Government enquiry into ticket touts - send them your views

[eFestivals]

40 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

I really don't understand why the government won't do anything about it. It's so blatantly immoral.

what's immoral aboutr a band wanting what they feel is due to them?

Have you written to PRS and said you don't want any more royalty cheques? PMSL.

You're the man who used to say how great you thought copyright is, where someone does 5 minutes work and than collects pay on it for the next 75 years.

And then you talk about morality.

Any reason you're not paying a by-minute royalty to the bloke who made the computer you're using tony?

 

43 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

Not that I expect governments to deal in morality... this just seems wrong. 

you don't expect yourself to either, but there you go.

Special rules for tony?

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

Another false accusation you drag up with pointless regularity.

So much shit

what's false? You've admitted you get royalty cheques and you've admitted you support 75 year copyright so the cheques keep on coming.

The fact that the cheques might be small and irregular no difference to your moral position.

Edited December 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

No I haven't 

your memory is getting very poor with age. ;rolleyes:

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

No, yours is

yes, and your willy is bigger than mine, too.

As it says in profile, the value of your god can go up and down. I guess yours has gone down, and so you've changed your mind in the years since.

I know what you said. You know what you said. Get over it.

Edited December 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

You think you know what I said 

I have no idea what the reference to the value of 'my' god (?!) is about 

....it's probably something to do with you being too clever for me

 

As is often the case, a conversation turns into an (unconnected) argument, with the only purpose being to show you as a winner 

You brought morality into it.

Now that you realise you're sitting on inconsistent ground you're looking for a way out.

Back to what I asked that you didn't answer: what's immoral about a band wanting what they feel is due to them?

Rightly or wrongly we live in in a free market world, and people are happy with that when it works for them, and like to find something to moan about when it impacts negatively on one of their favourite things. The moan might have an argument behind it, but that doesn't mean the argument stands up even against the moaners own views.

Where bands are currently making up their income via some touting, they will look to make that money from 'first sale' tickets instead if secondary selling was banned, which would still have some moaning but for a different reason.

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

15 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

because it's a lie. I thought the secondary outlets were there for excess tickets (that punters had bought) to be re-sold on. But they're not excess tickets, they're being held back, before there's been a chance to buy them by anyone, then sold on at a higher price.

If a band wants to make a load of money at a gig, then go for it. Advertise honestly what price the tickets are. 

There's nothing inconsistent about my ground

It's not a lie, that's merely your presumption.

Just because a band might not choose to advertising their touting activities doesn't make anything about it a lie. The band tells you tickets are on sale and the price of those tickets in particular places, but it doesn't say that is the only price for tickets or the only place for tickets, and they never give any guarantee of how many tickets are available at the normal prices.

And as i've already said, there's a reasonable logical argument for them doing what they're doing, too.

The only people being 'ripped off' are people prepared to be ripped off and people who would be quite happy to give that extra money to an undeserving tout rather than than the band, too ... so why should the band much care about 'ripping off' people who are happy to rip them off?

And if they're able to give cheaper prices to their normal-price paying fans at the same time then why should they think they're shafting their fans?

Fuck me, it's almost like you think you have some sort of human right to a gig ticket at the price you think is OK if it's your favourite band.

 

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

I haven't said anything about entitlement for anyone.

Yes, that's right, the advertised option is the act doing the fans a favour... 

Look, if they bands are colluding with the touts - and they are - then that means the act wants that money. If they're not allowed to get it from the touts and their mug-punters then they'll be getting it from the rest of their punters.

So yes, some very definitely are getting a favourable price because the band has gone touting. It would be stupid and illogical to pretend otherwise.

I don't agree with it, but that doesn't make me blind to the fact of it. You're clearly blinded by your own illogic.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

he then goes on to elaborate that it's " promoters, venues and artists " who are involved in the scam. I've seen more articles where acts have condemned the process and tried to do something about it than have been instigators. I still believe it's more likely to be the promoter or the venue that is doing it, and therefore getting the extra money

I see more stories like that than ones where the band have knowingly been involved in the scam.

Make up your own facts. I guess it's the another part of the new politics.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

facts like it's the promoters and venues as well as the artists?

Isn't it odd how it's gone from "i believe" to "fact"?

If you took the trouble to examine the evidence instead of saying what "I believe", you'd have to conclude they're a more-minor part of the problem, and it's not the fact you're claiming of it.

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

It's a quote from the Stubhub interview

I've read the 'evidence'. I haven't seen anything that proves it's the artists who are the main instigators. While there have been instances where it's been proven that the agencies have been guilty in the past, and nothing to indicate they've stopped the practice.

The artists may or may not be instigators, but in most cases* it's pretty easy to conclude they go along with it as a part of the deal they have with the promoter. The bands are the ones with the strongest power to stop it, too - because everyone else is working for them.

(* I mean 'most cases where there's a significant number of tickets on a touting site already at the point the tickets go on sale', not all touting)

There'll always be a smallish leakage of tickets from within the industry too, because they can be handed out as candy and to people who aren't personally bothered about seeing that act, and where such things can become a nice little earner that seemingly costs no one anything .. but ultimately the same sort of opportunism the bedroom online tout is making use of.

Edited December 4, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, tonyblair said:

it's just as easy to conclude they're not aware of it and probably not getting any extra money because of it. It could be going straight to the venue or the promoter. The band might not even know what their manager has agreed with the promoter. i saw an interview with The Libertines not long ago, and they were totally surprised (apparently) that an arena tour was being lined up.

 

I know, it's The Libertines....!

I think it's hard to make any of that ultimately stand up, because the band (particularly at the level this applies around) are in full control of what they do or not. People are acting on their behalf, on the basis of contracts they've signed.

If they choose as individuals to be ignorant of some of the finer detail of what they've agreed to, that doesn't absolve them of the their responsibility for that situation.

In the past I guess it might have been fair enough for a band to express surprise at it happening, but it's been a big enough issue for a while now that there's no reason for a band to not act against it.

[scarletmist]

I would imagine that any decent-sized band would have enough control over its own affairs that it could make a statement to its ticket companies about the stance on secondary ticketing.

There's nothing inherently illegal about bands selling directly to the secondary market , but it is dishonest. If they want to charge higher prices for their tickets then they should be up-front about it. Passing them out to touts through the back door (undoubtedly at a premium price) is unfair on their fans and deceptive.

 

[MrZigster]

Committee due to report in ten days according to this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/may/15/shady-world-of-the-ticket-touts