Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A question for those claiming scalpers are providing a valuable service here:
"When the people staging the show receive the money actually matters very little, as if something is guaranteed to sell out, it doesn't matter if it happens now or later, especially with a limited good like ticket sales."
Really? If they're paying for staging the show with the ticket sales I'd say it matters a great deal when they get the money.
Re: Re: Re: A question for those claiming scalpers are providing a valuable service here:
There is more that one type of risk. In cases where shows are all but guaranteed to sell out, the unknown factor is time. In most cases the stagers will want to sell out straight away. That way they have the money, they have their profit and the money required to stage the show. All months before the show will take place. As far as the stagers are concerned that is a good deal.
Time is also the factor for the people buying the tickets. They might not have enough time to queue/wait on the phone/sit hitting reload to buy the tickets from the official seller. They might not know at release if they'll be able to attend a show in six months. These people a willing to pay a premium to buy their tickets later.
The stagers don't want to have to deal with people who buy tickets on release but then find they cannot attend the event - it represents an extra cost. Scalpers also pay a role here, they'll buy those tickets (or those people will become "scalper" themselves).
I would like to note that I am note arguing against what Loius CK is doing. I am arguing against the position that scalpers (resellers) have no role to play.
Re: A question for those claiming scalpers are providing a valuable service here:
The people staging the events generally want them to sell out. The events will take place months after the tickets first go on sale and the stagers will want to have recouped their costs as soon as possible. Scalpers are absorbing that time risk themselves.
Scalpers also provide a good pricing indicator. If tickets are priced too high scalpers won't buy them (and likely neither will fans). If they're priced too low then scalpers will be making huge margins.
Personally, I believe more experiments need to be made with ticket auctioning. For example, if a ticket reseller (scalper) were allowed to bulk buy tickets (thereby absorbing the risk) and then auction them all at once (in Kickstarter stylus manner).
It is important to note that the scalper in the above example is a risk absorbing middle man. If the artist is willing to take on the risk then that middle man can be bypassed.
Indeed, this is another area where labels can have a future.
You're right there is a big problem with online retailers providing no close up shots of phones and tablets prior to purchase. On top of that, if you tried to buy one in a good-old-fashioned bricks-and-mortar shop, you would absolutely not, in no circumstances, be allowed to examine one closely first.
NO-ONE KNOWS WHAT THEY'VE BOUGHT UNTIL THEY GET IT HOME!
Now the SNP has finally secured a referendum for Scottish independence, they are being pressured to explain their policies on, well, everything. Peter Wishart MP (SNP) has likely been told to pick a side, any side, so SNP can show they have thought about both copyright and the internet.
Google made its money and gained its power by supplying a superior product and not relying on government protection. Google relied entirely on the market (i.e. giving the customer what they want).
For the last thirty years Hollywood has made its money by asking the government to protect and enforce its business model. They have no confidence in their product to they use force to get people to buy it. They gave up on the market and demanded a government enforced (and, therefore, artificial) monopoly.
The public decided that Google was in the public interest.
It's not a strawman, you just have no counterargument because it's true: if there are no safety nets, some unlucky people WILL make mistakes and end up in absolute poverty. There is no way to dispute that.
Your assumption being that if there is no government safety net there is no safety net, as blaktron said:
The idea that just because you take a job away from the Federal Government that it just stops getting done is ridiculous, naive and plain stupid.