Fluentide

A Chinese podcast · Same story, 4 levels

Ticketmaster Found a Monopoly — $1.72 Per Ticket Refund and Live Nation's Reckoning — episode cover art
7:46

Ticketmaster

Ticketmaster Found a Monopoly — $1.72 Per Ticket Refund and Live Nation's Reckoning

About this story

US court rules Ticketmaster and Live Nation an illegal monopoly — Taylor Swift's Eras Tour fans get $1.72 a ticket back. HSK 5-6 Chinese listening practice.

This is an HSK 5-6 Chinese listening episode that runs about 8 minutes. The full Mandarin script is shown with tap-for-pinyin and a line-by-line English translation, so you can listen and read at once — comprehensible input in the sense of Stephen Krashen's i+1 theory. It teaches 12 key vocabulary words such as 百分之、政治、政府 and walks through 4 grammar patterns, each explained in English with examples. The same news story is retold at 4 difficulty levels — use the level selector above to find the version that is challenging but still understandable for you.

Read at your level

原文

Read the complete story in Chinese. Reveal pinyin and English only when you need them.

垄断这个多数觉得自己
如果你在美国买过一张演唱
如果曾经时候"服务"震惊
这个案子有关
四月十五纽约曼哈顿联邦法院一个陪审团出了一个全面裁决
Live Nation旗下Ticketmaster违反联邦垄断
它们市场大型露天剧场市场构成非法垄断
而且它们通过场地使用服务捆绑方式进行非法
陪审团一个关键法律问题原告
不是一个部分败诉
一个从头全面失败
我们理解一下为什么这个案子这么重要
Live Nation Entertainment不是一个普通公司
它是全球现场娱乐产业巨无霸
同时扮演角色
一个角色演唱推广
它是全球最大
第二个角色场地运营
美国最好的露天剧场很多属于或者独家运营
第三个角色平台
Ticketmaster控制美国大约百分八十演唱市场
这个市场份额任何一个行业都是令人窒息
真正问题不是市场份额本身
而是角色捆绑
想象一下你是一个艺人
你想万人巡回演唱
需要场地
最好的露天剧场Live Nation
如果它的场地必须Ticketmaster卖票
因为场地平台捆绑
没有选择
现在你是一个粉丝
想去这个艺人演出
哪里
Ticketmaster
别的地方不到
因为独家协议Ticketmaster平台
也没有选择
就是一体化垄断
供给需求一个环节一个实体控制
不需要价格提高疯狂水平
只需要一个环节多收一点
服务方便处理设施
这些名目额外收费
没有竞争环境可以毫无顾忌存在
因为哪里
Ticketmaster就是唯一出口
要么
要么不看演出
陪审团经过四天审议认定
消费平均多收了一美元十二
这个数字看起来不大
但是放到整个行业规模
Ticketmaster每年交易亿计算
一块亿
就是每年亿美元消费口袋流出
而且还只是十二个进入赔偿阶段计算
这个案子导火索什么
二二十一月
Taylor SwiftEras Tour
Ticketmaster系统几百万人同时彻底崩溃
几个小时粉丝最后什么不到
本身违法
Ticketmaster长期积累公众愤怒引爆
美国参议为此专门召开听证会
Ticketmaster镜头解释为什么系统
没有满意他的解释
四年五月
美国司法部联合三十多个正式提起诉讼
Live NationTicketmaster合并以来最大规模法律挑战
起诉依据八九垄断
美国古老也是有力垄断工具
案子今年三月开始正式审理
星期
审判一周发生一个有趣转折
司法部一部分Live Nation达成单独和解
条件Live Nation支付亿千万美元
某些场地限制服务
允许场地选择平台方面更大灵活
剩下三十拒绝和解
他们不够
他们的是一个法律判决
一个写在陪审团认定结论
你是垄断
四月十五
他们得到
陪审团一个核心问题投了""
Live Nation垄断了一市场
Live Nation垄断大型露天剧场使用市场
Live Nation进行非法
全面败诉
彻底败诉
纽约检察Letitia James
"Live NationTicketmaster消费损失几百美元
Billboard这个判决"全面失败"
Live Nation回应
他们判决没有最终确定
他们会对"任何不利裁决"提起上诉
他们依然否认自己垄断
但是陪审团这么
现在关键阶段补救
法官Arun Subramanian必须决定如何修复这个市场
选项几个
一个也是激进的是结构
就是强制Live NationTicketmaster出售一个独立第三
卖票演唱不再是同一公司
批评多年核心诉求
如果实现
独立公司可以跟前Ticketmaster竞争
场地也可以自由选择合作
竞争压低服务
消费直接受益
第二个选项行为补救
公司限制行为
比如禁止独家协议
比如要求服务透明
比如开放API第三平台
这种方式比较温和
效果比较
因为公司结构没变
依然动机能力灰色地带操作
第三个选项加强监管
政府设立一个监督机构
持续审查Live Nation商业行为
确保重新建立垄断
这些选项可能组合使用
具体怎么做法
不管结果如何
这个判决已经改变一些东西
法律
Live NationTicketmaster商业模式认定非法
不是一个政治声明
不是一个网上抱怨
一个联邦陪审团经过星期审判做出法律裁决
文化
这个判决回应百万多年愤怒
Pearl Jam九十年代抵制Ticketmaster开始
Taylor Swift粉丝国会听证会作证
The Cure公开批评Ticketmaster定价
这种愤怒积累三十
今天终于有了一个法律回应
一块不多
代表的是一个系统性的认定
多收
不是想象
不是抱怨
法律确认你的感受
下来看法怎么做了
还是监管
不管怎样
已经写进判决
你是垄断
English transcript reference

When it comes to the word antitrust, most people feel it's far removed from their lives.

But if you've ever bought a concert ticket in America.

If you've ever been shocked by "service fees" at checkout.

Then this case is about you.

April 15th, Manhattan federal court, New York — a jury delivered a comprehensive verdict.

Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster violated federal and state antitrust laws.

They constituted an illegal monopoly in the primary ticketing market and the large amphitheater market.

And they engaged in illegal tying by bundling venue access with ticketing services.

The jury ruled for the plaintiffs on every key legal question.

This wasn't a partial defeat.

This was a total failure from head to toe.

Let's understand why this case is so important.

Live Nation Entertainment is not an ordinary company.

It's the behemoth of the global live entertainment industry.

It simultaneously plays three roles.

The first role is concert promoter.

It's the world's largest.

The second role is venue operator.

Many of America's best amphitheaters belong to it or are exclusively operated by it.

The third role is ticketing platform.

Ticketmaster controls approximately 80% of America's primary concert ticketing market.

This market share would be suffocating in any industry.

But the real problem isn't the market share itself.

It's the bundling of these three roles.

Imagine you're an artist.

You want to hold a 20,000-person concert tour.

You need venues.

The best amphitheaters are Live Nation's.

If you use their venue, you must use Ticketmaster to sell tickets.

Because the venue and ticketing platform are bundled.

You have no choice.

Now you're a fan.

You want to see this artist perform.

Where do you buy tickets?

Ticketmaster.

You can't buy them anywhere else.

Because exclusive agreements lock tickets to Ticketmaster's platform.

You also have no choice.

This is vertical integration monopoly.

From the supply side to the demand side, every link is controlled by the same entity.

It doesn't need to raise prices to insane levels.

It just needs to add a little extra at every step.

Service fees, convenience fees, processing fees, facility fees.

These various extra charges with different names.

Can exist without any restraint in an environment without competition.

Because where would you go?

Ticketmaster is the only way out.

Either you pay.

Or you don't see the show.

After four days of deliberation, the jury determined.

Consumers were overcharged an average of one dollar and seventy-two cents per ticket.

This number doesn't look large.

But put it in the context of the entire industry's scale.

Ticketmaster handles ticket transactions numbering in the hundreds of millions per year.

One dollar seventy-two times hundreds of millions of tickets.

That's hundreds of millions of dollars flowing extra from consumers' pockets every year.

And this was only calculated for the 22 states that reached the damages phase.

What triggered this case?

November 2022.

Taylor Swift's Eras Tour presale.

Ticketmaster's system completely collapsed when millions of people flooded in simultaneously.

Fans who waited hours ended up with nothing.

This incident itself wasn't illegal.

But it detonated the public anger that Ticketmaster had accumulated over years.

The US Senate convened a special hearing about it.

Ticketmaster's executives explained in front of cameras why the system crashed.

Nobody was satisfied with the explanation.

May 2024.

The US Department of Justice joined over thirty states in formally filing suit.

This was the largest legal challenge since Live Nation and Ticketmaster merged in 2010.

The legal basis was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

This is America's oldest and most powerful antitrust tool.

The case began formal trial in March this year.

Lasted five weeks.

An interesting twist occurred during the first week of trial.

The DOJ and some states reached a separate settlement with Live Nation.

The terms were Live Nation pays 280 million dollars.

Limits service fees at certain venues.

Allows venues greater flexibility in choosing ticketing platforms.

But the remaining 33 states rejected the settlement.

They said money wasn't enough.

What they wanted was a legal verdict.

A conclusion, written on paper, determined by a jury.

You are a monopoly.

April 15th.

They got it.

The jury voted "yes" on every core question.

Live Nation monopolized the primary ticketing market.

Live Nation monopolized the large amphitheater market.

Live Nation engaged in illegal tying.

Total defeat.

Complete defeat.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said.

"Live Nation and Ticketmaster broke the law, costing consumers millions of dollars."

Billboard called the verdict "a total defeat."

Live Nation's response?

They say the verdict isn't final yet.

They say they will appeal "any unfavorable rulings."

They still deny being a monopoly.

But the jury doesn't see it that way.

Now the most critical phase is remedies.

Judge Arun Subramanian must decide how to fix this market.

There are several options.

The first and most aggressive is structural breakup.

Meaning forcing Live Nation to sell Ticketmaster to an independent third party.

Making the ticket seller and the concert organizer no longer the same company.

This has been critics' core demand for years.

If achieved.

Independent ticketing companies could compete with the former Ticketmaster.

Venues could freely choose who to partner with.

Competition would push down service fees.

Consumers directly benefit.

The second option is behavioral remedies.

Don't break up the company, but restrict its behavior.

Such as banning exclusive ticketing agreements.

Such as requiring service fee transparency.

Such as opening APIs for third-party platform access.

This approach is more moderate.

But also weaker in effect.

Because the company's structure hasn't changed.

It still has the motivation and ability to operate in gray areas.

The third option is enhanced oversight.

The government establishes a monitoring body.

Continuously reviewing Live Nation's business practices.

Ensuring it doesn't re-establish a monopoly.

These options might be used in combination.

The specifics are up to the judge.

But regardless of the outcome.

This verdict has already changed something.

From a legal perspective.

Live Nation and Ticketmaster's business model has been ruled illegal.

This isn't a political statement.

This isn't an online complaint.

This is a legal ruling made by a federal jury after a five-week trial.

From a cultural perspective.

This verdict responds to millions of ticket buyers' years of anger.

Starting from Pearl Jam boycotting Ticketmaster in the nineties.

To Taylor Swift fans testifying at congressional hearings.

To The Cure publicly criticizing Ticketmaster's pricing.

This anger accumulated for thirty years.

Today it finally has a legal response.

One dollar seventy-two isn't much.

But it represents a systemic determination.

You were overcharged.

You weren't imagining it.

You weren't just complaining.

The law confirmed what you felt.

What comes next is up to the judge.

Whether to break up, reform, or regulate.

But regardless.

These three characters have been written into the verdict.

You are a monopoly.

Listen again

Try it without the transcript and notice what sounds clearer.

What vocabulary does this episode teach?

词汇
bǎifēnzhīpercent

HSK 1-4. percent.

zhèngzhìpolitics

HSK 1-4. politics.

zhèngfǔgovernment

HSK 1-4. government.

jīgòuinstitution, organization

HSK 1-4. institution, organization.

shìchǎngmarket

HSK 1-4. market.

jià géprice

HSK 1-4. price.

zòngxiàng yītǐhuàvertical integration

When one company controls multiple stages of production and distribution.

dāshòutying; bundling

Forcing purchase of one product to get another. Illegal in antitrust law.

jùwúbàbehemoth; giant

An extremely large and powerful entity.

zhìxīsuffocating

So dominant it leaves no room for others.

jiégòu xìng chāifēnstructural breakup

Forcing a company to sell off divisions to create competition.

xíngwéi xìng bǔjiùbehavioral remedies

Restricting a companys actions without breaking it up.

* beyond level超纲词

What grammar patterns appear in this episode?

语法
不是...而是...

Not X but rather Y.

真正的问题不是市场份额本身,而是这三个角色的捆绑。

要么...要么...

Either... or...

你要么付,要么不看演出。

从...上说

From the perspective of...

从法律上说。从文化上说。

即便如此

Even so; nevertheless.

这还只是二十二个进入了赔偿阶段的州的计算。

Proper Nouns

专有名词
TicketmasterTicketmasterTicketmasterLive NationLive NationLive Nation EntertainmentTaylor SwiftTaylor SwiftTaylor SwiftEras TourEras TourEras TourPearl JamPearl JamPearl JamThe CureThe CureThe CureBillboardBillboardBillboard (music media)谢尔曼反垄断法Xiè ěrmàn fǎn lǒngduàn fǎSherman Antitrust Act (1890)Letitia JamesLetitia JamesLetitia James (NY AG)Arun SubramanianArun SubramanianJudge Arun Subramanian曼哈顿MànhādùnManhattan

Sources

来源

Free account

Keep learning from this story

Create a free account to keep saved words and your preferred level together.

  • Keep words with their story context
  • Remember your preferred level
  • Build your vocabulary over time

Continue with Fluentide