DiscGo
07-27-2008, 07:36 AM
Craigslist Forced To Cough Up Name Of Oscars Ticket Seller To The Movie Industry
Apparently, the Motion Picture Academy, the folks who put on the Oscars (also known as "The Academy Awards"), say that the tickets to that event are non-transferable. That's fine. It's their event, they can set up whatever rules they want. However, where it gets strange, is that they are now suing a bunch of folks who tried to sell their tickets online, and even got a judge to force Craigslist to reveal the name of a seller in order to sue him.
So, here's my confusion: if the tickets are non-transferable, why not just check IDs at the door and not let those who were not given tickets?
As for forcing Craigslist to reveal the name of the seller, why is that allowed? The Academy can have whatever rules it wants in terms of letting in or not letting in people, but what law was broken by the seller, and what makes it so that Craigslist should be forced to give up the name of an anonymous seller? All the Academy had to do was not let the person in the door, but apparently it chose not to run things that way. But that's the Academy's choice, not a legal issue the requires revealing the name of an anonymous seller.
Furthermore, the Academy's explanation for this also seems ridiculous: "If you don't know who's inside the theater, it's very difficult to provide security." Really? Most places that provide security don't know the names of everyone who's there and they seem to do just fine. And, again, if knowing who's in there is such a big deal, then why not identify them as they enter, and verify that they're supposed to be there? None of that would then involve lawsuits. But, then again, this is the movie industry, which has shown a penchant for lawsuits over actually thinking things through and taking the easier path.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080725/1451461795.shtml
Apparently, the Motion Picture Academy, the folks who put on the Oscars (also known as "The Academy Awards"), say that the tickets to that event are non-transferable. That's fine. It's their event, they can set up whatever rules they want. However, where it gets strange, is that they are now suing a bunch of folks who tried to sell their tickets online, and even got a judge to force Craigslist to reveal the name of a seller in order to sue him.
So, here's my confusion: if the tickets are non-transferable, why not just check IDs at the door and not let those who were not given tickets?
As for forcing Craigslist to reveal the name of the seller, why is that allowed? The Academy can have whatever rules it wants in terms of letting in or not letting in people, but what law was broken by the seller, and what makes it so that Craigslist should be forced to give up the name of an anonymous seller? All the Academy had to do was not let the person in the door, but apparently it chose not to run things that way. But that's the Academy's choice, not a legal issue the requires revealing the name of an anonymous seller.
Furthermore, the Academy's explanation for this also seems ridiculous: "If you don't know who's inside the theater, it's very difficult to provide security." Really? Most places that provide security don't know the names of everyone who's there and they seem to do just fine. And, again, if knowing who's in there is such a big deal, then why not identify them as they enter, and verify that they're supposed to be there? None of that would then involve lawsuits. But, then again, this is the movie industry, which has shown a penchant for lawsuits over actually thinking things through and taking the easier path.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080725/1451461795.shtml