Edmonton Man Facing Fraud Charges For Kijiji Ticket Scam

[Replacement*]

My wife and daughter attended the show and were blown away by it. It might not be your cup of tea but she's an ultra mega-superstar for a reason.

Reason being there are no actual superstar musicians these days of note and that the music industry is essentially dying. This is not to say Swift is not talented, that she can't sing, its to say the level of music that is considered the best has sadly and consistently declined since the 60's/70's.

That said I can certainly see it being a good chick time and a bonding moment for mother and daughter to go to see this type of performer. But to that end much of music today seems contrived to this select purpose. Double edged sword. Good experience for select audiences but its designed and carefully crafted to be. In a word its safe.

Also, any number of bland acts today are simply production based performers. Enough lighting, pyrotechnics, stage props and even Nickelback or Spinal Tap can seem like something. Todays concert experience is more and more style over substance.

Too bad about the scams. But also something that gets set in place, and exists, due to how much audiences will pay for any entertainment these days. Peoples acceptance of high ticket prices makes scamming pay. Without such elevated ticket prices it doesn't occur. In a sense the paying audience has done this to itself.

 

[LTIR]

how embarassing to file a report you actually have to admit you wanted to be there in the first place

says an Oilers fan

Taylor Swift concert >> Oilers match at Rexall 2007-2015

 

[joestevens29]

Because she pays generic flavour of the week radio friendly nonsense, i'm sure the show was amazing given the amount of investment that went into it, but it sure as hell wasn't for the artistic value. She's a pop tart. Kim Kardashian is a "mega superstar" wtf is she talented at? I'm sorry but he's right it's awful.



For the record i'm not trying to be a jerk my wife likes Taylor Swift because it's "fun girly music", and she's a swell lady. But despite liking it even she's a bit embarrassed to admit it, she knows full well it's filler music.

Wasn't Taylor Swift known for Country and then went into pop? Pretty sure she was quite popular before the flavour of the week music.

 

[Replacement*]

Because she pays generic flavour of the week radio friendly nonsense, i'm sure the show was amazing given the amount of investment that went into it, but it sure as hell wasn't for the artistic value. She's a pop tart. Kim Kardashian is a "mega superstar" wtf is she talented at? I'm sorry but he's right it's awful.



For the record i'm not trying to be a jerk my wife likes Taylor Swift because it's "fun girly music", and she's a swell lady. But despite liking it even she's a bit embarrassed to admit it, she knows full well it's filler music.

Well stated. My wife likes Taylor Swift as well but she listens to no end of pablum and would even admit it.

Taylor Swift is simply crafted product that is designed to be easily palatable and not in the least bit challenging for the audience. no thinking required, lyrics that any heart aching teen adolescent could write.

lol at Sinead O Connors comments on Kardashian being on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. Music is indeed dead. Mostly about images and selling carefully marketed product these days.

 

[Replacement*]

Wasn't Taylor Swift known for Country and then went into pop? Pretty sure she was quite popular before the flavour of the week music.

Same marketed gig as so many others. Shania Twain comes to mind. Basically the products of marketing experts that determine in what vein most records can be sold. Even better if you straddle several pop flavors. Cherry pop, country pop, pop pop. Its such syrupy pablum.

 

[Mowzie]

$12,000? So basically a couple nosebleed tickets and a parking pass?

Joking aside, I was scammed for 2 tickets to Russell Peters last year. My gut told me I was gonna get scammed but stupid me fell in to the trap anyways. The buyer claimed they were at a family funeral in Strathmore so were forced to sell the tickets last minute.

 

[Replacement*]

$12,000? So basically a couple nosebleed tickets and a parking pass?

Joking aside, I was scammed for 2 tickets to Russell Peters last year. My gut told me I was gonna get scammed but stupid me fell in to the trap anyways. The buyer claimed they were at a family funeral in Strathmore so were forced to sell the tickets last minute.

The 12K from my understanding was the total from 109 noted transactions. Still works out to 110bucks per transaction which means people were basically lining up to pay this guy a large sum on a scam deal.

Heres an easy lesson. Buy from a reputable site that guarantees sales like Stubhub, by from Ticketmaster or direct from source, or don't go.

For so many people to drop their guard and pay a guy like this a sum of 12K means something is wrong with the buyers as well. Certainly the buyers contribute greatly to this scam existing and being worthwhile. Crime doesn't pay without people opening themselves up like this. I wonder how many provided credit or other personal info as well in paying directly to a criminal.

 

[Samus44]

Wasn't Taylor Swift known for Country and then went into pop? Pretty sure she was quite popular before the flavour of the week music.

Country music isn't Country-Folk anymore it's Country-Pop music 90% of the time. We aren't dealing with Patsy Cline here... She's always been popular because she's always played mass appeal fluff and because she's a pretty young girl who's easily marketed so her songs recieve tremendous financial backing. This fluff mass appeal nonsense is present in nearly all popular genere's of music, in fact within the fluff you see crossovers. Rap-Country fluff, Rock-Pop fluff, Rap-Pop fluff, so on and so forth. I actually think this video might be even more spot on in terms of parody. Popularity = Mass Appeal and marketability = Taylor Swift, she wouldn't be relevant to anyone without the common thread between them. Legit musicians don't have the middle part, at least not when they start. Taylor Swift was an instant star, was Nirvana?

 

[doulos]

Because she pays generic flavour of the week radio friendly nonsense, i'm sure the show was amazing given the amount of investment that went into it, but it sure as hell wasn't for the artistic value. She's a pop tart. Kim Kardashian is a "mega superstar" wtf is she talented at? I'm sorry but he's right it's awful.



For the record i'm not trying to be a jerk my wife likes Taylor Swift because it's "fun girly music", and she's a swell lady. But despite liking it even she's a bit embarrassed to admit it, she knows full well it's filler music.

You don't have to like it, but billions of others do. Complain all you want but this is what people want and they are getting it.

 

[doulos]

Wasn't Taylor Swift known for Country and then went into pop? Pretty sure she was quite popular before the flavour of the week music.

That's a big reason why she is the biggest superstar in music hands down. She made he crossover from country to pop music, she appeals to a massive swath of different types of music lovers, and up until recently she wrote all of her own music.

I get it that there are people that don't like her - that's the beauty of music. I find her music catchy but that's about where I leave it. I just laugh when people say that others should be embarrassed that they listen to her. As if their own personal tastes somehow are more important than anyone else's on this little rock we call earth.

 

[soothsayer]

Me, I think Swift sucks because she's a creepy Ayn Rand disciple who thinks that money is the only way to express value and creativity. Also, I think her music is objectively terrible

 

[doulos]

Me, I think Swift sucks because she's a creepy Ayn Rand disciple who thinks that money is the only way to express value and creativity. Also, I think her music is objectively terrible

Hahah, I laughed

 

[shoop]

Me, I think Swift sucks because she's a creepy Ayn Rand disciple who thinks that money is the only way to express value and creativity. Also, I think her music is objectively terrible

Objectivism joke? Uhhhh .... interesting.

I used the google machine with Any Rand and Taylor Swift. Nothing relevant. Are you being serious about the Ayn Rand disciple?

I'm by no means a fan of pop music, so I don't really have an opinion on Swift. Shake it Off seems like an ok pop song. Couldn't name another one of her songs, but I'm sure I've heard others.

 

[harpoon]

Objectivism joke? Uhhhh .... interesting. I used the google machine with Any Rand and Taylor Swift. Nothing relevant. Are you being serious about the Ayn Rand disciple?

He's talking about the fact that Swift didn't want to give away her music for free. What a dirty capitalist.

"Swift, a pop country music star, recently took to Tumblr (a blogging platform) to write a letter of activism (read Swift’s letter here). Swift explains that Apple’s new Apple Music streaming service precludes payment to artists in the first three months. Swift argues that this is wrong. In a persuasive, simple letter implicitly based on egoism, not altruism, because she predicates the letter on achieving her own values in an explicit expression of magnanimity, Swift makes the case for what amounts to intellectual property rights. Swift advocates what Ayn Rand called the trader principle, the essence of capitalism. As Swift concludes her letter to Apple: “Please don’t ask [artists] to provide you with our music for no compensation.â€

http://scottholleran.com/business/taylor-swifts-activism-for-apple/

 

[soothsayer]

He's talking about the fact that Swift didn't want to give away her music for free. What a dirty capitalist.

"Swift, a pop country music star, recently took to Tumblr (a blogging platform) to write a letter of activism (read Swift’s letter here). Swift explains that Apple’s new Apple Music streaming service precludes payment to artists in the first three months. Swift argues that this is wrong. In a persuasive, simple letter implicitly based on egoism, not altruism, because she predicates the letter on achieving her own values in an explicit expression of magnanimity, Swift makes the case for what amounts to intellectual property rights. Swift advocates what Ayn Rand called the trader principle, the essence of capitalism. As Swift concludes her letter to Apple: “Please don’t ask [artists] to provide you with our music for no compensation.”

http://scottholleran.com/business/taylor-swifts-activism-for-apple/

Well, that's quite a reductive expression of what I had in mind. And in fact I haven't until now read that article, which does not quote her Galtesque statement: "Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It's my opinion that music should not be free."

It doesn't take a genius to see that her inductive leaps are based on libertarian/objectivist principles that no one in their right mind would agree with. For instance, most people don't actually think that value can necessarily be expressed in a commodity. In other words, unless you're completely inconsistent in your life or you're a robot, you don't actually think that money is the best or only way to express value. In other words, there are plenty of valuable things that can't be expressed through money.

And the article you posted is right about one thing, her argument is egoistic rather than altruistic. The only problem: no one actually takes egoism seriously, just as no serious person takes Rand seriously.

 

[shoop]

He's talking about the fact that Swift didn't want to give away her music for free. What a dirty capitalist.

"Swift makes the case for what amounts to intellectual property rights. Swift advocates what Ayn Rand called the trader principle, the essence of capitalism. As Swift concludes her letter to Apple: “Please don’t ask [artists] to provide you with our music for no compensation.”

I've read Ayn Rand. I think she went too far with a lot of her stuff.

Equating Taylor Swift to Ayn Rand because she wants to get paid for her work is plain ign'ant.

And the article you posted is right about one thing, her argument is egoistic rather than altruistic. The only problem: no one actually takes egoism seriously, just as no serious person takes Rand seriously.

You're making a huge leap there. Yes, expecting to be paid for ones work is not altruistic. That does not mean that expecting to be paid for ones work is not something to be taken seriously. That argument is as simplistic and worthy of scorn as any of the tripe Ayn Rand advocates.

 

[soothsayer]

I've read Ayn Rand. I think she went too far with a lot of her stuff.

Equating Taylor Swift to Ayn Rand because she wants to get paid for her work is plain ign'ant.



You're making a huge leap there. Yes, expecting to be paid for ones work is not altruistic. That does not mean that expecting to be paid for ones work is not something to be taken seriously. That argument is as simplistic and worthy of scorn as any of the tripe Ayn Rand advocates.

Clearly the article you've re-quoted is making the same argument. Or do you not see that? And for the record, I haven't made the argument that she shouldn't be paid for her work, or even that she is wrong to ask to be paid. The argument I'm making is about her justification.

 

[shoop]

Clearly the article you've re-quoted is making the same argument. Or do you not see that? And for the record, I haven't made the argument that she shouldn't be paid for her work, or even that she is wrong to ask to be paid. The argument I'm making is about her justification.

I'm not sure where you found her justification about art and rarity.

This is the justification I remembered from the original letter Swift wrote to Apple. It's completely coherent and defensible. Link in the Holleran story.

This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.

 

[soothsayer]

I'm not sure where you found her justification about art and rarity.

This is the justification I remembered from the original letter Swift wrote to Apple. It's completely justified. Link in the Holleran story.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/04/taylor-swift-spotify-streaming-album-sales-snub

Quoting again:
“Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free.â€

 

[Replacement*]

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/04/taylor-swift-spotify-streaming-album-sales-snub

Quoting again:
“Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free.”

I wonder how much music she downloaded for free as a teen.

Saying her music is valuable is the epitome of self objectivism. Although I'd say her art is more the type of generic pablum that Howard Roark spent his lifetime railing about.

 

[oilborn]

This thread.

 

[shoop]

“Music is art, and art is important and rare. Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free.â€

If nothing else, she clearly hired a better publicist between the writing of this quote and the letter to Apple.

 

[harpoon]

Saying her music is valuable is the epitome of self objectivism. Although I'd say her art is more the type of generic pablum that Howard Roark spent his lifetime railing about.

I think you must have misread the quote. She never said her music was valuable (although its obviously implied).
Swift was making a general statement regarding art. And as we all know, art is a subjective business.
I agree with the general statement she made that artists (self defined) deserve to be paid for their work to the extent that the market is willing to pay.
Its been established for decades that you pay for music you like. Way back to the days of the 8-track.
Just because a new medium arises that makes it easy for people to cheat the artist out of his/her compensation, doesn't negate the principle that art isn't free.
I think Swift (and I know absolutely nothing about her, couldn't pick her out of a lineup of ten ladies, and couldn't identify any song that she sings) is well within her rights as an artist (self defined) who produces art for which there is a recognized and proven commercial market.

I'd like to get into the Ayn Rand stuff ... but I have a feeling that wouldn't end well. Unless the mods are willing to grant us a little leeway during the dog days of summer

 

[doulos]

Strange. I just thought her songs were catchy and gave me a great chance to dance around the kitchen with my daughter.

 

[soothsayer]

I think you must have misread the quote. She never said her music was valuable (although its obviously implied).
Swift was making a general statement regarding art. And as we all know, art is a subjective business.
I agree with the general statement she made that artists (self defined) deserve to be paid for their work to the extent that the market is willing to pay.
Its been established for decades that you pay for music you like. Way back to the days of the 8-track.
Just because a new medium arises that makes it easy for people to cheat the artist out of his/her compensation, doesn't negate the principle that art isn't free.
I think Swift (and I know absolutely nothing about her, couldn't pick her out of a lineup of ten ladies, and couldn't identify any song that she sings) is well within her rights as an artist (self defined) who produces art for which there is a recognized and proven commercial market.

I'd like to get into the Ayn Rand stuff ... but I have a feeling that wouldn't end well. Unless the mods are willing to grant us a little leeway during the dog days of summer

I think we need a thread devoted to the Rand-Swift connection

To the bolded, art is not in principle a commodity. Something is not turned into art in the moment that someone is willing to pay for it. Van Gogh's Starry Night, for example, does not magically turn into art by mere virtue that someone decides to pay money for it. It is art whether or not it has been exchanged in a market economy.

The fundamental issue here(at least as far as I'm concerned) is not that an artist should be paid for their work, but with the notion that the value of art--value in general, in Swift's words--is expressed through a financial transaction. It's just not true. And the Rand connection is probably obvious.