Download tbat ticketmaster

I buy tickets through any other means when possible, and I have sometimes decided against buying tickets to shows I wanted to see when they were the only option. There was a show my husband really wanted to see on his birthday, so I just bought tickets from them for the first time in over a decade.

It seems they have gotten even worse! Outrageous service fees, then even more outrageous fees if you want a physical ticket! I went with the "free" mobile option, now I find that I may not be able to use it, because I can't log in to their app! I have the same error message others are reporting that has apparently been going on for a long time. I am now in their customer service queue to try to resolve this by next week lol! Perhaps their response time is so backer's up because everyone is worried about having reliable access to their tickets?

Yet it doesn't seem like fixing their app is a particularly high priority. The only way to do anything about this company's decades long disgraceful behavior is to complain about them directly to the shows that hire them remember, these shoes are their real customers, not you The following data may be used to track you across apps and websites owned by other companies:. The following data may be collected and linked to your identity:.

The following data may be collected but it is not linked to your identity:. Privacy practices may vary, for example, based on the features you use or your age. Learn More. With Family Sharing set up, up to six family members can use this app.

App Store Preview. Screenshots iPhone iPad. Description Ticketmaster gives you access to millions of live events and makes it easy to buy, sell, and get in - so you can get on with making memories that last.

Dec 8, Version Ratings and Reviews. App Privacy. Information Seller Ticketmaster L. Donate Now. Sign In Register. Filed: October 15th, Precedential Status: Precedential. Citations: F. Author: Audrey B. On October 5, , Plaintiff submitted a Court-ordered supplemental declaration of Kevin McLain, and Defendant submitted a supplemental declaration of Cipriano Garibay on October 9, The hearing on this matter was held on October 15, In this action, Plaintiff Ticketmaster "Plaintiff' or "Ticketmaster" alleges that Defendant RMG has developed and marketed automated devices to access and navigate through Ticketmaster's website, thereby infringing Plaintiffs copyrights and violating the website's Terms of Use and a number of federal and state statutes.

Plaintiff Ticketmaster sells tickets for entertainment and sports events on behalf of its clients to the general public through a variety of means, including its copyrighted website ticketmaster. Recognizing that competition to purchase tickets can be intense, Plaintiff contends that it attempts to ensure a fair and equitable ticket buying process on the website by contract and through technological means.

First, visitors to ticketmaster. These terms permit viewers to use ticketmaster. Second, Plaintiff contends that it employs a number of technological means to ensure that ticket buying over the website is fair and equitable.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant RMG has marketed and sold applications that enable Defendant's customers to use automated devices to enter and navigate through its website in violation of the Terms of Use governing the website, thereby causing injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff now moves for a preliminary injunction based on five of its claims. McLain testifies how he was able to trace ticket requests and purchases made on ticketmaster. McLain Decl. Prior as Defendant's clients.

Using IP addresses registered to Defendant, Bonner made almost 13, ticket purchases over several years, and made more than , ticket requests in a single day. Using IP addresses registered to Defendant, Prior made almost 22, ticket orders over several years, and made more than , ticket requests in a single day. Defendant challenges the Motion on both legal and factual grounds. Defendant states that the computer application Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from using and selling is its Ticket Broker Acquisition Tool "TBAT" , and that this application is not an "automated device" but, rather, is simply a type of internet browser, akin to Internet Explorer, requiring human interaction.

Garibay Decl. Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs legal theories are flawed in various ways. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show "either: 1 a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or 2 that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. EPL Prolong, Inc. Metrosound U. Project v. Shelley, F. A preliminary injunction is an "extraordinary remedy" for which the need must be "clear and unequivocal.

National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, F. The five claims on which Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction are its claims for violation of the United States Copyright Act, 17 U. To prevail on its claim for copyright infringement, Plaintiff must 1 "show ownership of the allegedly infringed material and 2 [it] must demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under 17 U.

Napster, Inc. Ticketmaster alleges that RMG is violating its copyright in the ticketmaster. Ticketmaster has submitted evidence that it owns registered copyrights in the website ticketmaster.

Lee Decl. Copyright protection for a website may extend to both the screen displays and the computer code for the website. Academy of Healing Nutrition, F. Defendant does not dispute Plaintiffs claim that its website is copyrighted. Ticketmaster has thus satisfied the first element of its copyright claim. Ticketmaster alleges that RMG infringes its copyrights in ticketmaster.

First, Ticketmaster states that each time Defendant views a page from ticketmaster. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant directly participates in its customers' unauthorized access of the website because its customers do not acquire physical possession of the software. Rather, Defendant's devices are kept on Defendant's own computer systems; in order to gain access to Defendant's devices, its customers must log onto Defendant's website ticketbrokertools.

Thus, Defendant allows and, indeed, requires its customers to go through its own infrastructure in order to employ the devices that access ticketmaster. Defendant denies this factual allegation and states that "TBAT [has never been] operated from RMG's computer system on behalf of any client, as it is not, nor has it ever, been centrally run on behalf of any client.

Second, Plaintiff states that Defendant is liable for contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and inducing copyright infringement because it provides its clients with hots and other automated devices to infringe Plaintiff's copyright in its website.

Both direct and indirect infringement occur insofar as the person viewing the website does so in excess of the authorization Plaintiff grants through the website's Terms of Use. Defendant's direct liability for copyright infringement is based on the automatically-created copies of ticketmaster. Lieb Decl. Defendant does not contest that, as a technological question, whenever a webpage is viewed on a computer, copies of the viewed pages are made and stored on the viewer's computer.

However, Defendant contends that such "cached" copies are not "copies" within the meaning of the Copyright Act, that such copies could not give rise to copyright liability because their creation constitutes fair use, and that Plaintiff has not shown that any pages from ticketmaster.

Section of the Copyright Act defines "copies" as "material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

The copies of webpages stored automatically in a computer's cache or random access memory "RAM" upon a viewing of the webpage fall within the Copyright Act's definition of "copy.

Peak Computer, Inc. Cablevision Systems Corp. Thus, copies of ticketmaster. The Court must next determine whether Plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant did in fact view the website, thereby copying its webpages. Although Plaintiff does not present direct evidence of such viewing, the logic from which such an inference may be drawn is compelling. Plaintiff presents expert testimony that Defendant necessarily had to view ticketmaster.

Indeed, in order to test the applications to determine whether they worked as intended, Defendant would have had to actually use the applications to purchase tickets from the website. By Defendant's own description, TBAT is "a browser geared for the purchase of tickets from a variety of websites including. It also follows that Defendant's clients would have had to visit the website, and thus copy pages, in order to make ticket purchases. The Court thus finds that Plaintiff is indeed likely to prove that Defendant visited and used ticketmaster.

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant is directly liable for infringement because its clients must work through Defendant's website and computer system in order to use Defendant's ticket purchasing software and thereby gain unauthorized access to ticketmaster.

Defendant disputes this allegation. However, the Court finds it unnecessary to decide whether Plaintiff will prevail in its claim for direct infringement by showing that Defendant directly participates in its clients' conduct by acting as an intermediary for their unauthorized use of ticketmaster.

Next, the Court will consider whether Plaintiff is likely to demonstrate that such copying constitutes copyright infringement. Plaintiff contends that Defendant infringed its copyrights by accessing and using the copyrighted website in excess of the authorization granted in the website's Terms of Use, which Plaintiff contends creates a non-exclusive license to view and thus copy pages from the website.

Defendant presents a number of legal and factual arguments against this theory, but none of them is meritorious. First, the Court agrees that the Terms of Use presented on ticketmaster. Board of County Com'rs, U. Radio Television Espanola S. New World Entertainment, Ltd. See Effects Associates, Inc. Cohen, F. Use of a work in excess of a license gives rise to liability for copyright infringement. LGS Architects, Inc. Concordia Homes of Nevada, F. Plaintiff has presented evidence showing that access to the website is governed by specific Terms of Use, and that any person viewing the website is put on notice of the Terms of Use.

For example, the ticketmaster. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. The underlined phrase "Terms of Use" is a hyperlink to the full Terms of Use; the same phrase appears on almost every page of ticketmaster.

In addition, since , users of ticketmaster. Having determined that Plaintiff is highly likely to succeed in showing that Defendants viewed and navigated through ticketmaster. See, e. Verio, Inc. Indeed, Defendant does not contest that it was on notice of the Terms of Use; rather, Defendant argues that the Terms of Use do not amount to an agreement or a license, and that the Terms are too uncertain to be enforced.

Expand search. Search Search. Ticket Delivery. How do I view or print tickets I bought online? Answer TM. Please note: tickets may not be printed from our app.

Sign in with the same email used for purchase. Click your order and look for the "Print Tickets" button. Download it HERE. URL Name.