Fluentide

A Chinese podcast · Same story, 4 levels

Ticketmaster Monopoly Ruling Orders Refunds — episode cover art
7:46

一块七毛二的正义:Ticketmaster垄断案与现场音乐产业的清算

Ticketmaster Monopoly Ruling Orders Refunds

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.

说到反垄断这个词,大多数人会觉得离自己很远。
但如果你在美国买过一张演唱会门票。
如果你曾经在结账的时候被"服务费"震惊过。
那这个案子就跟你有关。
四月十五号,纽约曼哈顿联邦法院,一个陪审团给出了一个全面的裁决。
Live Nation和旗下的Ticketmaster违反了联邦和州级反垄断法。
它们在一级票务市场、大型露天剧场市场上构成了非法垄断。
而且它们通过将场地使用权与票务服务捆绑的方式进行了非法搭售。
陪审团在每一个关键的法律问题上都判了原告胜诉。
这不是一个部分的败诉。
这是一个从头到脚的全面失败。
让我们来理解一下为什么这个案子这么重要。
Live Nation Entertainment不是一个普通的公司。
它是全球现场娱乐产业的巨无霸。
它同时扮演三个角色。
第一个角色是演唱会推广商。
它是全球最大的。
第二个角色是场地运营商。
美国最好的露天剧场,很多都属于它或者由它独家运营。
第三个角色是票务平台。
Ticketmaster控制了美国大约百分之八十的一级演唱会票务市场。
这个市场份额在任何一个行业里都是令人窒息的。
但真正的问题不是市场份额本身。
而是这三个角色的捆绑。
想象一下你是一个艺人。
你想办一场两万人的巡回演唱会。
你需要场地。
最好的露天剧场是Live Nation的。
如果你用它的场地,你就必须用Ticketmaster卖票。
因为场地和票务平台是捆绑的。
你没有选择。
现在你是一个粉丝。
你想去看这个艺人的演出。
票在哪里买?
Ticketmaster。
你去别的地方买不到。
因为独家协议把票锁在了Ticketmaster的平台上。
你也没有选择。
这就是纵向一体化垄断。
从供给端到需求端,每一个环节都被同一个实体控制。
它不需要把价格提高到疯狂的水平。
它只需要在每一个环节多收一点。
服务费、方便费、处理费、设施费。
这些名目各异的额外收费。
在没有竞争的环境下可以毫无顾忌地存在。
因为你去哪里呢?
Ticketmaster就是唯一的出口。
你要么付。
要么不看演出。
陪审团经过四天的审议后认定。
消费者平均每张票被多收了一美元七十二美分。
这个数字看起来不大。
但是把它放到整个行业的规模上。
Ticketmaster每年经手的票务交易以亿计算。
一块七乘以几亿张。
那就是每年数亿美元从消费者口袋里多流出去的钱。
而且这还只是二十二个进入了赔偿阶段的州的计算。
这个案子的导火索是什么?
二零二二年十一月。
Taylor Swift的Eras Tour预售。
Ticketmaster的系统在几百万人同时涌入后彻底崩溃。
排了几个小时的粉丝最后什么也买不到。
这件事本身不违法。
但它把Ticketmaster长期积累的公众愤怒引爆了。
美国参议院为此专门召开了听证会。
Ticketmaster的高管在镜头前解释为什么系统崩了。
没有人满意他的解释。
二零二四年五月。
美国司法部联合三十多个州正式提起诉讼。
这是自二零一零年Live Nation和Ticketmaster合并以来最大规模的法律挑战。
起诉依据是一八九零年的《谢尔曼反垄断法》。
这是美国最古老也是最有力的反垄断工具。
案子在今年三月开始正式审理。
审了五个星期。
审判的第一周发生了一个有趣的转折。
司法部和一部分州跟Live Nation达成了单独的和解。
条件是Live Nation支付两亿八千万美元。
在某些场地限制服务费。
允许场地在选择票务平台方面有更大的灵活性。
但剩下的三十三个州拒绝了和解。
他们说赔钱不够。
他们要的是一个法律判决。
一个写在纸上的、陪审团认定的结论。
你是垄断。
四月十五号。
他们得到了。
陪审团在每一个核心问题上都投了"是"。
Live Nation垄断了一级票务市场。
Live Nation垄断了大型露天剧场的使用市场。
Live Nation进行了非法搭售。
全面败诉。
彻底败诉。
纽约州检察长Letitia James说。
"Live Nation和Ticketmaster违了法,让消费者损失了几百万美元。
Billboard称这个判决为"全面的失败"。
Live Nation的回应呢?
他们说判决还没有最终确定。
他们说会对"任何不利裁决"提起上诉。
他们依然否认自己是垄断。
但是陪审团不这么看。
现在最关键的阶段是补救。
法官Arun Subramanian必须决定如何修复这个市场。
选项有几个。
第一个也是最激进的是结构性拆分。
就是强制Live Nation把Ticketmaster出售给一个独立的第三方。
让卖票的和办演唱会的不再是同一家公司。
这是批评者多年来的核心诉求。
如果实现了。
独立的票务公司就可以跟前Ticketmaster竞争。
场地也可以自由选择跟谁合作。
竞争会压低服务费。
消费者直接受益。
第二个选项是行为性补救。
不拆分公司,但限制其行为。
比如禁止独家票务协议。
比如要求服务费透明。
比如开放API让第三方平台接入。
这种方式比较温和。
但效果也比较弱。
因为公司的结构没变。
它依然有动机和能力在灰色地带操作。
第三个选项是加强监管。
由政府设立一个监督机构。
持续审查Live Nation的商业行为。
确保它不重新建立垄断。
这些选项可能会组合使用。
具体怎么做法官说了算。
但不管结果如何。
这个判决已经改变了一些东西。
从法律上说。
Live Nation和Ticketmaster的商业模式被认定为非法。
这不是一个政治声明。
不是一个网上的抱怨。
这是一个联邦陪审团在经过五个星期的审判后做出的法律裁决。
从文化上说。
这个判决回应了数百万买票人多年来的愤怒。
从Pearl Jam九十年代抵制Ticketmaster开始。
到Taylor Swift的粉丝在国会听证会上作证。
到The Cure公开批评Ticketmaster的定价。
这种愤怒积累了三十年。
今天终于有了一个法律上的回应。
一块七毛二不多。
但它代表的是一个系统性的认定。
你被多收了。
你不是在想象。
你不是在抱怨。
法律确认了你的感受。
接下来就看法官怎么做了。
是拆是改还是监管。
但不管怎样。
这三个字已经写进了判决书。
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

Keep learning