flight the day before it is due to fly. Now more than ever we need to uphold those laws.
I don't think this is exactly true. Have a look at https://www.cii.co.uk/fact-fil... [cii.co.uk] which describes the UK law regarding insurance brokers. I would say they have duties as brokers to act responsibly and ethically but ultimately they still are just intermediaries,
Re:Survival (Score:4, Insightful)
"They want to be middle men, but don't want to face the legal consequences of that."
This, I wish I could upvote you x1000.
I delightfully look forward to a class action lawsuit to hammer those greedy fux into the ground, but this is probably exempted under usual contractual 'Act of God' provisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, have a look at the Rise of the Ticketmaster...
Obviously the world with Ticketmaster is better alternative compared to the world before ticketmaster where buying a ticket for a venue required the closest ticket outlet (which was often close to the area of the venue) and getting your ticket there.
Seems like a giant ticketing monopoly was preferred by enough people.
Re: (Score:3)
That's absurd. Monopolies don't gain power because people prefer them. They gain power by edging everyone else out of the market and then exerting dominance to prevent better competitors from gaining market share. Ticketmaster didn't win because people prefer them; they won because they're the dirtiest, shittiest, luckiest company to be involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Walmart, darling whipping boy of snooty Hollywood, saves Americans hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
People go there because they want to.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you're saying is:
1). Ticketmaster sells tickets at a reasonable price.
2). Ticketmaster sells tickets at a price less than the market will bear.
Re:Survival (Score:5, Insightful)
All I'm hearing is Ticketmaster is dying, and that's a good thing in my book.
Re:Survival (Score:4, Insightful)
We all have our pet peeves. I'm not a fan of quasi-monopolies either, as they tend to end up behaving badly.
But this crisis isn't going to take out Ticketmaster. It's going to take out everyone in this field. And if you ever used Ticketmaster, it means that you're actually finding value in live events and are willing to pay for them.
And it's those live events and their organisers and performers that are dying as a business model right now. Whatever happens to Ticketmaster is going to be just the consequence of that, rather than Ticketmaster going first.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Survival (Score:4, Insightful)
Are big ones going to be ok though? I mean beyond the weird instagram meltdowns a lot of them are having right now for what seems to be psychological reasons (extreme narcissists don't handle isolation well), after the scare are people going to start going to concerts and similar performance events in anywhere near the numbers they were before it?
Concerts and such are a luxury, and with current scare, we now know that they are much riskier than we thought because of the infectivity dimension having been opened up as a "new threat", especially to population groups that are naturally extremely risk averse on median, such as middle aged women. The people who overwhelmingly are responsible for oking their kids going to such venues, and often the ones footing the bill. This is going to be a "generational memory" defining event, and I have problems believing that after the immediate crisis is over, people would return to the same behavioural patterns.
And that means that larger, more popular entertainers who are typically more popular with younger audiences are going to suffer proportionally more than niche acts aimed at adults. But at the same time, they have extra resilience that comes from the fact that popular acts have a lot of buffer of "losing audience but still remaining profitable" compared to niche audiences however.
So it's going to be interesting to see how this will ultimately pan out. The only thing that I think we can state with high degree of certainty is that everyone will take a hit that will likely last for close to a single generation, unless the virus just dies off in the late spring/early summer before generational memory can be properly formed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of folks from bands I like have been very active on Youtube and Twitch lately. Charlie Benante of Anthrax and Matt Heafy of Trivium come to mind, (although Heafy's been doing Twitch near constantly for a long time now.)
A lot of weird collaborations going on. This clip of Benante and Ra Diaz from Suicidal Tendencies covering Chemical Brothers [youtu.be] for example. What's interesting to me is that, at least for the ones I follow, I haven't seen the full bands doing stuff, just individual members.
Heafy says he ma [blabbermouth.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Problem here is the "best of them" aspect. That by definition excludes majority of performers. Even though they are viable in normal periods, exceptional nature of the current event will cull them.
Re: (Score:2)
Setting aside how much damage any one part of the entertainment industry takes from this, I expect the small local venues to bounce back quicker than large world tours for established acts. The reason being that the logistics behind arranging a small local performances are much lower. A bar can find a local musician and book them same day to perform that night. What bars, clubs etc that do manage to survive are probably going to attempt to attract back patrons as soon as possible.
Massive global tours howeve
Re: (Score:2)
but the small venue performers are the ones that will most likely hurt from the current situation and aren't likely the kinds that Ticketmaster works with.
Not entirely true, in my experience. I saw Opeth on February 29th, shortly before things went upside down. Bought that ticket through Ticketmaster. Baroness just postponed the May show I had tickets to through Ticketmaster.
I don't know that I'd consider either one of those bands "larger, more popular entertainers." I've seen plenty of shows in smaller venues on Ticketmaster tickets, although in general, you're right; they always book the largest shows. Smaller shows go through AXS, Eventbrite/Ticketfly, or
Re: (Score:2)
And if you ever used Ticketmaster, it means that you're actually finding value in live events and are willing to pay for them.
Ticketmaster doesn't do live events. They are middle men, they enter a contract with the venue to sell the tickets and provide payment processing and security on their behalf.
So it's the venues who find value in Ticketmaster. Don't need to set up their own ticket sales site, handle the massive surge that happens as they initially go on sale and the scalpers race in, don't need to do all the ID verification or handle refunds etc.
For the people buying the tickets it sucks though, and for once I agree with Mas
Re: (Score:2)
I think Ticketmaster is an evil company for sure... but this is about simple logistics. (I had tickets for 4 concerts that are “postponed.”) Deposits were paid by concert organizers for events, and are generally non-refundable. Musicians likely had some level of an advance as well based on ticket sales.
This is basically a question of who gets stuck holding the bag. I wonder if the shows have any kind of insurance policy that covers this type of thing... or if Ticketmaster “self insures.
Re: (Score:2)
And if there is such an insurance policy, there are no guarantees that insurance company that would sell those policies will be solvent to honour it. See AIG during the subprime crisis.
And this is a whole lot worse of a crisis in terms of totality in this field, all while not being a result of bad decisions made by artists or the people marketing, producing, selling tickets etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The shows are insured, but it's already turning into a problem. [loudwire.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the shows have any kind of insurance policy that covers this type of thing... or if Ticketmaster “self insures.”
Given that gordian know of current business structures (mostly build for tax reasons) and promoters owning venues and ticketing companies... I wouldn't be surprised if those losses are insured, but the insurance company is owned by ticketmaster, too...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ticket is not an agreement as narrow as you specify. There's a whole lot more you agree to when you buy a ticket, ranging from how it would be refunded to how potential rescheduling on organiser's part would be handled. And every contract has a force majeure clause, which would most certainly be triggered by the pandemic.
But judging by your last paragraph, you're in the "rich people are Scrooge McDucks" group.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a whole lot more you agree to when you buy a ticket, ranging from how it would be refunded
So you agree they can't retroactively change the refund policy after the ticket purchase?
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things that force majeure clause generally does is that it does enable ability to retroactively change some aspects of the contract that would otherwise not be possible to change.
So no, definitionally refund policy can be changed after ticket purchase. What would go into this change is what is up to a debate. For example, bankruptcy with no sufficient liquid funds for full reimbursement will most certainly retroactively change the refund policy, because it's a force majeure event that directly co
Re: (Score:2)
Your rather sad copy paste of my argument appears to lack comprehension of the subject, in that definitionally, Force Majeure situations are exceptional. Therefore, when I use the word "generally", I'm obviously referring to "generally expected events in exceptional situations". This makes sentence coherent and applicable.
As opposed to claim that you ripped my statement out of without comprehending what it meant.
And since you genuinely appear to be a fairly simple individual, let me give you an ELI5 explana
Re: (Score:2)
Government causes the business failure. Government requires refunds. It's nice to be the king and rip people open from both ends.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>Generally speaking, in this country, if you purchase something and the seller fails to deliver, you get a refund. If it's a big enough deal, you may be entitled to damages as well.
And generally speaking, when everyone goes under because of massive economic event on global scale that seems to be on track to destroy a chunk of economy of unseen proportions, you'll be getting your refunds and damages from incorporated entity that has no means of paying you either.
This is something that appears to be missed
Re: (Score:2)
In most countries, there are no meaningful consumer rights at all. Western model of consumer rights is by itself exceptional and only exists in a small minority of countries.
Re: (Score:2)
When "you" talk, no "we". My opener makes it clear that I'm talking about entirety of industry, with Ticketmaster being simply one of the smaller aspects of it.
And even then, you still have to argue how that small handful of countries won't respect force majeure aspects, which are in fact largely allowed for in legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Your use of word "generally" as a condition effectively renders your entire statement pointless in this context, because current situation is anything but "general".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in complete agreement with this. That's why I'm noting in another part of the thread that use of FM will be hotly contested in courts.
But that will come long after the current crisis. And whoever gets wiped out in this crisis will have no money to issue refunds if their claims fail in courts, because they'll be long bankrupt by that point.
Remember, the entire point of current actions is to keep companies that have a massive cash flow disruption afloat. Bankrupt company with massive debt and depleted cas
Re: (Score:3)
Again, all of this information applies to normal situations.
Coronavirus epidemic is not such. High level customer protections are paid for by someone, and if that someone lost their business, they cannot pay regardless of what law requires.
Which would mean liquidations. And since this problem is hitting pretty much everyone at once, you'll find that a lot of these "guarantees" that are legally mandated and that hinge on normal operation of the economy and failure of only a few select pieces will simply fail
Re: (Score:2)
Save some money first then worry about the bonuses.
They could have put a large portion of savings into stocks and investments expecting to get returns while having a somewhat capable safety net. With the markets tanking, that safety net would be lost, but not to the fault of not attempting some kind of preparation for the unexpected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't seeing real economic outgassing yet. Wait until a good chunk of the population has seen their retirement accounts devastated.
What limited experience there is with such government-caused problems (even if justifiable) shows devastation for politicians at the next election.
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely more that they have to do that to survive at this point. .
Too fucking bad. A ticket is an agreement. Money paid for a show at a specified date. If the provider can't deliver... it's not the consumer's problem. I'm getting goddamn tired of hearing about how badly companies have it. Nobody has savings anymore.. Well, if you don't take the basic steps of building up a cash reserve to get through unexpected hard times, then it sucks to be you.
We aren't talking about Mom-n-Pop operations here, we're talking about billion dollar corporations that don't have the goddamn brains to be fiscally responsible. You don't have to spend every last goddamn nickel on dividends and executive bonuses. Save some money first then worry about the bonuses.
Yep. Billion dollar corporation is the key word here. Can you imagine what the savings would have to be to cover a month of all expenses with incoming money screeching to a halt at zero?
If they managed to operate at a 10% margin, reserves would need to be ten times the monthly profit.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You pick and choose the philosophy you hold up like a baby lion, then trash it on another issue because it pushes "the wrong" outcome.
It's the honest way in politics!
Re: (Score:2)
Technically government crushed them by deliberate action. Whether you consider it as driven by that or by virus, that crosses all kinds of lines in contract enforcement by being unable to fulfill it due to something else.
If they don't have it, they don't have it.
I submit this story is one of many to come in the following months, probably prompted by lawyers looking for class action lawsuits to profiteer over the virus, much like a plague themselves.
Seriosly.
No, seriously.
You ain't seen nuthin', yet.
Re: Survival (Score:2)
Is your argument that they are too big to fail, therefore they should be allowed to change terms of sale after the fact, effectively forcing their customer to bail them out? Or are you saying that they are in the last death throws so they are doing desperate things, legal or not, hoping enough people won't fight them?
Re: (Score:2)
As with vast majority of "so are you saying that?" gotcha questions, the answer is "no".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely more that they have to do that to survive at this point.
It's likely we'd all be better off if they didn't survive. In fact I'd like to see them die a painful death. As painful as a death can be for an evil corporation anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Might be our best chance to be free of Ticketmaster. If they die, venue operators might have to handle their own ticketing in the future. Not that they'd be any better, but at least we would have a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't start-ups routinely raise money from investors before a business is profitable? It seems like a proven business could more easily raise money than those start-ups. When business goes well, investors profit. When business goes poorly, investors appeal to the taxpayers to make them whole.
Re: (Score:2)
Investors investing in start-ups are looking for ROI of thousands and tens of thousands of percent on their investment, and invest in many such companies because they expect vast majority of their investment to be total write-offs.
Established business cannot offer that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wondering if anyone can speak with knowledge about Ticketmaster's business practices?.
They are middle-men, and as such, would take every precaution against having to go back
after the performer and/or venue to recoup refunds monies if an event does not happen.
In fact, I would be expect most of the funds from sold tickets are not paid to either after the actual event.
Which leads me to suspect this is may be more about keeping the stock price up than any serious chances of bankruptcy.
Nothing makes shar
Can’t do that (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
most trump voters cause this virus isnt a big deal its just the flu, hey lets go to home depot with our shitty little yap yap dog and talk real close about people @ church
Douches (Score:4, Insightful)
Arthur Brown (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does he still set his head on fire during the show?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes. I saw him support Alice Cooper at the Ali-Pally a few years ago (just checked and it was 2011, crikey) and yes he did then. But I saw him at a smaller venue in 2016 and no, he didn't that time. Changed outfits about 12 times though and still moved around like he did on _that_ B&W video of Fire from 1968.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/... [flickr.com]
https://www.flickr.com/photos/... [flickr.com]
I still might go to HRH Prog, there are several bands on the lineup that I like lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Name didn't ring a bell until you mentioned psychedelic-rock... But it was before I read the other post about setting his head on fire...
Well, if he does, I hope he found a good pyro expert who included some heat insulation to the fire-bowl-hat...
Reverse the Charges through your Credit Card (Score:5, Insightful)
Legality? (Score:3)
So I wonder if this would stand the test of the courts. Specifically in contract law both parties are bound to perform the duties engaged in in the contract. I'm inclined to believe that one side can't arbitrarily move the date of a show, especially considering all the additional requirements based around the event (social calendar and in some cases other events, hotels, travel, time off work etc).
I guess they are probably banking on no one taking them to court over the issue.
An opportunity to get rid of ticketmaster (Score:2)
"Free market" isn't free (Score:4, Informative)
When one side can unilaterally change the most important aspects of a contract, it's evidence of a market failure in that particular market.
Imagine the customer deciding to unilaterally change the price after the sale. Same thing as changing the date of a timed contract. "I deliver X amount of goods to you in Y days for Z amount of Dollars." Imagine unilaterally changing X, Y or Z with no recourse to the other contractual party. We are so used to The Man getting their will with force that we forgot how this was supposed to be. X, Y and Z in this contract are fixed. Fine print that says they aren't are fraud. Fine print that is too long or too complicated to read is invalid. Fine print should cover rare fringe cases and specifics of settling the contract, not absolving any party involved from the main obligations. We absolutely have to resist the legalissification of simple contracts. Risks in doing business must be lying with the party that produces the service, that risk must be covered by the sale price. Nothing else, no if and but, and no lolbertarian "OH THE CUSTOMER AGREED TO IT" (on page 234 of 829 written in sans-serif 6pt and an average of 30 words per sentence legalese). "One party pays, the other party delivers" - without payment, there will be no delivery and vice versa. And postponing the delivery to kingdom come is the same as postponing the payment to when hell freezes over: invalid.
Let's clear up commerce, round up all unneccessary legalese and tell lawyers to learn to code.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you hear that in Moscow, on the Red Square, they're giving away free Volga cars?
That's true, except for some details. Not in Moscow but Leningrad, not on the Red Square but Nevsky Prospect, not Volga cars but Izhmash bikes, and not give away but steal.
So the little details can make the deal a bit less appealing. :p
from now on, no shows will be canceled ever. (Score:2)
from now on, no shows will be canceled ever, they will just be postponed.
how much? who knows but they're postponed. possibly with lineup changes.
You Have 60 days to Dispute Card Transactions (Score:2)
They've always sucked (Score:2)
How is this news? (Score:2)
Change back time and will cost more then just refu (Score:2)
Change back time and will cost more then just refunds. Ticket FEE Monster
Just one problem... (Score:2)
Every concert ticket is paid for with a major credit card. The first thing I would do if this happened to me is to file a dispute with the credit card company. This will result in tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of disputes.
And since there was a charge and no service was provided and no timeline for the service being provided is available the buyer will win them all. Also, this was changed AFTER all of these transactions, so the their own TERMS OF SERVICE is not in their favor.
Ticketmaster ju
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)