Patriots Win Suit to Get Ticket Sellers' Names from StubHub

Do the Patriots think it's wrong for a home owner to sell his/her house for more than the original purchase price?

 

One side of the mouth: "We find it reprehensible that a season-ticket holder would resale tickets for a profit."

Other side: "You want to buy season tickets? That's great! Just be sure to plunk down full price for all the pre-season games we force you to buy as part of the package..."

 

Wasn't Napster giving the product away though?

 

The difference is that with Napster nobody was relinquishing their original rights to the product. Yeah, I'll sell you this file. Then the owner would continue owning it. So, of course that was illegal.

The Patriots terms of sale are illogical and counter the spirit of a free market. It would be the equivalent of Topps going after the people that are selling Mickey Mantle rookie cards. The cards were originally sold for pennies and now they are worth more than that. Damn you, free market!

I had a friend do this for Red Bull New York tickets. He sold two season tickets to RBNY v. Barcelona last year and his season tickets were paid for.

 

Who's got two?

 

You have a valid point about changing the law. The Massachusetts Legislature should step and do that, if it's the will of the people. Laws should be enforced or taken off the books. Law enforcement's job should be enforcing the law, not figuring out when or if to do so. The court system should interpret constitutionality of laws, not if they should be enforced. The system breaks down when put in these kinds of situations.

The Pats are only exercising their legal rights. I'm sure their terms of sale are set up within the framework of local, state and federal laws (if not, sue them on said grounds). While they're being bullies, it's well within their rights. They can have fun dealing with the PR ramifications, however.

 

If the Pats want to go after season ticketholders for breaching the contract printed on each ticket, they are entitled. The question is, why?

Can anyone explain the basis of anti-scalping laws? To protect the consumers, or the product?

 

Massachusetts Legislature is actually looking into taking the scalping laws off the books.

http://www.salemnews.com/punews/local_story_162120200

 

Jersey Guy's Napster analogy is just plain lame. In Napster, record companies sued because users were essentially stealing their product without ever having paid them a penny. They weren't going after people who'd lawfully bought their CDs to try to stop them from reselling or doing what they wanted with their purchases. If you actually bought a CD, the record companies didn't give a shit what you did with it. Pat fans didn't illegally download or steal their tickets, they lawfully bought em.

I realize there's an anti-scalping state law in Mass, and if you want to try to support the Pats position on that basis--fair enough. But not by analogizing it to Napster. It's not the same situation at all.

 

And if Mass revokes the anti-scalping laws, then the aribtrary corporate directives are even less meaningless.

 

Hmmm ... we've got two essentially new internet-based business models, both involving reselling existing products, both becoming the name-brand in their area, both in clear violation of established law, both eventually sued by the bricks-and-morter product producers they're living off of.

Yep, nothing in common there. Clearly an absolutely crazy comparison.

Obviously the comparison isn't perfect, as has been noted, but if you don't think they share some key points ... well ... I'm surprised.

 

There's a fundamental difference: Napster wasn't selling anything. It was acting as a fence for stolen property.

And if Massachusetts revokes the law--which they should because it's silly and unenforceable, you have no comparable.