I haven't read all the comments so maybe someone brought this up, but I was just wondering why only part of the Bruce Springsteen story was told? I'm a big fan of his, so of course am biased, and I understand what you're trying to say about the music industry in general, but I think what happened with the Bruce Springsteen show and Ticketmaster actually strengthens your argument, but you used it to make Bruce Springsteen out be a "criminal," thus weakening your argument against Ticketmaster, monopolies, and price gouging that you stated in the beginning of your article. The story goes that Bruce released his tickets via Ticketmaster, and before the released tickets were sold out the website started directing all the customers to TicketsNow.com, which sells tickets at a higher price than face value from private sellers, but Ticketmaster owns that site, so they made profits off of that (making ticketmaster the "criminal" in this circumstance). I don't think Bruce ever claimed that his tickets were "affordable" as you quoted someone as saying (not sure who you were quoting there, was it an actual source or Bruce himself?). However, I think he saw how it was unfair for the company to direct people who were willing to splurge on the seats to pay even more money than necessary. His was an argument of principle, not trying to get more money from anyone or any fan. He'd get the same amount of profit no matter who was selling the tickets at that point, but saw that his fans were being treated poorly, and decided to speak up about it. I respect your opinion on the matter, but feel the reporting wasn't fully researched, and someone needs to stick up for Bruce. I couldn't even read the rest of the article because your argument had become moot because of the validity of your statements. Also, he's not rich from stealing from his fans, he's rich because he's talented enough at his craft for people to support him for as long as they have. As an aside, you may not like his music, but he's a storyteller, where he can sing about whatever he wants even if it's made up. You're a writer, where your craft should be based on facts... so I respectfully suggest that you leave the storytelling to Bruce.
On Real America with Abe Sauer: The Britney Spears Tailgate Parking Lot, Ticketmaster, Bruce Springsteen, the Death of the Live Music Video and You
I haven't read all the comments so maybe someone brought this up, but I was just wondering why only part of the Bruce Springsteen story was told? I'm a big fan of his, so of course am biased, and I understand what you're trying to say about the music industry in general, but I think what happened with the Bruce Springsteen show and Ticketmaster actually strengthens your argument, but you used it to make Bruce Springsteen out be a "criminal," thus weakening your argument against Ticketmaster, monopolies, and price gouging that you stated in the beginning of your article. The story goes that Bruce released his tickets via Ticketmaster, and before the released tickets were sold out the website started directing all the customers to TicketsNow.com, which sells tickets at a higher price than face value from private sellers, but Ticketmaster owns that site, so they made profits off of that (making ticketmaster the "criminal" in this circumstance). I don't think Bruce ever claimed that his tickets were "affordable" as you quoted someone as saying (not sure who you were quoting there, was it an actual source or Bruce himself?). However, I think he saw how it was unfair for the company to direct people who were willing to splurge on the seats to pay even more money than necessary. His was an argument of principle, not trying to get more money from anyone or any fan. He'd get the same amount of profit no matter who was selling the tickets at that point, but saw that his fans were being treated poorly, and decided to speak up about it. I respect your opinion on the matter, but feel the reporting wasn't fully researched, and someone needs to stick up for Bruce. I couldn't even read the rest of the article because your argument had become moot because of the validity of your statements. Also, he's not rich from stealing from his fans, he's rich because he's talented enough at his craft for people to support him for as long as they have. As an aside, you may not like his music, but he's a storyteller, where he can sing about whatever he wants even if it's made up. You're a writer, where your craft should be based on facts... so I respectfully suggest that you leave the storytelling to Bruce.