Chris Bryant, the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism crticised the ticket touting industry. Describing the practice as “indefensible,” the MP for Rhondda and Ogmore said it “preys on fans, contributes nothing to artists or the industry, and undermines trust in the ticketing system.”

“It’s indefensible. It trades off other people’s hopes. And it doesn’t return a single penny to the artists, the performers, the venue, the industry or the sport. We said we would tackle this. And that’s what we’re doing.” @RhonddaBryant

We’ve launched a consultation into ticket… pic.twitter.com/TTYj03uOSO

— Department for Culture, Media and Sport (@DCMS) January 14, 2025

Bryant suggested a licensing system for ticket resellers, alongside simplification and clarification of existing rules, regulations and legislatature to make enforcement more effective. Currently, prosecutions are rare, and international sellers often evade British laws, with one MP claiming that there has been as few as six prosecutions since sentences were introduced.  

Dynamic pricing, which adjusts ticket prices based on demand, was also brought up. Bryant acknowledged that while some instances of dynamic pricing, such as early-bird tickets, can benefit fans, the practice often leads to price surges that cause frustration, and encourages customers to act on impulse. “It seems horribly unfair for someone logged into the system to see the ticket price going up—£120, £125, £130—because that creates a sense of panic,” he said.

The Government’s proposals to take on ticket touts will reduce the need for @Ticketmaster @LiveNation to deploy dynamic ticket pricing…. won’t it? @DCMS @RhonddaBryant pic.twitter.com/AID6FcvYlU — Caroline Dinenage MP (@cj_dinenage) January 14, 2025

Caroline Dinenage, Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, supported the need for reform, arguing that “if the Government act decisively to stop large-scale touting, there will be less need for promoters like Live Nation to use dynamic pricing.”

https://t.co/V9faRqAiH3 — Culture, Media and Sport Committee (@CommonsCMS) January 10, 2025

Several MPs used the debate to stress the importance of greater transparency in ticket pricing. Iqbal Mohamed called for clear breakdowns of ticket prices and fees before purchase, allowing consumers to make informed decisions. It was also revealed that some sites wouldn’t show the original ticket price and adjusted price on the same page.

This has been an area of concern for some time, but was highlighted over the Summer after the Oasis ticket fiasco, though Robbie Williams stepped in to defend the band, placing responsibility for pricing with anybody but the artists. MP for Ealing and East Acton, Rupa Huq, has been trying to address the issue in a private members bill, which she claims has been the subject of “Friday filibustering”. Ticketmaster, the company at the heart of the controversy, recently made a £60,000 donation to the Music Venue Trust.

Who’s the biggest artist you’ve seen before they got big?@efoody welcomes the Government’s commitment to real music fans, and @RhonddaBryant makes it clear why putting the fan experience first is so important. pic.twitter.com/soRgGhvMrt

— Co-operative Party (@CoopParty) January 14, 2025

Beyond ticketing, Bryant emphasised the broader importance of live events to the UK’s musical heritage. He called for a “whole-of-music” approach, including better funding for grassroots venues and creative education. “Wouldn’t it be good if every child had the opportunity to go to live music at least once a year?” he asked.  

Bryant’s suggestion of a “musical education” hints at trying to make the wider public aware of the value of music, and bring about an appreciation of smaller artists and venues too. However, this effort will be in vain if the government doesn’t get their approach to grassroots venues and the incoming ticket levy right. While there is no right way to address the issue, Robert Smith, frontman of The Cure, recently suggested a £25 cap on tickets. While this would do little to help smaller venues, it would eat into the profits of ticket companies, removing the incentive to hike prices and use dynamic pricing.

Lots of talk on the news about gig ticket prices, and setting limits on how much people can resell tickets for. I’d like to see a levy on tickets sold for arena gigs, with the money raised going to @musicvenuetrust to help ensure new acts have places to play, securing the future. — Phil Seymour (@announcerphil) January 10, 2025

While MPs largely agreed on the need for reform, it is the enforcement of any new rules that will give the government the most challenges. Julian Lewis raised concerns about the ease with which touts could bypass regulations through small, undercover sales on sites like eBay, as well as sales that take place in person. This would remove any of the existing legal protections offered by the current system.

While Bryant seems armed to answer any question thrown at him, only time will tell if the governments changed approach wil achieve the desired outcome, and hopefully the consultation will give suggestions on the best course of action for the general public.

The House is now sitting, starting with questions to @SciTechgovuk ministers.

Watch today’s proceedings live

— UK House of Commons (@HouseofCommons) January 8, 2025

Responding to East Thanet MP Polly Billington, Bryant emphasised: “We are absolutely determined to make sure that copyright and intellectual property is protected, as it always has been in this country. Our consultation is designed to do two specific things: ensure legal certainty for AI developers and creative industries alike, and to increase licensing of copyrighted material by AI developers.”  

When pushed by Billington on how those who rely on copyrighted works will still make a living if companies that train AI could use their work, Bryant used the Artist’s Resale Right (ARR) as an example of how this government would ensure “that there is a future revenue stream for every artist in this country”. In its current form, the ARR applies to physical art such as sculptures, paintings and ceramics, and is only enacted when those pieces are sold through an official market or auction. It allows for a continuous revenue stream, even after they sell their work.

The UK government AI and Copyright Consultation opens today. We want to hear from a wide range of voices. Respond to the consultation to share your views. [Link]: https://t.co/0Aq3JNwyTp pic.twitter.com/bnbXPKTrLV — Intellectual Property Office UK (@The_IPO) December 17, 2024

As part of the government’s response, they have launched a ten-week consultation, promoted by various government accounts on X, in order to gather opinions on how they should respond to the threat AI poses to the UK’s creative industries. One piece of supplementary material provides the government’s objectives, and outlines the four approaches they have considered. 

Their objectives are split into three ideals: control, access, and transparency.

Control protects the artist, allowing them to choose what work is available for data mining, and also control over the licensing agreement. This will benefit smaller AI companies who may not have the funds to license material from an artist like Dua Lipa, but could find an agreement with a smaller artist.

Access is about allowing these data mining companies access to high-quality material, without legal and administrative headaches, and therefore making the UK a more attractive place to establish an AI presence.

The final objective, transparency, aims to benefit both sides, with the artist having a full understanding of how they can license their work, and how exactly AI companies can use said work. 

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Musicians’ Union (@wearethemu)

As part of this consultation, the government revealed that their preferred approach would be an “opt-out” licensing system, explaining that this approach achieves all three of their objectives. This approach has drawn criticism from high-profile figures in the creative industry, including Sir Paul McCartney and Kate Bush, who argue it undermines artists’ control over their work. Many advocate for an “opt-in” system, requiring explicit consent before materials can be used for data mining, thereby ensuring artists fully understand the risks and benefits, and can come to their own agreements on how their work is used.

The government’s consultation is set to close on March 15, and the results could shape the future of both AI and copyright laws in the UK. While the debate will continue, there is mounting pressure to ensure that an opt-out system will benefit creators, and allow them to continue making a living from their art.