[obblekk]

Ticketmaster is such an obvious monopoly in plain sight. The only reason I can see the FTC not more aggressively pursuing it (and instead wasting time on big-tech) is the people in power at the FTC don't go to enough concerts or care about a $10 markup on their tickets.

For an American age 15 to 25 today, much more of their spending power, time, and opportunity is lost to Ticketmaster than FB/IG/Tiktok/Twitter monopolistic behavior combined.

Hopefully the Taylor Swift ticket sale breaks into the Overton window and results in actual enforcement. Ticketmaster should have to divest Livenation and every other ticketing company it's acquired since 2010.

I say this as the PM of the first attempt to sell tickets within Facebook Events in 2015. Even for Facebook, it was virtually impossible to get share because all the major venues and artists have exclusive lockups with Ticketmaster or a subsidiary of theirs.

[brookst]

Mostly agreed but I think the appropriate regulatory response is to split Ticketmaster into three businesses: a venue operator, a ticketing company, and a ticket resale company, and to forbid exclusive agreements between them.

As separate companies they’d seek the best deals and wouldn’t collude to exclude new entrants in each others’ markets.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

Yes, the exclusivity agreements are the worst. I think they should pretty much be banned everywhere. Remember back in the 90s what microsoft got away with by getting exclusity with EVERY PC manufacturer.

[petilon]

But each of those three businesses would be monopolies. Better to clone the company. Each clone inherits all IP then goes separate ways.

[brookst]

Each clone would be vertically integrated and would do the same abusive things. Clone A’s venues would use clone A’s ticketing service which would give most of the tickets to clone A’s ticket resale service.

For a consumer who just wants reasonably priced tickets for a particular venue, there would be no change from today under that arrangement.

But if you split the company vertically, the venue business needs to look after its own profits rather than maximizing the vertically integrated profits.

[iudqnolq]

The theory is that the vertical integration gives them an unfair advantage. Split it up, and others can compete on the merits. If there's still no competition, that indicates they're better than everyone else for fair reasons, so it's not a problem. (I don't agree with this theory)

[petilon]

You would have to split vertically then horizontally. If you only split horizontally each business will continue to monopolize their segments.

[brookst]

The monopolies in each segment collapse without the vertically integrated monopoly.

Today you can’t start a ticketing business because Ticketmaster owns so many venues and they won’t use you. You can’t compete in ticket resale because Ticketmaster’s resale gets inventory even before retail tickets are sold.

If these were separate companies there would be no reason, and it would likely be illegal per the breakup ruling, for every venue to use a single ticketing service, or for a ticketing service to use (give a huge advantage to) a single resale service.

The problem isn’t dominance in one segment; that is normal and fine and self-correcting. The problem is leveraging dominance in multiple segments to exclude competition in any of them.

[iudqnolq]

Maybe I phrased it wrong. What I was trying to say is that the theory distinguishes between unfair market dominance and simply being the best. If the splits continue to dominate that would be strong evidence it's the latter.

(The reason I disagree with this is because I think that corporations, like countries, are a social contract that should only be allowed if they serve the people. I think a free market serves the people, but a market needs heavy govt interference to be free. I know that's a minority opinion, so I didn't get into it)

[etrautmann]

Why is there any IP there? Somewhat naively, I would hope that nothing Ticketmaster does could be considered IP but I suspect that’s not correct…

[sureglymop]

Monopolies like this are pretty strange. It's the same for Match.com buying every dating app to ever exist.

[wilsonnb3]

I think it’s mostly because going to a concert is a luxury.

Sure, it’s a monopoly, but the worst case scenario here is that some people won’t get to see Taylor Swift live.

[carlob]

I don't think seeing live music is or should be a luxury... my teenage years were filled with free or cheap concerts and I'm very thankful for that.

But then again I grew up in a large city in Europe, so that might skew my experience. Or maybe not, since I went to a ton of $10 concerts in NYC in my la 20s (thanks John Zorn for starting The Stone)

[gberger]

Access to entertainment and culture is not a luxury.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Hmm. I dislike Ticketmaster and I am sympathetic to your sentiment, but the argument used here is flawed. Is it a live concert? If yes, does everyone has to have the same level of access to this entertainment/culture? If yes, there is appx. 7.8b people on earth now. Are they all guaranteed access to entertainment and culture?

[pxx]

The music is still accessible at libraries. Live entertainment is definitely "inessential":

lux·u·ry an inessential, desirable item which is expensive or difficult to obtain. plural noun: luxuries "luxuries like raspberry vinegar and state-of-the-art CD players"

[brookst]

“Inessential” is subjective. There isn’t a thing in the world where you can’t find someone making the argument that it’s inessential because it’s not essential to them.

And using price a test of luxury in a discussion about monopolies is kind of circular; it leads to saying that anything a monopoly has successfully captured is necessarily a luxury.

That gets you to prescription eyeglasses being a luxury, because I don’t need them, people can just buy contacts, and a monopoly has driven the price to astronomical levels.

[exabrial]

This is 100% correct. Sort of like cable internet: seen as a luxury so it’s seen as waste to go after them.

But here’s the thing: the law should apply equally. If the FTC did go after a couple of these ‘ frivolous ‘ monopolies, it would set the tone across the board. This is an area where everyone can meet in the middle..

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

<<But here’s the thing: the law should apply equally. If the FTC did go after a couple of these ‘ frivolous ‘ monopolies, it would set the tone across the board. This is an area where everyone can meet in the middle..

This is what I think is really missing from the arguments. Antitrust enforcement and even basic law enforcement has been mostly AWOL whenever bigger players are involved. It really undermines average Joe's trust in the system as a whole. I don't really care about Swift and Ticketmaster. I am concerned that the system is seemingly falling apart ( or working as intended depending on how cynical one is ).

[TedDoesntTalk]

It’s entertainment, like going to the movie theatre which is also nearing monopoly.

[robot_no_421]

The fact that concerts are a luxury is not the problem. The problem is that the relationship between LiveNation and Ticketmaster is anti-competitive and does not provide any economic benefit for anybody besides LiveNation/TicketMaster.

The way capitalism is supposed to work is that competition and supply and demand push the market price of goods to an optimal price thats economically beneficial for buyer and seller. But anti-competitive practices like bundling products and artificially limiting supply interfere with that process.

If LiveNation and TicketMaster were two different entities, there would be a lot more competition for who to use for ticket distribution and prices for tickets would be a lot cheaper, which benefits the purchaser and increases economic competition and productivity.

[chrisseaton]

Going to a concert is a pure luxury. It's like getting excited that Champagne is too expensive - not really a working person's problem, and I'm not sure pure luxuries need government intervention in the same way as communication systems do.

[blowski]

This comment makes me feel uneasy, but I can't work out how to disagree with it.

There are some services which are obviously utilities where monopolies are either bad, or must be otherwise regulated. Power, fuel, healthcare, education - all these fit into that. I guess these are services where inefficient pricing has a broader effect on the market.

Whereas in luxuries, if the price is too high, then it has no real effect other than the peasants don't get to eat the cake.

So my two arguments against your position:

1. Even a monopoly in such a luxury industry is still protected by the law, and so must also be subject to it. Assumedly, as a peasant unable to afford Taylor Swift tickets, I am still not allowed to hack Ticketmaster's servers to get one illegally, or to break into the concert by force even though I'm causing no harm since it's a luxury good.

2. Ticketmaster's profits from its monopoly, if unchecked, allow it to crowd out other parts of the market. It can start to buy local pubs that show music, and extend its monopoly there too. Where do we stop it, and say "that's not a luxury market, so you can't have a monopoly there"?

[chrisseaton]

Unreasonable thought experiment - Taylor Swift has a monopoly on her music catalogue. If we removed that monopoly and allowed others to perform and sell it, it'd reduce costs for working people.

[blowski]

That's exactly how copyright was supposed to work, no? It balanced the artist's ability to make money against making their art accessible to everyone by giving them a temporary monopoly. It's modern incarnation is arguably much closer to a permanent monopoly, and I agree - it should be limited.

[dghlsakjg]

She has a monopoly on some of her recordings. (Famously she doesn’t own the rights to her early recordings)

But she also doesn’t have a monopoly on other artists performing her music, or making recordings of her songs.

[chrisseaton]

I could cover the entire of her latest album and sell copies? I didn't think copyright allowed for that without permission but maybe I don't know copyright like I thought I did.

[dghlsakjg]

Yup. As mentioned, she doesn’t own the rights to her early albums, so this year she actually re-recorded and released alternate versions of her own music.

Cover songs are covered under “compulsory” licenses. You can safely cover an entire album without permission as long as you pay the royalties to the writers.

The entire “songbook” genre is basically this. If you want to drill down further there is an entire category of albums which is just people covering “Dark Side of the Moon”

Musical copyright is a whole other thing.

[blowski]

After 70 years you can, yes (in copyright's original form). It's why I can do a performance of Mozart or Shakespeare today.

Before that, you'd need her permission, and probably share some royalties with her.

[f-securus]

Wow. Attending live music events is a pure luxury that the average person shouldn’t have reasonable access to without being price gouged by an obvious monopoly?

[chrisseaton]

The artist's part of the ticket prices already makes them a luxury even if you removed Ticketmaster.

If people have some kind of human right to see live music why aren't her tickets cheaper in the first place?

[biorach]

Are you saying that working class people can't afford to go to concerts?

[chrisseaton]

No lots of working class people save up to go to concerts, or prioritise it over other spending I'm sure.

[CyberDildonics]

Then why did you say this? -> not really a working person's problem

[chrisseaton]

Because not getting to go to see Taylor Swift isn't a 'problem'. Just like not having a diamond isn't a 'problem'.

Not being able to access water or not having a way to communicate with your community is a 'problem' for example, so we should protect those things. The right to see Taylor Swift? I'm not so sure it's a good use of precious government resources.

[CyberDildonics]

Then why didn't you just say it isn't a problem? Why specify a "working person's problem" ?