【Hacker News搬运】司法部将对Live Nation提起反垄断诉讼
-
Title: Justice Department to file antitrust suit against Live Nation
司法部将对Live Nation提起反垄断诉讼
Text:
Url: https://www.wsj.com/business/media/live-nation-justice-department-antitrust-lawsuit-ab98c268
由于抓取的内容似乎包含了一些JavaScript代码和加密的信息，这可能是因为网站使用了验证码或其他安全措施来阻止自动化抓取。因此，我无法直接分析或总结内容。 如果您能提供一段具体的文本内容，我将能够帮助您进行分析和总结。如果您需要翻译英文内容为中文，请提供英文文本，我将为您翻译。Post by: winstonprivacy
Comments:
eadler: <a href="https://archive.is/VRODM" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/VRODM</a>
eadler: <a href=“https://；/；archive.is&x2F；VRODM”rel=“nofollow”>https:///；archive.is/；VRODM</a>
andjd: One important thing to know is that the venues/artists often get a kickback of part of the Ticketmaster fees. In other words, the artists, venues, producers, and Ticketmaster are in cahoots to fleece fans for as much money as possible, and Ticketmaster is willing to play the 'bad guy' and take the blame for high prices, and they get to keep a bigger slice of the overall pie than they would in a highly competitive market for ticketing services because they provide that "service".<p>Take away this dynamic, and the face price of tickets is going to go up, and the total price is unlikely to change substantially.<p>Personally, I think this would still be a net plus for society. In order for market forces to work well, you need pricing transparency.
andjd: 需要知道的一件重要的事情是；艺术家们经常从Ticketmaster的部分费用中获得回扣。换言之，艺术家、场地、制片人和Ticketmaster都在串通，以尽可能多的钱来敲诈粉丝，而Ticketmaster愿意扮演；坏家伙；并为高昂的价格承担责任，他们可以比在竞争激烈的票务服务市场中占据更大的份额，因为他们提供了“；服务”<p> 如果去掉这一动态，门票的票面价格将上涨，总价格不太可能发生实质性变化<p> 就我个人而言，我认为这对社会来说仍然是一个净的好处。为了让市场力量发挥作用，你需要定价的透明度。
recroad: I'm glad to see this. I run jumpcomedy.com which provides ticketing/event management services for comedy shows (or pretty much anything but focused on comedy) and this industry is dominated by a few big players that charge exorbitant service fees which customers have no choice to pay because these are exclusive deals.<p>I've gotten smaller clubs and comics to hop over, and got one big tour to join, but when it comes to the well-known artists, they are contractually bound to go with the big companies. I'm very happy someone is taking action.
recroad: I-；I’我很高兴看到这个。我经营jumpcomedy.com，它提供票务服务；喜剧节目的活动管理服务（或者几乎所有不专注于喜剧的东西），这个行业由少数大公司主导，这些公司收取高昂的服务费，客户别无选择，因为这些都是独家交易<p> I-；我有一些小俱乐部和漫画可以参加，也有一次大型巡演可以参加，但当涉及到知名艺术家时，他们必须与大公司签订合同。I-；I’我很高兴有人采取行动。
giobox: When this merger was first announced over a decade ago, it became like mandatory teaching in Competition Law classes for Law students in the UK.<p>Much of the legal community at the time was convinced there was no way in hell the original merger would be approved. Even at that time LiveNation controlled an astonishing percentage of the live music venue market - which when paired with ticket master's near total dominance of live music ticket sales... this was one of the seemingly simplest competition law cases in years. Then the deal was approved, of course.<p>I am not surprised in the least it's finally getting anti-trust attention.
giobox: 当这项合并在十多年前首次宣布时，它就像是英国法律系学生在竞争法课程中的必修课。<p>当时的许多法律界人士都确信，最初的合并根本不可能获得批准。即使在那时，LiveNation也控制着现场音乐场地市场的惊人比例；几乎完全占据现场音乐门票销售的主导地位。。。这是多年来看似最简单的竞争法案例之一。当然，后来这笔交易获得了批准<p> 我一点也不感到惊讶；他终于得到了反托拉斯的关注。
seatac76: Finally. Between the market dominance via Live Nation and Ticketmaster merge. The venue exclusivity contracts they insist upon. They are a grotesque monopoly.
seatac76: 最后在Live Nation和Ticketmaster合并的市场主导地位之间。他们坚持的场地排他性合同。他们是一个怪诞的垄断。