I think you're picking a choosing what you read in peoples post, thus you're clearly confused.
If you continued to read my post after what you quoted I stated "This situation is getting enough attention that it's just matter of time regulators apply it to other products and not just concert tickets
Got it. Thanks, you're right I didn't read your whole post. Your clarification confirms what I suspected; You are in-fact confusing ticket-scalping laws with this issue.
The problem is that your your premise is a half-truth, you've created a false analogy, and you've made an assertion of momentum that is completely contradicted by evidence.
Half-truth: 26 states have scalping laws. True. Those 26 states contain 75% of the US population. Also true. What you didn't say is that of those 26 states, 19 have laws that simply regulate where and when tickets can be sold. For example, in California (the most populous state), the law only restricts resale on the premises of the event. I would say that covers less that 0.1% of the of the "population" of California, with only those living right next/in a venue being affected (and arguably they could walk a few blocks?). In Texas (second most populous state), there are no laws against scalping. In New York (third most populous state), you can't sell within 500-1500 ft of a venue, and you need a certificate from the sec of state, but once you have that you can scalp to your heart's content. If you're suggesting that scalping is illegal in and around places where 75% of the US population lives, you're being disingenuous and greatly exaggerating the level of regulation that actually exists.
False analogy: Your essentially arguing that reselling a product (iPhone) is the same as reselling tickets for an event, and since ticket resale is regulated then product resale is/should also be regulated. There is no correlation between the two, and the reasons for regulating ticket sales have literally nothing to do with, nor do they apply to, product resale. Ticket scalping laws, if you have read them, are clearly aimed at a) preventing a ton of people from showing up at a venue ticketless without a ticket, thinking they can buy from a reseller (crowd control problem), b) preventing fraud through licensing, because it's easy to perpetrate with paper/virtual objects like tickets, and c) addressing the fundamental imbalance between demand and supply for a time-definite, one- or short-time, capacity limited event that is easy to monopolize (e.g. you could use software to buy up all the tickets very quickly). Neither a, b, or c apply in the case of a product. For c, I'm quite sure apple will make enough iPhones to go around eventually, and whether you start using yours today or 4 weeks from now makes no real difference to the value you receive from the product.
Assertion: "just a matter of time before regulators . . .". Well, these are laws, so I guess it would really be lawmakers. But in any case, you're implying there is some kind of momentum that leads us toward greater regulation of resale. If you're looking to ticket scalping laws to reach this conclusion, you should have noticed that in-fact the momentum is in the opposite direction. Missouri repealed its scalping law in 2007. Minnesota repealed its scalping law in 2007, and a new one failed to pass in 2011. Colorado failed to pass a scalping law in 2009. Connecticut repealed its law in 2007, and a new one failed (like Minnesota) in 2011. If anything, the momentum is against regulation in this area. I'm pretty sure it's because most logical people realize a free market economy is a better solution than to try to regulate supply/demand through legislation.
Have a nice day.
