Ticket resale by MikeJenny


Ticket resale

More Info
									Ticket resale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ticket resale is the act of reselling tickets for admission to events. Tickets are bought from licensed sellers and
are then sold for a price determined by the individual or company in possession of the tickets. Tickets sold
through secondary sources may be sold for less or more than their face value depending on demand, which itself
tends to vary as the event date approaches. When the supply of tickets for a given event available through
authorized ticket sellers is depleted, the event is considered "sold out", generally increasing the market value for
any tickets on offer through secondary sellers.

Ticket resale is a form of arbitrage that arises when the amount demanded at the sale price exceeds the amount
supplied (that is, when event organizers charge less than the equilibrium prices for the tickets).

Criticism of re-selling
Many event promoters actively discourage ticket scalping.
Individuals who genuinely wish to attend a popular event may find themselves unable to get tickets, as they
have already been sold to ticket resellers. This practice enables the ticket resellers to sell the tickets at market
value, with no effective loss because they had no intention of attending the event in the first place. Resellers
argue that there is a fine line between the individuals who genuinely wish to attend a popular event (and decide
to sell on their tickets later) and those that buy tickets in large quantities in order to resell their tickets for a hefty
profit. The practice of reselling tickets may be defended on "free market" principles although some countries
have outlawed the unauthorized resale of tickets (usually with exceptions where the reseller doesn't profit from
the transaction).

Resale of tickets at sold-out events can also encourage those without tickets to turn up at the venue, in the hope
of purchasing one. This can cause crowd control problems, with numbers in excess of the venue's limits
approaching it, and the access of those with tickets being hampered by a sizeable number of those without.

Legal responses

A concern when buying tickets on the street from a ticket scalper or via an online auction, is that the tickets sold
by ticket resellers may themselves be stolen or counterfeit. For many major sporting events counterfeit tickets
are auctioned off in the months leading up to the event. These criminals and their activities are not to be
confused with legitimate ticket brokers and individuals who abide by law to legally resell tickets on the
secondary market.

It is controversial whether tickets are a good which can be privately resold. Some parties argue that the money
paid to the organisers is actually paid for the service of attending the event, which a buyer cannot resell because
the buyer does not have the service to sell. Other parties argue that tickets are paid for by consumers and should
be transferable just like any other good. Typically private resale will contravene the original conditions of sale,
but it's legally questionable whether the original conditions of sale are even enforceable.
In the United Kingdom resale of football/soccer tickets is illegal under section 166 of the Criminal Justice and
Public Order Act 1994 unless the resale is authorized by the organizer of the match, such as what viagogo is
doing through its partnerships with Chelsea FC, Manchester United, and Everton FC.

A similar situation is applicable in the Netherlands where resale of football tickets is illegal unless through the
official reseller Skelper.nl an official partner of clubs like Feyenoord, PSV, FC Groningen en NEC. The first
official secondary ticketing internet platform launched in the Netherlands in 2007 and by now there are several
like viagogo, seatwave and skelper.

In the United States, ticket resale on the premises of the event (including adjacent parking lots that are officially
part of the facility) may be prohibited by law, although these laws vary from state to state and the majority of
U.S. states do not have laws in place to limit the value placed on the resale amount of event tickets or where and
how these tickets should be sold. Ticket resellers may conduct business on nearby sidewalks, or advertise
through newspaper ads or ticket brokers. Some U.S. states and venues encourage a designated area for resellers
to stand in, on, or near the premises, while other states and venues prohibit ticket resale altogether. Resale laws,
policies and practices are generally decided, practiced and governed at the local or even venue level in the U.S.
and such laws and or interpretations are not currently generalized at a national level.

Another issue in the United States is that since ticketing laws vary by state to state, many ticket resellers use a
loophole and sell their tickets outside of the state of an event. Therefore, a ticket reseller who is reselling tickets
to an event at New York's Madison Square Garden is not subject to New York State's markup laws as long as
the sale takes place outside of New York. The majority of ticket brokers in the New York metropolitan area
have their offices in bordering states New Jersey and Connecticut for this reason. Many states such as California
limit their definition of scalping to the resale of event tickets at the venue for above face value only. Note,
however, that many state and local laws prohibiting peddling on public property or local thoroughfares can
effectively prohibit scalping of any kind.

Depending on the Ticketing body's conditions of sale, tickets may be cancelled, or the ticket holder refused
admission, if tickets are resold at a premium (for a profit). This is so with Ticketek tickets (Ticketek is an
Australian based ticketing company). Efforts to clamp down on ticket resale have included labelling tickets with
the name or a photograph of the buyer,[5] and banning people without tickets from the near vicinity of the event
(where they might otherwise congregate hoping to buy a ticket from a ticket reseller at the last minute).

Online auction sites like eBay only enforce state ticketing laws if either the buyer and/or seller resides in the
state where the event is taking place. Otherwise, there is no resell limit for tickets.
Price gouging
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Price gouging is a pejorative term for a seller pricing much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. In
precise, legal usage, it is the name of a felony that applies in some of the United States only during civil
emergencies. In less precise usage, it can refer either to prices obtained by practices inconsistent with a
competitive free market, or to windfall profits.

As a criminal offense, Florida's law is reasonably typical. Price gouging may be charged when a supplier of
essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or
when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an
emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a
hurricane is imminent. It is a defense to show that the price increase mostly reflects increased costs, such as
running an emergency generator, or hazard pay for workers.

Some support the ability to raise prices under such circumstances, asserting that government prohibition of the
practice is a violation of individual rights or that the ability to raise prices has beneficial effects or both. While
some economists who defend the practice use the term "price gouging", others disparage it as merely pejorative.

In the United States, laws against price gouging have been held constitutional as a valid exercise of the police
power to preserve order during an emergency, and may be combined with anti-hoarding measures. Exceptions
are prescribed for price increases that can be justified in terms of increased cost of supply, transportation or
storage. Statutes generally give wide discretion not to prosecute: in 2004, Florida determined that one-third of
complaints were unfounded, and a large fraction of the remainder were handled by consent decrees, rather than

Many of those who oppose laws against price gouging view the rapid increase of prices as a valid system for
rapidly distributing scarce resources to those who need them most and rewarding those who have prepared for
potential scarcity by taking steps to provide the highly desirable resources. They also argue that since these
systems do not reward the provider, there is decreased incentive for suppliers to plan for unusual demand
situations, causing further scarcity.
Rent control
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rent control refers to laws or ordinances that set price controls on the renting of residential housing. It
functions as a price ceiling.

  History of rent controls in America
In the United States during World War I, rents were "controlled" through the efforts of local rent anti-
profiteering committees and public pressure. Between 1919 and 1924, a number of cities and states adopted rent
and eviction control laws. Modern rent controls were first adopted in response to WWII-era shortages, or
following Richard Nixon's 1971 wage and price controls. They remain in effect or have been reintroduced in
some cities with large tenant populations, such as New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington,
D.C., and Oakland, California. Many smaller communities also have rent control, notably the California cities
of Santa Monica, Berkeley, and West Hollywood,[2] along with many small towns in New Jersey. In recent
years, rent control in some cities, such as Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts, has been ended by state

New York State has had the longest experience of rent controls, since 1943, with most residents being unable to
remember a time beforehand. (Although only 51 communities currently participate in the state's program, New
York City is one of them, and contains the vast majority of units covered by that program.) The period has been
marked by the lack of an "adequate supply of decent... housing".[3] The worsening in the rental market led to the
enactment of the Rent Stabilization Law of 1969, which aimed to help increase the number of places put up for
rent. The current system is very complicated, which is especially troublesome as most of the protected renters
are elderly,[4] and understanding the city's complex rent-control regulations is difficult even for experienced

Purpose and scope
Although the political debate over rent control is far-reaching, as described below, the purposes and provisions
of such laws are intended to be limited in scope. They define which rental units are affected, and may have only
larger or older rental complexes covered by the law. The frequency and degree of rent increases are limited,
usually to the rate of inflation defined by the Consumer Price Index or to a fraction thereof. San Francisco, for
example, allows annual rent increases of 60% of the CPI, up to a maximum 7%.[9]

Unregulated rent increases may be allowed when a tenant moves ("vacancy decontrol"). Rent-control laws that
don't include vacancy decontrol are called strong rent-control laws. Such laws were in effect in five California
cities (West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Berkeley, East Palo Alto and Cotati) in 1996, when AB 1164 (known as
the Costa/Hawkins Bill) made strong rent-control unenforceable in California (except in special cases like
mobile home parks).[10][11][12]
Arguments In Favor
The rental-accommodation market suffers from information asymmetries and high transaction costs. Typically,
a landlord has much more information about a home than a prospective tenant can reasonably detect. Moreover,
once the tenant has moved in, the costs of moving again are very high. Unscrupulous landlords can thus conceal
defects and, if the tenant complains, threaten to raise the rent at the end of the lease. With rent control, tenants
can ensure that hidden defects at least be repaired to comply with building code requirements, without fearing
retaliatory rent increases. Rent control may thus compensate somewhat for inefficiencies of the housing

Rent control is considered necessary by the state of New York[27] to protect the public and to prevent landlords
from imposing rent increases that cause key workers or vulnerable people to leave an area. Maintaining a supply
of affordable housing is believed to be essential to sustaining the local society.[28] Homeowners who support
rent control point to the neighborhood instability caused by high or frequent rent increases and the effect on
schools,[29] youth groups, and community organizations when tenants move more frequently.

In certain instances the term "rent stabilization" is used instead of rent "control," for example, in some cities in
California, such as San Francisco. With rent stabilization and vacancy de-control landlords are free to set prices
of vacant units at market prices, but once rented to a tenant, subsequent increases are capped based on the rate
of inflation or a regulated percentage. This is considered a basic form of consumer protection: once tenants
move into a vacant unit at market rents they can afford and establish lives in these homes, they won't have to
renegotiate. Without rent regulation, landlords can demand any amount and tenants must either pay or move.
Thus, tenants can become vulnerable to arbitrary and extortionate increases above market value. For example,
elderly or disabled tenants may be unable to move, and families risk disrupting children's educations by moving
in the middle of a school year. Advocates insist that finding a new home is not a trivial matter, and tenants
should have some assurance that they can maintain some stability in their housing situation.[citation needed]

It has been contended that housing is a positive human right[31] that equals or exceeds the property rights of
landlords. Therefore the needs of the tenant should equal or override the needs of the landlord.[citation needed]

Without rent control, even tenants paying full rent can be forced unexpectedly from their homes through no
fault of their own. For example, if their landlords mortgaged excessively and the property goes into foreclosure,
tenants may be evicted even in the middle of a lease.[32] In the U.S., federal "bailout" legislation enacted in 2008
may protect some tenants from foreclosure evictions if the loan is owned by Fannie Mae, but others still face
eviction.[33] Many believe, "People who work hard and play by the rules should not find themselves out on the
street when things turn sour through no fault of their own."[34]
Arguments against
Speaking in 1989, Vietnam's Foreign Minister Nguyen Co Thach said: "The Americans couldn't destroy Hanoi,
but we have destroyed our city by very low rents. We realized it was stupid and that we must change policy."[35]

A ceiling on rents reduces the quality and quantity of housing available.[38] [39] Rent regulation, despite its good
intentions, leads to the creation of less housing, raises prices, and increases urban blight.[40]

Price ceilings can create shortages and reduce quality. By capping the price of accommodation, rent control may
increase demand and reduce available supply, causing a shortage.[39] It is argued that rent control also reduces
the quality of available housing, deters investment, and raises rents on tenants who are excluded from its
protections (for example, in jurisdictions with vacancy decontrol, tenants who move or arrive later).

Areas with rent-controlled housing are blamed for difficulty of finding vacant housing and the resulting power
imbalance between landlords and tenants as tenants may "game the system" to impose onerous conditions on
the landlord, forcing long cycles of judicial action, leading to considerable economic hardship for the landlord.
Likewise, new tenants have serious difficulty finding housing, so they are seriously disadvantaged if they must
move. As a result, landlords can impose numerous conditions and requirements.[40]

In jurisdictions that do not already have rent control, introducing it may reduce the resale value of affected
property. The benefits of rent control can accrue disproportionately to wealthy and well-connected tenants.
Affordable housing can be more efficiently made available to the poor and middle income through rent
subsidies, making use of the free market for distribution.[citation needed] Such programs allow the community to
better target those requiring assistance, have a less distorting effect on rents and development, and distribute
affordable housing cost over the community instead of unfairly burdening property owners in the effort to
achieve a social good.

Moreover, it is argued that rent control violates the property rights of the property owners,[36] as it limits what
they may do with their property.

To top