Look, like I said, there's nothing inherently wrong with resale. In the case of Serenity, the tix went to the first purchasers. There's nothing wrong with selling your ability to be there first to someone else who will pay because they can't. If I've got a Big Important job that prevented me from buying the tix within moments of their release, the fact that someone else buys them and sells them to me at a price I'm willing to pay IS a "kindness"-- at least in the definition used above. They're NOT stealing the profit of the issuer-- the issuer already made the profit from the price they chose, and the buyer just makes the premium over his investment.

I'd say it's not dissimilar to the reason for all the warnings and disclaimers on fanfic. If there's a profit to be made off the game or broadcast thereof, it's not yours to make.

Again, this is a different situation from intellectual property. It's more like a bookstore selling books-- the author made his profit, and someone else gets a premium for making the property conveniently available. It's not the same thing as someone NOT paying you what you're asking to be paid and making money off of it.

Scalping is illegal in some places for reasons like the one Nutty stated above-- it's a weighing of interests that, in the case of monopolistic sports, favors people who get there first, rather than the people who can pay a premium. It's not a evil/good dichotomy.

It may be that the 800 lb gorillas can always get there first, and with their premium they're not doing me a kindness. Without them, I'd have gotten a ticket at the normal price. Now I'm forced to pay 1000% of the price instead, or just not go.

I think some people were trying to get at the idea (without fully explaining it) that there is something shady about creating a rarity and profiting off of that when you're not actually responsible for the rare property. Well, why is that, necessarily? Why should the people who who could have purchased but for the scalpers be privileged over the purchasers from the scalpers? The issuer is perfectly capable of limiting purchase to a certain number per buyer if he wanted to privilege the time-advantaged buyer over the richer, later fan.

It's not a evil/good dichotomy.

And yet - I still want to smack those guys who get in your face shouting "Buying tickets? Selling tickets?" in front of the Fleet Center with a rolled up newspapaer until they bleed from the eyes.

It may be that the 800 lb gorillas can always get there first, and with their premium they're not doing me a kindness. Without them, I'd have gotten a ticket at the normal price. Now I'm forced to pay 1000% of the price instead, or just not go.

Well, I feel bad for you, but I also see how someone values the ticket 10x more than you do.

If I've got a Big Important job that prevented me from buying the tix within moments of their release, the fact that someone else buys them and sells them to me at a price I'm willing to pay IS a "kindness"-- at least in the definition used above.

I don't happen to agree with this. Who's to say the tickets in question wouldn't still be there when the person finished their business if the resellers hadn't snapped them up? And even they weren't, the tickets would have still gone to someone who was an actual fan of the show rather than some vulture just trying to make a quick buck.

I almost fell out of my chair when I saw the ticket price for that Firefly Convention in Century City. Over $700.00.

I thought, "no one is going to buy those tickets, dear lord!"

And yet, to some, it's reasonable.

I'll never be able to wrap my brain around it, but there ya go.

I also see how someone values the ticket 10x more than you do.

Values it, or can afford it? I might now be willing to pay 10x for it, if I had the money. They're taking something for which the owners set a value, and resetting that. And they're not as much responding to the marketplace so much as controlling it.

I'm not that invested in this. I've never bought a scalped ticket, although I have sold them. But I think it's pretty clear that it's taking tickets from people who the sellers intended to be able to afford them and providing them to those that have more money.

Why should the people who who could have purchased but for the scalpers be privileged over the purchasers from the scalpers

Why should they be privileged less?

I may have the time to spend beating other individuals to the front of the line -- should I feel sorry for those that don't? The same way they feel sorry I'm too broke to pay the new price?

I don't happen to agree with this. Who's to say the tickets in question wouldn't still be there when the person finished their business if the resellers hadn't snapped them up?

Why should we believe that's the case here? The movie would have sold out quickly no matter what.

And even they weren't, the tickets would have still gone to someone who was an actual fan of the show rather than some vulture just trying to make a quick buck.

But the person who bought the tickets at a premium-- who's he? A non-fan with a way out of whack sense of his own economic interests?

Values it, or can afford it? I might now be willing to pay 10x for it, if I had the money.

I presume if you buy something for a price, you value it at that price or higher. Why would I buy something for $100 if I only thought it worth $10 to me?

They're taking something for which the owners set a value, and resetting that. And they're not as much responding to the marketplace so much as controlling it.

If they buy the ticket, they're the owner. Absent law to the contrary, title has passed, and you're free to set whatever value on those tickets you want the same way the first seller was. If the ticket sells at the price charged, then they're responding to the marketplace.

But I think it's pretty clear that it's taking tickets from people who the sellers intended to be able to afford them and providing them to those that have more money.

Sure, but so what? Why should I care what the original issuers want if it's to keep me from having a ticket in favor of someone else? If the issuers want to restrict the sales of tickets from resellers, they can do that, or agitate for legislation protecting you from the later buyers.

Why should the people who who could have purchased but for the scalpers be privileged over the purchasers from the scalpers

Why should they be privileged less?

Well, they won't pony up the same money another person will, that's one reason.

I may have the time to spend beating other individuals to the front of the line -- should I feel sorry for those that don't?

No. And neither should the reseller who does, either.

I should think that businesses would be in the forefront against scalping, because too much difficulty in obtaining tickets (as with a huge 2nd party markup) could cause the buying public to lose interest. Aside from the part where it makes the business look bad, seeing your prices be outside the realm of possibility for a large segment of your audience just sounds like a scary idea, to a marketer.

If no tickets to Fenway were under $100, I would just never go. I'm quite the fan; but I can watch it on TV for the price of cable and for free, once a week, on network.

The issuer is perfectly capable of limiting purchase to a certain number per buyer if he wanted to privilege the time-advantaged buyer over the richer, later fan.

Most issuers I've read about do do this. But, that hasn't stopped unscrupulous resellers from setting up phone banks and buying 200 tickets, 4 at a time. (These days, the Red Sox online site makes you complete a small puzzle -- discern numbers in a cross-hatch pattern -- to proceed to buying, to kill automated buying programs.) One of the reasons, I think, that MA started restricting scalping was all those concerts in the 1980s where people lined up at the box office days in advance, but all the tickets had sold by phone before the box office ever opened.