6 ms·

Really good post! I also found this quote which distilled their position in the 404media coverage of the situation. > “What I can say for sure is that TicketMa

by ikesau 2y ago

Really good post! I also found this quote which distilled their position in the 404media coverage of the situation. > “What I can say for sure is that TicketMaster and AXS have had every opportunity to support scam-free third party ticket resale and delivery platforms if they wished: By documenting their ticket QR code cryptography, and by exposing apps and APIs which would allow verification and rotation of ticket secrets,” Conduition told me in an email. “But they intentionally choose not to do so, and then they act all surprised-pikachu when 3rd party resale scams proliferate. They're opting to play legal whack-a-mole with scammers instead of fixing the problem directly with better technology, because they make more money as a resale monopoly than as an open and secure ecosystem.” from https://www.404media.co/scalpers-are-working-with-hackers-to-liberate-non-transferable-tickets-from-ticketmasters-ecosystem/ https://www.404media.co/scalpers-are-working-with-hackers-to...

yard2010 2y ago
[flagged]
- jagged-chisel 2y ago
  Hash chains already existed. But someone created blockchain anyway.
- dymk 2y ago
  Not all cryptography is blockchain
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
cypherpunks01 2y ago
I dug up the court docs referenced in that article, it's pretty interesting- AXS Group LLC v. Internet Referral Services LLC (2:24-cv-00377) District Court, C.D. California Amended complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.911397/gov.uscourts.cacd.911397.39.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.91... Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68163191/axs-group-llc-v-internet-referral-services-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68163191/axs-group-llc-... One item of the complaint is regarding the "secure.tickets" site, which I wrote about in an earlier comment below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40906148#40910690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40906148#40910690). Basically, brokers are using the "secure.tickets" and similar websites to proxy ticket barcodes to buyers, without going through the actual ticket transfer mechanisms on the primary ticketer AXS/TM, (similar to how this blogger does). Then resellers are delivering these ticket URLs, hosted on random websites, to Seatgeek and Stubhub customers, and those platforms are supporting their delivery by telling their customers that the tickets are legit. Sounds like AXS is fighting back against this practice.
- snotrockets 2y ago
  The underlying issue is that those tickets have a "no resale" provision that doesn't apply when the original seller acts as a broker. Do other brokers, when they go and work around that limitation break the sales contact? Maybe. The legal system would churn an answer in a few years. Do AXS et al with their "only we are allowed to engage in a secondary policy" are abusing their monopoly on original sales? The legal system would churn an answer about the legality of this in few years, but I think it's obvious they at least break rules in the spirit.
silexia 2y ago
Monopoly is the keyword here. Ticketmaster and Boeing and all the other nefarious companies here use PATENTS to prevent competitors from eating their lunch. Patents need to be done away with to allow free competition, don't believe the propaganda about patents helping creators
- Steven420 2y ago
  If you don't have a patent on an invention then how do you protect it from people who will just steal what you have spent time/money creating?
  - TrinaryWorksToo 2y ago
    Patents no longer go to individual people. They go to corporations. Perhaps we should ban corporations from getting patents on behalf of people.
    - OJFord 2y ago
      That would be.. interesting from a compensation & retention (& poaching!) perspective!
    - fallingknife 2y ago
      So the work of 1000 people at a company may have gone into developing the tech that is to be patented, but we must restrict the patent to being owned by one single individual?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - rundev 2y ago
    1. If you are first to market and still can't make money off your amazing invention, that might be a skill issue. 2. Patents wouldn't be as forceful if they didn't last that long. A decade or more is basically forever in a fast-moving field like tech.

by ikesau 2y ago

yard2010 2y ago

[flagged]

jagged-chisel 2y ago
Hash chains already existed. But someone created blockchain anyway.
dymk 2y ago
Not all cryptography is blockchain
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

cypherpunks01 2y ago

I dug up the court docs referenced in that article, it's pretty interesting- AXS Group LLC v. Internet Referral Services LLC (2:24-cv-00377) District Court, C.D. California Amended complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.911397/gov.uscourts.cacd.911397.39.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.91... Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68163191/axs-group-llc-v-internet-referral-services-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68163191/axs-group-llc-... One item of the complaint is regarding the "secure.tickets" site, which I wrote about in an earlier comment below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40906148#40910690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40906148#40910690). Basically, brokers are using the "secure.tickets" and similar websites to proxy ticket barcodes to buyers, without going through the actual ticket transfer mechanisms on the primary ticketer AXS/TM, (similar to how this blogger does). Then resellers are delivering these ticket URLs, hosted on random websites, to Seatgeek and Stubhub customers, and those platforms are supporting their delivery by telling their customers that the tickets are legit. Sounds like AXS is fighting back against this practice.

snotrockets 2y ago
The underlying issue is that those tickets have a "no resale" provision that doesn't apply when the original seller acts as a broker. Do other brokers, when they go and work around that limitation break the sales contact? Maybe. The legal system would churn an answer in a few years. Do AXS et al with their "only we are allowed to engage in a secondary policy" are abusing their monopoly on original sales? The legal system would churn an answer about the legality of this in few years, but I think it's obvious they at least break rules in the spirit.

silexia 2y ago

Monopoly is the keyword here. Ticketmaster and Boeing and all the other nefarious companies here use PATENTS to prevent competitors from eating their lunch. Patents need to be done away with to allow free competition, don't believe the propaganda about patents helping creators

Steven420 2y ago
If you don't have a patent on an invention then how do you protect it from people who will just steal what you have spent time/money creating?
- TrinaryWorksToo 2y ago
  Patents no longer go to individual people. They go to corporations. Perhaps we should ban corporations from getting patents on behalf of people.
  - OJFord 2y ago
    That would be.. interesting from a compensation & retention (& poaching!) perspective!
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    So the work of 1000 people at a company may have gone into developing the tech that is to be patented, but we must restrict the patent to being owned by one single individual?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- rundev 2y ago
  1. If you are first to market and still can't make money off your amazing invention, that might be a skill issue. 2. Patents wouldn't be as forceful if they didn't last that long. A decade or more is basically forever in a fast-moving field like tech.