This is actually huge. A site had to turn in their list of users who sold Patriot tickets http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3069481 Pats win bid to get names from ticket reseller StubHub -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Press BOSTON -- The New England Patriots have won a bid to get the names of all the fans who bought or sold -- or tried to buy or sell -- tickets to home games through online ticket reseller StubHub Inc., a move one technology group sees as an invasion of privacy. In a lawsuit against San Francisco-based StubHub, a subsidiary of eBay Inc., claiming that the Web site encourages fans to break state law and violate team policies, the Patriots said they could seek to revoke season tickets of people who use StubHub. A lawyer for the Patriots wouldn't say what the team plans to do with the 13,000 names, which StubHub gave it last week after losing its appeal of a Massachusetts state court ruling. 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. 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. "The Patriots, just at the beginning of the season, were filming opposing teams and accused of surveillance and given a slap from the National Football League about that. Now they're turning the cameras on their fans, so clearly there is a lack of understanding about what privacy is," said Ari Schwartz, deputy director of the center. StubHub parent eBay is a member of the center's working group on free speech online. 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. "It is plain that the Patriots seek this highly confidential customer information to further their unlawful, anticompetitive campaign against StubHub and its customers," StubHub said in court papers. The Patriots, who say they are trying to ensure fans get tickets at reasonable prices, are entitled to know who may be violating their rules. "One of our claims against StubHub is that knowing we have rules against resale on the Internet, they are out there soliciting people to violate our rules," said Daniel Goldberg, a lawyer for the team. "In order to pursue that claim, we need to understand who has been persuaded by that inducement to list their tickets [on StubHub]." Goldberg said the Patriots' rules on resale are clear and printed on the back of every ticket. "We have hundreds of people on waiting lists willing to comply with our rules, so if individuals prefer not to comply with the rules, that's their choice," he said. Goldberg would not say how the Patriots plan to use the customer information it won in court. In his order this summer, Superior Court Judge Allan van Gestel said the Patriots have "legitimate interests" in knowing the identity of people who resell tickets through StubHub. The judge said the Patriots could use the information for purposes beyond the lawsuit, including canceling violators' season tickets or reporting violators to authorities. Goldberg said StubHub turned over the names last week. The Patriots have revoked tickets of fans who resell on any site except the Patriots' own TeamExchange Web site, which limits sales to face value. That Web site is run by Ticketmaster. Tony Troilo, a season-ticket holder from Mansfield, said he appreciates the Patriots' efforts to protect its fans by strictly enforcing its rules against ticket scalping. "But on the flip side of that, I think there are probably a lot of good, loyal fans who for whatever reason can't make it to a game and obviously don't want to eat the ticket," Troilo said. "It seems like it shouldn't be a crime for them to go on StubHub.com."
**** StubHub. Those bastards charge commission to the seller and the buyer. I hope they go under and the ****ers in charge go to jail.
Why? Nobody is forced to buy or sell there. Companies like StubHub help to create an efficient market. This lawsuit is bogus and the Patriots should not have won it.
How is this lawsuit bogus? Aren't there laws against reselling tickets higher than face value? Doesn't it say on the back of the ticket what you are agreeing to by purchasing it?
Craigslist or eBay are efficient markets. StubHub is a ripoff because of their exhorbant fees that are tacked onto both ends of the transaction. It's like double taxation.
But under the resale laws in that state, as stated in the article, they are efficient markets which enable users to break the law. These markets have become the digital age's answer to scalpers at the stadium.
I don't really like Stubhub since it is expensive all around, but then again the Patriots are cheaters. So I don't who to root for. Maybe, I'll root for the ticket scalper.
In Houston, as I understand it, you can sell tickets as long as you don't sell them within a certain proximity of the stadium on game day. Isn't that right? Otherwise, all these ticket places around town would be illegal ventures.
That may be a state law as I've heard the same at other venues in Dallas, Lubbock and Amarillo (I recall being somewhere where there was a sign that marked the distance, but I can't remember where that actually was.... possibly my imagination, of course). But I'm too lazy to look it up.
Those ****ers have my name/info, I used stubhub for the Texans vs Pats game last year because I found third row tickets at a much better price than ebay bids I was looking at.
The Texans played in New England last year my friend, so it does affect that guy. Proving my friend thelasik wrong for my 100th post. nice.
That is my understanding. The problem in this instance is that, according to the article, Mass. law prohibits an upcharge of more than $2 over face plus service charges.
1) What it says on the back of the ticket should be irrelevant for two reasons: a) If it is on the back of the ticket, you get notice of the t&c AFTER you purchase the ticket. Thus, the t&c should not even have become part of the contract you entered into when you made your purchase decision. b) Just because a seller tries to dictate in his t&c that he wants to retain a right to control what the buyer does with the object of the purchase does not mean it is legal for the seller to do so. As a general rule, if I, as a buyer, pay money for something, I own it and can do with it whatever I want to do. There is a somewhat similar discussion in the area of software law, where the vendors of software try (and, especially in the US, successfully so) to extend their rights at the expense of the buyer, trying to limit the right of the buyer to resell or transfer what the buyer just paid good money for. Just imagine that you were about to buy a car and the car dealer puts in his t&c that you are "not allowed to resell the car unless the dealer specifically authorizes you to do so". Outrageous? Yes - and I don't see why the primary ticket seller should be allowed to do what the car dealer is not allowed to do. Buyer pays money, owns the ticket, can do with it whatever he wants to do. Attempts by sellers to control what the buyer does with what he just paid good money for should be outlawed - remember, the primary seller (e.g., the Patriots) already got paid, so, in my opinion, the seller cannot even claim to have an economic damage - they set the prices for the primary sale of the ticket and if they priced their tickets inefficiently, then someone else will come and potentially make a profit, but this is how an economy works, there should not be anything illegal about this. 2) The laws in some states against reselling tickets higher than face value are outdated, ridiculous and should be repealed, as has already happened in some states (notably NY). Supply and demand shall determine prices, as is the case with most other goods, not only with tickets. There is no reason for any sort of protectionism on behalf of primary ticket sellers. They already get paid with the primary sale of the ticket, and if a secondary market exists, one simple reason for this is that the primary seller priced his tickets inefficiently. 3) The whole whining about "ticket prices which are too high" is nonsense. High ticket prices on a secondary market are a simple function of demand exceeding supply and someone, as it should be in an efficient market, reaping the benefits from that. If you want cheaper tickets, get in line early and try to get a ticket on the primary market. If you want to still get a ticket (or anything else) from the comfort of your own home in a safe, secure and guaranteed fashion when demand greatly exceeds supply, pay for it. 4) The complaint about high fees is psychologically understandable, but Stubhub and other competitors like viagogo offer a service - they offer a guarantee - you do not have to deal with scalpers in front of a stadium, but you get a safe, secure and guaranteed transaction from the comfort of your home. Nobody forces you to pay the viagogo or Stubhub fees - you can try to go to craigslist or ebay and buy your tickets there - but if something goes wrong with the transaction, you are screwed - there are no guarantees there, and no comparable customer service. Thus, the fees are a) justified, b) evidently worth it to a lot of people, as evidenced by the success of companies like viagogo and stubhub. 5) Since companies like viagogo and stubhub help to create more efficient markets, they will, over time, contribute to lower ticket prices for many events instead of higher ticket prices. Obviously, in some cases where demand greatly exceeds supply, ticket prices will end up higher than face value, but again, this is how any non-communist economy works. However, the same holds true the other way around. If anyone is interested in more analysis on this topic, let me know .
