illegal ticket sale on ebay

[cgi.ebay.com]

This person is listing the maximum sale price for a single ticket (the Harvard game naturally) for the season ticket price. When I tried to email ebay I find that there is no way to explain the violation, merely a form to report the specific auction in question. I don't think they will take it down. Ideas?

Inform Cornell Athletics.

Dude, don't help him advertise it by posting the link in here!

Oat
Dude, don't help him advertise it by posting the link in here!

Dude, if I get my way this sale will be canceled and the seller's season tickets will be revoked.

Well, I reported it too. The more people that do it, maybe the more seriously they'll take it.

It may be technically illegal, but that only reveals another anti-constitutional law that infringes personal liberty. It's none of your concern, and none of your business, when two willing people make an uncoerced contract for a private sale.

Ken '70
It may be technically illegal, but that only reveals another anti-constitutional law that infringes personal liberty. It's none of your concern, and none of your business, when two willing people make an uncoerced contract for a private sale.

Agreed.

I appreciate the fact that I am able to find tickets a week or two before a game, even if I have to pay 3x the face value for them. That's what I'm paying for: convenience.

Cheers,
Kyle

here is another take on it though... by putting it on ebay the final price is public, hence joe blow, who might have been thinking about selling his harvard ticket for alot less, will now sell it for the higher price... hence driving the price for everyone on this "black" market up...

basically, scalping is bad. if you have tickets, go to the game... otherwise sell them for face value

Dpperk29
basically, scalping is bad. if you have tickets, go to the game... otherwise sell them for face value

I look at this differently: why doesn't Cornell try to make more money by charging market value for the tickets? They could easily command $25-30/ticket and still sell out the rink.

Yes, ticket holders would still be able to command more individually, but only because they'd be willing to sell individual tickets to people like me who can attend only a few games per year and are willing pay a premium for it.

Bottom line: once Cornell sells the tickets and gets their share, what do they care what others resell the ticket for? Their revenues have already been maximized within their (ridiculously-low) price structure.

In fact the more tickets are scalped (as opposed to going unused in someone's dorm room), the greater the attendance at the game, so in fact everyone wins.

Cheers,
Kyle

but if they were sold for face value instead of being scalped, everyone would win and no one would break any laws

Ken '70
It may be technically illegal, but that only reveals another anti-constitutional law that infringes personal liberty. It's none of your concern, and none of your business, when two willing people make an uncoerced contract for a private sale.

Yours may not be a popular opinion but you're right. What people do in private is their own business.

Dpperk29
but if they were sold for face value instead of being scalped, everyone would win and no one would break any laws

In this case, I believe the law is an ass.

And no, not everyone would win: as I said, I appreciate the convenience of being able to pay a bit more to get a ticket at the last minute. Artificially deflating prices has the result of reducing supply, plain and simple, which makes it more difficult for me to obtain tickets.

Market efficiency---which can be most generally defined as the ability of buyers to acquire what they want---for commodities is optimized through a complete lack of regulation. You can argue differently for other kinds of markets, but nearly everyone agrees with respect to commodities.

Kyle

Ken '70
It may be technically illegal, but that only reveals another anti-constitutional law that infringes personal liberty. It's none of your concern, and none of your business, when two willing people make an uncoerced contract for a private sale.

We get to decide for ourselves what's constitutional and what isn't? Awesome. Prior to now I thought the courts decided that. Since law no longer applies how about the seller violating ebay's user agreement by lying about the face value of the ticket for sale?

krose

Dpperk29
but if they were sold for face value instead of being scalped, everyone would win and no one would break any laws

In this case, I believe the law is an ass.

And no, not everyone would win: as I said, I appreciate the convenience of being able to pay a bit more to get a ticket at the last minute. Artificially deflating prices has the result of reducing supply, plain and simple, which makes it more difficult for me to obtain tickets.

Market efficiency---which can be most generally defined as the ability of buyers to acquire what they want---for commodities is optimized through a complete lack of regulation. You can argue differently for other kinds of markets, but nearly everyone agrees with respect to commodities.

Kyle

as unpopular as it may be, i agree with you entirely. imposing a price ceiling causes too many people to want a commodity in short supply. and saying the value of the ticket is only $15 isnt accurate. if there is a person willing to pay $71 (or $145 or $1000) for the ticket, then it is worth that to them. they're paying for the ticket and the convenience, or the opportunity, or whatever they want. the value is what the consumer is willing to pay for it.

it's a silly law. but it is a law

No, we don't get to decide. The Constitution decides. It's a plain language document. The powers of the Federal government are enumerated in article 1 section 8. Go here to refesh your memory [www.law.cornell.edu]

The Bill of Rights specifically and unambigously limits government power to those enumerated. The 14th amendment extends those individual rights to protection from the States as well as the Feds.

Show me were the Constituton delegates a power to interfere with private contracts of this type.

I believe GWB and his unary executive theory have made it clear that activist judges should have no role in interpreting laws or the constitution.

So unless Bush signs an order to send the scalper to Gitmo, the sale is as legal as, say, the surveillance by which Bush would have heard about it.

Ken '70: I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the problem with your analysis is that it simply doesn't apply with respect to Cornell taking any action. They can -- and it's written in plain English on the back of the tickets -- take away your ticket for any reason they want. So if they don't like this ebay dude scalping, they have the right to ask eBay to cancel the sale -- and I don't know of any reason for eBay to not be within their rights to do so -- and revoke the season tickets (though I don't know how they'd enforce that).

So even if the scalping law is bogus, it seems to me that Cornell has the right to protect its tickets' artificially low prices by responding to scalpers, and it furthermore seems within the public's rights to ask Cornell to do so, whether or not you agree that it's a right we should exercise.

Oh, and also, I believe the scalping law is actually New York State's, not the Federal's. And pointing again to that famous document, precisely because the Federal government does *not* have jurisdiction here, as you point out, the Tenth Amendment gives that jurisdiction to NYS.

Ken '70
No, we don't get to decide. The Constitution decides. It's a plain language document. The powers of the Federal government are enumerated in article 1 section 8. Go here to refesh your memory [www.law.cornell.edu]

The Bill of Rights specifically and unambigously limits government power to those enumerated. The 14th amendment extends those individual rights to protection from the States as well as the Feds.

So you are both an originalist and a fan of incorporation theory? Don't see too many of those. I think most constitutional scholars would agree that (a) the Feds have the right to regulate interstate commerce (I, 8, iii), so to the extent that the sales are done interstate OR there is a national market for the goods (Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzalez v. Raich) scalping laws would be ok, but more relevant here, (b) it is well within the police power of state governments to establish contract law for transactions within its borders (Am. X).


Feel free to despise the economic theory behind ticket scalping law but please don't drag the Constitution through the mud in the process.

ugarte

Ken '70
No, we don't get to decide. The Constitution decides. It's a plain language document. The powers of the Federal government are enumerated in article 1 section 8. Go here to refesh your memory [www.law.cornell.edu]

The Bill of Rights specifically and unambigously limits government power to those enumerated. The 14th amendment extends those individual rights to protection from the States as well as the Feds.

So you are both an originalist and a fan of incorporation theory? Don't see too many of those. I think most constitutional scholars would agree that (a) the Feds have the right to regulate interstate commerce, so to the extent that the sales are done interstate OR there is a market that extends beyond state lines scalping laws would be ok, but more relevant here, (b) it is well within the police power of state governments to establish contract law for transactions within its borders.

Feel free to despise the economic theory behind ticket scalping law but please don't drag the Constitution through the mud in the process.

Plus, see Lochner v. New York and its (ugh) "progeny" for why completely unrestrained freedom of contract is not always a swell idea, constitutionality aside. If you can privately negotiate a $1/day wage and a 90-hour work week with someone, who should be able to tell you that you're not allowed? The unemployment rate is a market force, too. Aren't all market forces good?

Beeeej

I am not being sarcastic. I agree with krose. By talking about it, I think we're helping the seller by drawing more attention to this auction.

Oat
I am not being sarcastic. I agree with krose. By talking about it, I think we're helping the seller by drawing more attention to this auction.

Well, that ship has pretty much sailed. But you could always fight fire with fire by starting a dummy account and bidding up the price to where nobody will outbid you, then not pay. Though I would certainly never advise such a thing.

Beeeej

Beeeej

Oat
I am not being sarcastic. I agree with krose. By talking about it, I think we're helping the seller by drawing more attention to this auction.

Well, that ship has pretty much sailed. But you could always fight fire with fire by starting a dummy account and bidding up the price to where nobody will outbid you, then not pay. Though I would certainly never advise such a thing.

Beeeej

HAHAHAHA!!! Beeeej's logic is UNDENIABLE!!!

Although.. remember guys, he would certainly never advise such a thing, especially on the internet.

ELynah: the only college hockey forum where users cite Supreme Court cases on a regular basis.

(I love this school )

Sorry, but I'm opposed to selling tickets at "market" price. Hockey tickets are subsidized by the school. Remember, most undergrads aren't exactly rolling in dough. Also remember, we're in an institute that believes in amateurism to the point of not offering athletic scholarships. If you start letting people scalp tickets to a hockey game, the base price will rise to even more unrealistic levels and be unattainable except for the richest fans, student or townie.

Maybe I'm still an idealist, but I believe in the concept of community. And in this case that means only buying hockey tickets if you intend to be a hockey fan, and looking out for your neighbor by not selling tickets specifically for profit.

Look, I'm as big a fan of capitalism as the next guy but I think an institution has a right to set ticket prices at whatever level they deem appropriate to guarantee an audience composition of their liking and they deserve some help from the government to achieve their goal. If were talking about the New York Yankees with 81 homes games in a 55,000 seat stadium I'd be less inclined to rally to the support of Steinbrenner's revenue or his fans ability to pay. Cornell is a non-profit entity and while hockey is the only real revenue generating sport the school has decided to sacrifice some income for the good of the students. Broadway theaters often offer last minute tickets at the box office (I'm not talking about the half price TKTS booth in the middle of Times Square) for very low prices. These tickets are often referred to as "student rush" which I always assumed meant the theaters were trying to put tickets in the hands of people with less money. Or take the free Shakespeare in Central Park. Do you think it right for someone to get a free ticket and then sell them it on Craigslist for $50 an hour later? Is it ok because Time Warner is underwriting the event so the Public Theatre isn't deprived of anything? If unbridled capitalism is the end game then why doesn't Cornell do away with student and non-student sections and simply hold a dutch auctio for all seats?

And Kyle I disagree that this makes more tickets available. In this particular ebay sale the seller has zero previous sales of any kind - at least under this user name. As he or she has provided us with the section and row number only - Sec. G, row 10 - and no seat number it is clear they are doing everything they can to not get caught. I suspect that this person is trying to recoup as much of the cost of the season ticket package as possible. If he or she succeeds, what incentive do they have to sell their tickets to lesser games like Quinnipiac or RIT? Are we to believe that this person has made it to every home game thus far, even the ones over break, and can't make it to the Harvard game? Call me skeptical.

You all do realize that this auction is from out of state? Here is the tagline from the auction:

New York residents: New York state law limits the resale ticket price for this event location, so your maximum bid cannot exceed $145.00.


Here is a tagline from another auction that resides in NYS:

Bidders: New York state law limits the resale ticket price for this event location.
This means that bidding will end when the price reaches $577.10. See eBay's ticket policy.


Notice the first only applies to NYS residents. That's because the seller's billing address is in another state so eBay doesn't have to enforce a NYS law unless the other party is located in NYS. They're not going to stop this auction because as far as they know this guy is located out of state.

The auction clearly says that the item is in Ithaca, NY and the only delivery option is local pickup.

Anybody else finding it impossible to actually file a report with eBay? "Report a violation" links that lead nowhere, forms with only one field that return a "You haven't filled out all the fields" error message, etc.?

What a fabulous self-policing system.

Beeeej

Beeeej
Anybody else finding it impossible to actually file a report with eBay? "Report a violation" links that lead nowhere, forms with only one field that return a "You haven't filled out all the fields" error message, etc.?

What a fabulous self-policing system.

Beeeej

[pages.ebay.com]

"Report Listing Violations" at the bottom.

DeltaOne81

Beeeej
Anybody else finding it impossible to actually file a report with eBay? "Report a violation" links that lead nowhere, forms with only one field that return a "You haven't filled out all the fields" error message, etc.?

What a fabulous self-policing system.

Beeeej

[pages.ebay.com]

"Report Listing Violations" at the bottom.

That points me to a very helpful form which, after I enter the item number and press "Send," tells me, "There was an error in your input. Please go back and ensure that all fields are properly filled in."

If you are able to obtain a different result, I hope you're actually reporting the auction in question (item 6602432109).

Beeeej

KenP
Sorry, but I'm opposed to selling tickets at "market" price. Hockey tickets are subsidized by the school. Remember, most undergrads aren't exactly rolling in dough.

You can solve this problem by requiring ticket holders to present a student ID along with their ticket when they try to enter, effectively destroying the secondary market for student section tickets.

Really, it simply comes down to how much power I want government to have, and that is: very little. I see no reason why the government should have the power to define artificial limits to private market transactions.

If Cornell wants to combat the secondary market problem, they can issue tickets that are limited to students or even to an individual student, although the latter would guarantee lots of empty seats at every game, so I doubt it would be optimal. What they should not be able to do is to use government to tell you that you can resell the ticket, but only for what Cornell deems appropriate. The doctrine of first sale should apply here, just as it does to almost everything else.

Also remember, we're in an institute that believes in amateurism to the point of not offering athletic scholarships.

What does this have to do with anything? If you're going to try for an analogy, you should try to explain it, or use one that's more obvious.

If you start letting people scalp tickets to a hockey game, the base price will rise to even more unrealistic levels and be unattainable except for the richest fans, student or townie.

Let me tell you my own story.

I was a sophomore when I discovered Cornell hockey. My friend Chris Pike came to me one day in November of 1995 and said, "Hey, I can't use this ticket: why don't you go?" I said, "Sure!", although I didn't know what to expect. Well, after that night, I was hooked. I never missed another home game until my graduation three years later.

How does this story relate to this conversation? I had no money. I was po', despite having a campus job. I don't know how many times my friends asked me to go to the movies with them, and I had to say, "Sorry guys, I can't afford it." Really. Most of the "underprivileged" kids on campus only had one $250 North Face jacket and a $30,000 Saab. In contrast, I had a ratty old parka my folks bought me about 4 years earlier. I only had a car for my senior year, and the brake lines gave out during the winter, which led to (in retrospect) a rather amusing day spent replacing them in CC lot. Yadda yadda yadda. You get the picture.

Part of the reason I had no money to go to the movies is that I had priorities. One of those priorities was paying for tickets. I couldn't do a lot of things, but I'll be damned, I was going to be able to afford those tickets.

I doubt I would have noticed the difference between the $150 I had to pay and the $400 I should have been paying; it simply would have meant that more of my disposable income would have gone into hockey tickets, and less into food and other entertainment.

Moral: true fans, no matter how strapped for cash they are, will get to the games even if the tickets are sold at market value.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
Really, it simply comes down to how much power I want government to have, and that is: very little. I see no reason why the government should have the power to define artificial limits to private market transactions.

Are you really that absolutist? See, again, Lochner v. New York. If there are enough people out of work that you can privately contract with employees to take an extremely low wage and oppressively long work hours, why should the government be able to step in?

Beeeej

krose
Really, it simply comes down to how much power I want government to have, and that is: very little. I see no reason why the government should have the power to define artificial limits to private market transactions.

[www.c-span.org]

I reported the auction to eBay.

And Kyle I disagree that this makes more tickets available. In this particular ebay sale the seller has zero previous sales of any kind - at least under this user name. As he or she has provided us with the section and row number only - Sec. G, row 10 - and no seat number it is clear they are doing everything they can to not get caught. I suspect that this person is trying to recoup as much of the cost of the season ticket package as possible.

Sounds like a great way for a financially-strapped student to recoup some of the cost of season tickets. I like that approach.

If he or she succeeds, what incentive do they have to sell their tickets to lesser games like Quinnipiac or RIT?

This reasoning is simply asinine.

The greater the market value of a commodity, the more likely someone is to sell it, because there's a greater chance the money recouped will outweigh whatever added value it has to the person.

Artificially deflating the market value means people are more likely not to think about the tickets sitting in their dorm rooms over break when people like me would be willing to---but are unable to, by law---pay a premium for them. This is exactly what happened to the Clarkson and SLU tickets this year: lots of seats wound up going unfilled because fraternity and sorority members not able to go to the games didn't bother reselling the tickets.

This inaction was prompted at least in part by the high cost/benefit ratio of selling them legally: you first need to find a market (and not everyone is familiar with ELynah); then, you need to go meet them somewhere, and pray they aren't psycho; finally, you have to pray that they won't go online and resell them illegally, or go to the game and scream "FUCK EM UP!!!!!", and get your season tickets revoked. I can easily see how this trouble isn't worth $15. But is it worth $30 or $40? That's a much easier bargain to drive.

Are we to believe that this person has made it to every home game thus far, even the ones over break, and can't make it to the Harvard game? Call me skeptical.

Maybe he made the decision to recoup most of his costs on the most valuable game, so he could afford to provide his support to the team for the rest of the games. Who knows? You certainly don't, and neither do I.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose
Moral: true fans, no matter how strapped for cash they are, will get to the games even if the tickets are sold at market value.

see, i thought the moral was "true fans" are defined by krose, or the chicago school, or those who post most often on elynah, or some other arbitrary measure....

Beeeej
Are you really that absolutist? See, again, Lochner v. New York. If there are enough people out of work that you can privately contract with employees to take an extremely low wage and oppressively long work hours, why should the government be able to step in?

They shouldn't be able to. The alternative to allowing companies to pay market rate for workers is for fewer jobs to be available. I fail to see how starving is better than earning enough of a pittance to feed your family.

Remember that wages don't exist in a vacuum: lower wages mean less spending, which equals lower earnings, which cycles back to lower wages. It isn't always about the big bad company trying to screw the little guy: it's about competition, which invariably creates wealth. That's how capitalism works.

Cheers,
Kyle

I think KenP has it exactly right. Cornell sells the tickets at a reasonable price (Princeton made me pay $12 standing room for the Cornell game!) and Lynah faithful line up to buy the tickets. Ideally, the most faithful should get the tickets, and tickets should be resold at face value to other faithful, not to the wealthiest faithful.

I think this becomes a discussion between what is legal and what is right. Cornell could solve the whole ticket line problem by just saying "anyone willing to pay $1000 come pick your seat...$999....$998... until all the seats are gone. This would be legal, but I don't think anyone would argue that it is right.

I am not a lawyer, but when Cornell sells the ticket, aren't they allowed to limit the rights of the purchaser to resell? If they do this, what is the argument for the marketplace setting the value?

krose

Beeeej
Are you really that absolutist? See, again, Lochner v. New York. If there are enough people out of work that you can privately contract with employees to take an extremely low wage and oppressively long work hours, why should the government be able to step in?

They shouldn't be able to. The alternative to allowing companies to pay market rate for workers is for fewer jobs to be available. I fail to see how starving is better than earning enough of a pittance to feed your family.

Remember that wages don't exist in a vacuum: lower wages mean less spending, which equals lower earnings, which cycles back to lower wages. It isn't always about the big bad company trying to screw the little guy: it's about competition, which invariably creates wealth. That's how capitalism works.

Spoken like someone who has never had to work 60-hour weeks breathing in baking flour only to earn not enough of a pittance to feed his family.

Capitalism, it is generally agreed, creates an underclass by necessity, and most modern thinkers agree that there should be some kind of safety nets in place for those most affected by it. Absolutist libertarians, I hate to say, are usually those would be the least marginalized by removing those safety nets. It leaves me curious how they'd sleep at night if they actually achieved what they were after.

Beeeej

Kyle, you can't prove that tickets to St. Lawrence and Clarkson went unsold because of anti-scalping laws. More likely that the students in question don't know about eLynah. Even more likely they don't need the money. And the law does allow resale with a 20% premium.

krose
Artificially deflating the market value means people are more likely not to think about the tickets sitting in their dorm rooms over break when people like me would be willing to---but are unable to, by law---pay a premium for them. This is exactly what happened to the Clarkson and SLU tickets this year: lots of seats wound up going unfilled because fraternity and sorority members not able to go to the games didn't bother reselling the tickets.

*I* just wish there were some way to fill those seats. Another great advantage of general admission: you could count the gen ads that appeared at the gate and modify the number of "standing room" tickets you sell based on that number. Make standing rooms (or call them "2nd class gen ad" or whatever) equivalent to gen ads once the puck drops. People that don't make it for the start of the game get to hope their ticket hasn't already been "resold."

Of course, that would also drive the market value of student tickets down... which, depending on your viewpoint, would be a good or a bad thing.

Beeeej,
I was able to "report" the auction but ebay doesn't let you explain why you are reporting it - probably so they can claim ignorance later.

original poster
Kyle, you can't prove that tickets to St. Lawrence and Clarkson went unsold because of anti-scalping laws. More likely that the students in question don't know about eLynah. Even more likely they don't need the money.

Probably a combination of a lot of factors. But my point was simply that many of the people who didn't bother for $15 would have bothered for $30 or $40. There's no way to prove it either way, but I strongly suspect this is the case.

Cheers,
Kyle

*I* just wish there were some way to fill those seats. Another great advantage of general admission: you could count the gen ads that appeared at the gate and modify the number of "standing room" tickets you sell based on that number. Make standing rooms (or call them "2nd class gen ad" or whatever) equivalent to gen ads once the puck drops. People that don't make it for the start of the game get to hope their ticket hasn't already been "resold."

I wish they'd just make it general admission for every game: then I wouldn't have to worry about getting tickets before going to Ithaca. I could show up 1-1/2 hours before the game and be assured of a seat, just like everyone else. Reserved seats have their place (people who like paying more for that convenience, I suppose), but ideally most of the arena would be general admission.

Another upside: this would solve the scalping "problem."

Cheers,
Kyle

ugarte
So you are both an originalist and a fan of incorporation theory? Don't see too many of those. I think most constitutional scholars would agree that (a) the Feds have the right to regulate interstate commerce (I, 8, iii), so to the extent that the sales are done interstate OR there is a national market for the goods (Wickard v. Filburn, Gonzalez v. Raich) scalping laws would be ok, but more relevant here, (b) it is well within the police power of state governments to establish contract law for transactions within its borders (Am. X).


Feel free to despise the economic theory behind ticket scalping law but please don't drag the Constitution through the mud in the process.

I don't know what incorporation theory is, and I don't know what type of originalism you're referring to so I can't answer that first question.

I can tell you that most "constitutional scholars" (Lawrence Tribe comes to mind) labor on behalf of creating gossamer thin rationales for the legislature to do whatever it wants despite limitations of the Constitution. And Raich is an excellent example of that perversity.

According to that decision the commerce clause allows the Feds to prohibit a private individual from growing a plant, legal in the state of CA and prescribed by his doctor, solely for that individual's use and never to be taken off his private property. You need a "constitutional scholar" to explain how you get to that power of the Federal government from the simple statement which grants congress the ability "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,..."

Police powers are granted to states in the 10th Amendment, they include protection of the welfare, safety, and health of the public. A private sale of a hockey ticket falls within the proper police powers of a State? Only in the collectivist utopian fantasy where the government controls eveything for the good of the people.

Finally, the "illegality" in the title refers to state law, not Federal, and the commerce clause is a delegation to the Federal legislature, not state.

I love people who are positive they know what the wording in the Constitution means, and can't fathom how anybody could read it a different way.

Beeeej

WWJSD?

What Would John Spencer Do?

atb9
WWJSD?

What Would John Spencer Do?

He'd keep right except to pass!

(Point taken, though.)

Cheers,
Kyle

Ken '70
I don't know what incorporation theory is, and I don't know what type of originalism you're referring to so I can't answer that first question.

After this you should have just admitted that you are way, way out of your depth in discussing constitutional law. Seriously.

But atb9's got this one righter than either of us, so I'll stop now also.

Has somebody reported the auction to Cornell athletics?

jtwcornell91
Has somebody reported the auction to Cornell athletics?

Seriously, who cares? Why all the rats? If you don't want to pay so high for the ticket, don't bid. If you do, than so be it. You guys all remind me of my classmates in high school who told the teacher when they forgot to give us homework. Grow up.

Also, instead of the wonderfully entertaining Constitutional law discourse above, perhaps you all should take a look at a more pertinent document, the anti-scalping statute in New York. It is questionable there actually exists illegal activity in the first place and since Cornell does not print face value on season tickets, one can sell it for whatever price he sees fit.

Facetimer

jtwcornell91
Has somebody reported the auction to Cornell athletics?

Seriously, who cares? Why all the rats? If you don't want to pay so high for the ticket, don't bid. If you do, than so be it. You guys all remind me of my classmates in high school who told the teacher when they forgot to give us homework. Grow up.

I like living in a world where I can buy tickets at face value. To help promote that, I only sell tickets for either face value or what they actually cost me. I also want to see the laws that make it harder to scalp tickets enforced. But then I'm practically a communist.

Facetimer
Also, instead of the wonderfully entertaining Constitutional law discourse above, perhaps you all should take a look at a more pertinent document, the anti-scalping statute in New York. It is questionable there actually exists illegal activity in the first place and since Cornell does not print face value on season tickets, one can sell it for whatever price he sees fit.

Really? I don't have them in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that each ticket on my season ticket sheet has $15 printed on it.

[q]Really? I don't have them in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that each ticket on my season ticket sheet has $15 printed on it.[/q]Besides, I don't think the "but it wasn't printed on the ticket!" defense will carry much weight in court.

Meanwhile, and more importantly, the idiot selling it has 16hrs left and hasn't reached his reserve price... if it ends that way the only one making money is EBay Inc. on a listing fee.

Cactus12
Meanwhile, and more importantly, the idiot selling it has 16hrs left and hasn't reached his reserve price... if it ends that way the only one making money is EBay Inc. on a listing fee.

That would be a little bit of capitalism that I think we could all appreciate!

Beeeej

Oat
I am not being sarcastic. I agree with krose. By talking about it, I think we're helping the seller by drawing more attention to this auction.

Well, that ship has pretty much sailed. But you could always fight fire with fire by starting a dummy account and bidding up the price to where nobody will outbid you, then not pay. Though I would certainly never advise such a thing.

Beeeej

Nor would any member of the bar!

Cornell doesn't limit the resale of the ticket but New York State does. The "scalping" laws were amended I believe in 2004-05 and it basically states that if your venue is smaller than 6,000 then you can not resale for more than 15% of the face value. If the venue is larger than 6,000 than you can get what the market brings.

The problem with this particular situation is that Cornell does not print the value (price) on the ticket thus making prosecution nearly impossible.

i dunno, my tickets say $15.00 on them right under the date and to the right of the starting time. Kinda hard to miss on the season tickets, though I'm not sure if the non-student version (i think they're different though that might just be tickets bought that day) have them.

Cop at Lynah
Cornell doesn't limit the resale of the ticket but New York State does. The "scalping" laws were amended I believe in 2004-05 and it basically states that if your venue is smaller than 6,000 then you can not resale for more than 15% of the face value. If the venue is larger than 6,000 than you can get what the market brings.

The problem with this particular situation is that Cornell does not print the value (price) on the ticket thus making prosecution nearly impossible.

This has changed as nr53 mentioned. The years before there was no price printed (the last 2 seasons at least). This year the season tickets for students say $15.00 as well

[q]The problem with this particular situation is that Cornell does not print the value (price) on the ticket thus making prosecution nearly impossible.[/q]I find this hard to believe. If the ticket is part of a season ticket package then the seller knows roughly how much each ticket is worth. The I don't know defense might work if the final price is close to the border, since it's unclear how much the Harvard ticket specifically was sold for. But when you sell one ticket for the same price as the entire slate of 15 (?) tickets then it's pretty clear you've exceeded the 15% threshhold.

Now whether the DA would waste his time prosecuting is a different story. Frankly going after single ticket sellers like this would not be worth the trouble.

The University of Notre Dame has regulations on re-selling of their football (and other) tickets to prevent scalping. The only time that ND football tickets can be "sold" above face value is in an auction-type event that is raising money for the school or a university-approved charity.

[und.collegesports.com]

jtwcornell91


I like living in a world where I can buy tickets at face value. To help promote that, I only sell tickets for either face value or what they actually cost me. I also want to see the laws that make it harder to scalp tickets enforced. But then I'm practically a communist.

Is this guy driving up the market? Are prices out of control because of this guy? Relax, John. Are you even planning on purchasing a ticket at all to this game? We all know, including frequent posters to eLynah like yourself, that there are pleanty of tickets available at face value. Even to Harvard.

Really? I don't have them in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that each ticket on my season ticket sheet has $15 printed on it.

I graduated two years ago, and they weren't printed on them then. I stand corrected.

KeithK
I find this hard to believe. If the ticket is part of a season ticket package then the seller knows roughly how much each ticket is worth.

As the statute clearly state, it doesn't matter what the seller believes, they call it face value for a reason. Certainly the Harvard ticket has a higher supply/demand factor thus if there is no value indicated, one could easily say the ticket is worth more than $15.00. If Cornell wants to prevent tickets being sold above "face value," they are the ones that have to declare what it is.

By the way, the law also includes a proviso which allows the scalpee to recover damages, cost and attorneys fees. Why don't you buy this guy's ticket and then sue him. I bet Beeeeej will represent you and submit an inflated bill for his fees in an attempt to recover more than he is worth. This way you accomplish two very important goals: (1) you get to go to the game; and (2) you don't look like a communist like John T. Whelan.

Facetimer
(2) you don't look like a communist like John T. Whelan.

It's the beard, isn't it?

ummm, we are such nerds.

I actually don't like anti-scalping laws, so no law suit from me. I may think the guy is acting like a jerk trying to gouge Cornell fans, but he should have a legal right to do it. Just trying to figure out how a court would interpret "face value" as meaning anything other than what the person paid for it (total package price divided by number of games). Now I suppose this depends entirely on the wording of the statute and if it uses the term "face value" then what the court decideds this term means. Unfortunately legal interpretations don't always match common sense ones though. Sometimes it seems like they usually don't.

Cop at Lynah
Cornell doesn't limit the resale of the ticket but New York State does.

Cornell's ticket policies state that anybody found to be reselling a ticket at a price higher than New York State law allows may have their entire season ticket rescinded. I believe that's been true for at least two years.

Cop at Lynah
The "scalping" laws were amended I believe in 2004-05

The changes don't go into effect until June 1, 2007. In the meantime, the old law is still in effect as follows:

Cop at Lynah
and it basically states that if your venue is smaller than 6,000 then you can not resale for more than 15% of the face value.

If the venue is smaller than 6,000 the limit is 20% over face value.

Cop at Lynah
If the venue is larger than 6,000 than you can get what the market brings.

If the venue is larger than 6,000 the limit is 45% over face value.

Cop at Lynah
The problem with this particular situation is that Cornell does not print the value (price) on the ticket thus making prosecution nearly impossible.

As has been pointed out, every ticket now has a price printed on it.

The post-6/1/07 law is a little less clear, but believe it or not, it seems more onerous, not less. If I'm understanding it correctly, Cornell will be required to print the price on the ticket, and will be required to print its "maximum premium" on the ticket as well. This means Cornell gets to decide how much over face value you're allowed to resell for - but in no event can Cornell make that premium more than $2. I'm willing to believe that I don't understand the impending change correctly, and would welcome clarification from anybody who does.

"Cop at Lynah" is probably a true statement.

Beeeej

Well, some idiot stepped in at the last minute and paid $150

KeithK
Just trying to figure out how a court would interpret "face value" as meaning anything other than what the person paid for it (total package price divided by number of games).

It has been pointed out that the price is on the ticket, so this is largely moot, but ...

Assuming Facetimer was right and there was no "face value," on the ticket, court enforcement is almost beside the point. People here were asking eBay to cancel a sale for being too far above face value. If the ticket had no obvious indicia of price, eBay would probably be reluctant to cancel a sale at the request of any party except Cornell.

I agree with you that eBay wouldn't want to cancel the sale. Why would they believe you or me as to what the ticket was worth? I was just making the point that I wouldn't expect that argument to holdup as a point of law.

eBay already relies on the information given to it by the seller, and is generally unwilling to take anyone else's word for it. Besides, as has been mentioned, "reporting" the auction involves simply entering the item number; you can't include a comment, send them a photo of a sample ticket with its face value legible, or explain that someone's lying about where they live. I'm pretty firmly convinced the only reason they have the rules available for users to read, and systems in place to "report" violations, is so they don't have any liability themselves.

If any actual enforcement is likely to happen, it's going to be from Gene. Unless someone feels like dragging the Ithaca Police into it, which I suppose wouldn't be completely unwarranted if we're really talking about enforcement.

Beeeej

I suppose the issue is dead now. Presumably the buyer is not registered with ebay as being in New York as the final sale price is over $145 (max. the seller indicated for New York residents). If the money is transfered through PayPal then the only real transaction taking place in New York is the physical transfer of the ticket so there is no law enforcement angle.

Anyway, nobody addressed what I asked earlier about whether an organization has a right to select its audience through pricing. If Cornell wants to underprice its tickets relative to demand do they have a right to prevent a secondary market?

anon
If the money is transfered through PayPal then the only real transaction taking place in New York is the physical transfer of the ticket so there is no law enforcement angle.

If the PayPal account holder is in New York, as is likely the case here, the financial transaction very much takes place in New York. There is no separate jurisdiction called "cyberspace," and transfering funds there doesn't exempt you from the laws of the state where you sit.

anon
Anyway, nobody addressed what I asked earlier about whether an organization has a right to select its audience through pricing. If Cornell wants to underprice its tickets relative to demand do they have a right to prevent a secondary market?

An event ticket is a purchased license. Cornell may condition the purchase of that license just about any way it wants to, as long as it's legal - and insisting that you obey the laws of New York State is pretty legal.

Beeeej

Beeeej
An event ticket is a purchased license.

It's not this simple. No, IANAL, but from what I understand the doctrine of first sale limits what a seller may enforce on purchasers through license agreements, the exact details of which depend on the class of good or service being sold.

This is the reason why used CD stores have been blessed by the courts despite the efforts of record labels to restrict resale through end-user license agreements.

Cheers,
Kyle

krose

Beeeej
An event ticket is a purchased license.

It's not this simple. No, IANAL, but from what I understand the doctrine of first sale limits what a seller may enforce on purchasers through license agreements, the exact details of which depend on the class of good or service being sold.

This is the reason why used CD stores have been blessed by the courts despite the efforts of record labels to restrict resale through end-user license agreements.

Of course it's not an absolute, but you're comparing apples and oranges.

Besides, anybody who wishes to challenge Cornell's right to enforce their policies on season ticket holders has as much access to the courts as the used CD stores do. I wish them the best of luck.

Beeeej

Beeeej, In the prior sentence I said that I was assuming the buyer was not in New York. I assume (incorrectly perhaps) that ebay will prevent a user registered in New York from exceding the maximum bid. I was not making a judgement about cyberspace.

Beeeej
Of course it's not an absolute, but you're comparing apples and oranges.

You can say this about any two items that could be resold (for that matter, including apples and oranges). This is hardly a convincing argument.

Besides, anybody who wishes to challenge Cornell's right to enforce their policies on season ticket holders has as much access to the courts as the used CD stores do. I wish them the best of luck.

Indeed. Or they could just be smart and, like this guy, make it difficult to figure out whose tickets they are.

Cheers,
Kyle

I understand.

Still, the fact that the buyer isn't registered with eBay as being in New York doesn't make him not in New York - as evidenced by the fact that the listing claims the item is in Ithaca, and he'll only hand-transfer the item, not mail it.

If the item is in New York and the transfer of the item takes place in New York, the transfer of the money isn't an issue to begin with. eBay relying only on the state of registration is still more evidence they are deliberately looking the other way.

Beeeej

krose

Beeeej
Of course it's not an absolute, but you're comparing apples and oranges.

You can say this about any two items that could be resold (for that matter, including apples and oranges). This is hardly a convincing argument.

Nor is it an invalid one simply because it can be made in other circumstances.

krose

Besides, anybody who wishes to challenge Cornell's right to enforce their policies on season ticket holders has as much access to the courts as the used CD stores do. I wish them the best of luck.

Indeed. Or they could just be smart and, like this guy, make it difficult to figure out whose tickets they are.

Yes, if one is inclined to break the law, one always has the option of choosing not to make it obvious.

(How many seats are there in Section G, Row 10? You really think Gene won't try to figure out who it is, and have a pretty easy time of it?)

Beeeej

Beeeej
(How many seats are there in Section G, Row 10? You really think Gene won't try to figure out who it is, and have a pretty easy time of it?)

If Gene is foolish enough to revoke someone's season tickets on the basis of anything less than proof positive, at least the victim doesn't need a lawyer to take Cornell to small claims court.

Kyle

krose

Beeeej
(How many seats are there in Section G, Row 10? You really think Gene won't try to figure out who it is, and have a pretty easy time of it?)

If Gene is foolish enough to revoke someone's season tickets on the basis of anything less than proof positive, at least the victim doesn't need a lawyer to take Cornell to small claims court.

Who said anything about "less than proof positive"?

Beeeej

Beeeej
Who said anything about "less than proof positive"?

Let's just say I'd be rightly impressed if Gene made the $150 bid just to get the ticket with the seat info.

Cheers,
Kyle

Ha! So would I. Y'know, the winning bidder's feedback did say he was quite a hockey fan...!

Beeeej

Folks,
I have 3 or 4 times this year had an extra ticket due to son not being able to come to the game one night or the other - each time I was able to sell it for face value or less to some one who wanted to see the game and cheer on the Big Red right outside the entrance to the gym lobby in the 20- mins before game start. So there is some last minute 'friendly' sales of some tickets right before games -
Just my stance against scalping for a profit - a personal preference -

There almost always are people trying to get rid tickets outside the rink. So getting in last minute should rarely be a problem. Not that I'd fly from California on the 18th based on that hope though...

billhoward
What people do in private is their own business.

But listing on eBay is far from private. That's why eBay has rules about scalping in the first place.

gtsully

billhoward
What people do in private is their own business.

But listing on eBay is far from private. That's why eBay has rules about scalping in the first place.

No, eBay has rules about scalping so that they don't get in legal trouble for facilitating scalpers. If there were no chance of consequences I bet eBay would be more than happy to let you charge whatever the heck you want for your tickets.

jtwcornell91

Facetimer
(2) you don't look like a communist like John T. Whelan.

It's the beard, isn't it?

You post in German. Marx wrote in German. Hmmm....

Trotsky

jtwcornell91

Facetimer
(2) you don't look like a communist like John T. Whelan.

It's the beard, isn't it?

You post in German. Marx wrote in German. Hmmm....

And so did Hitler!

And thus Godwin is proved right once again...

KeithK

Trotsky

jtwcornell91

Facetimer
(2) you don't look like a communist like John T. Whelan.

It's the beard, isn't it?

You post in German. Marx wrote in German. Hmmm....

And so did Hitler!

And thus Godwin is proved right once again...

You made me go to Wikipedia to confirm what I assumed the law was. Since I did, please remember the codicil re: intentional invocation.

Let's continue discussing how we know that John is a communist. I say that it is because he is living in a city that has turned its back on God.

ugarte

KeithK

Trotsky

jtwcornell91

Facetimer
(2) you don't look like a communist like John T. Whelan.

It's the beard, isn't it?

You post in German. Marx wrote in German. Hmmm....

And so did Hitler!

And thus Godwin is proved right once again...

You made me go to Wikipedia to confirm what I assumed the law was. Since I did, please remember the codicil re: intentional invocation.

Let's continue discussing how we know that John is a communist. I say that it is because he is living in a city that has turned its back on God.

Yeah, I guess we're not going to be so smug with those people carrying the "repent now" signs in the Quarter this Mardi Gras.