Skeptic Project

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/29/theres-now-a-currency-thats-up-152-1-billion-total-value-and-you-should-know-about-it/


THERE'S NOW A CURRENCY THAT'S UP 152% -- $1 BILLION TOTAL VALUE -- AND YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT IT
Mar. 29, 2013 10:39am Liz Klimas
103
226
3
0
106

(Image: Shutterstock.com)
The digital currency Bitcoin, which began as an idea in 1998, but truly took on a working form in 2009, has hit a major milestone. It is now worth $1 billion in total value.

The Atlantic Wire reported that the exchange rate Thursday exceeded $95 per Bitcoin - that's a 152 percent increase for the month. Or, as the Wire put it, if you purchased $500 worth of Bitcoins a year ago, the currency would be worth close to $10,000 now.


(Image: Bitcoin charts)
When TheBlaze reported earlier this week about the first house on the market for sale of Bitcoins only, we included the recent uptick of the digital currency that seems to have spawned with the issues experienced in Cyprus. Apps for Bitcoin were being downloaded more frequently in some European countries of late.

Late last week, before the $1 billion milestone, marketing strategist Nicholas Colas with ConvergEx Group, a financial tech company, shared a few thoughts about the recent growth of Bitcoin popularity (via CNET):

Using Google Trends, we can see how many users are searching for the term "bitcoin" around the world. What it shows is that the actual peak for "bitcoin" searches was in July 2011, during a spate of hacks. Searches for the term are solidly on the rise now, but still not close to that old high.
Searches for "Bitcoin" in Spain are ramping up quickly, and about 25% away from the July 2011 highs. Interest over the last 15 months has increased fourfold.
In Greece, Google searches for the term "Bitcoin" are back to the old July 2011 highs and 5x the level of 15 months ago.
In terms of national interest, Russia leads the pack in terms of Google searches for 'Bitcoin.'Finland and Belarus place and show, with the U.S, just out of the medals. In terms of cities where the search is inordinately common, it is Moscow in first, then Berlin and Melbourne. New York comes in at #4.
"Here is an online currency, less than 5 years old, where the people buying the product wouldn't likely understand 5 percent of what the people running the system might say about it," Colas wrote. "And yet this dynamic has created a base of capital - real, spendable, useable capital - of close to $1 billion in value. And most of that in the last three months."


Colas acknowledges, as many might be thinking, that such bubbles happened frequently -- and it could be the case with Bitcoins. In fact, according to Bitcoin's own website, it experienced a bubble in 2011 that deflated in the later part of that year. Still, the value had since been steadily climbing.

As we mentioned earlier, the history of Bitcoin began as an idea in 1998, but it was truly started by Satoshi Nakamoto, a pseudonym in 2009. According to the Bitcoin website's about section, the currency has a hard limit of 21 million Bitcoins.

These are its technical details:

Bitcoins can be transferred between arbitrary nodes on the network.
Transactions are irreversible.
Double spending is prevented by using a block chain.
Transactions are broadcast within seconds and verified within 10 to 60 minutes.
Transaction processing and money issuance are carried out collectively through mining.
Transactions can be received at any time regardless of whether your computer is turned on or off.

(Image: Bitcoin.org)
Watch this Fox Business report with John Stossel and Reason Magazine's Katherine Mangu-Ward with more information about bitcoins, their use and their pros and cons:

Bitcoin discussed on Freedom 2.0 (Foxbusiness)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6kRZo63IPE


FinCen last week clarified its position about the regulation of Bitcoin, or rather "decentralized digital currency." These guidelines, TechCrunch said help establish trust in the credibility of Bitcoin. Even still though, TechCrunch calls it a "tenuous place, policy-wise":

There's a good chance that a decentralized, unregulated market is going to scare the pants off the government once it's fully cognizant that Bitcoin is a billion-dollar market -- and growing. "It's the easiest 'this funds terrorism' scare argument the government will ever try to make, so a big battle within the next year or two is pretty much guaranteed," [Greg Kumparak] said.
If nothing else though, do as TechCrunch suggests and take a moment to marvel in how Bitcoin seems to be -- at least for the moment -- "a crazy idea that's actually working."

Looks interesting going to checkout Silkroads.


I'm going to connect to the silkroads website.


Silk Road Anonymous Marketplace
https://www.youtube.com/IsraelFreedomFighter





Hot to connect to silkroads
http://mainstreamlos.tumblr.com/

Anonym fragte: i will be buying bitcoins from bitinstant can i deposit directly to silk road account

Login to Silk Road, go to your account and copy your depositBitcoin adress.From bitinstant.com you sent them to this adress ...It takes 1-2 hours, than the bitcoins are deposit on your SR acount.


Text

Anonym fragte: how do I connect to black silk road

How To join the "Silk Road Anonymous Marketplace"

1.Download Tor Vidalia Bundle here: https://www.torproject.org/download/download-easy.html.en

2.Install TOR

3. Open TOR and go to this NEW "Silk Road" adress: http://silkroadvb5piz3r.onion/index.php/silkroad/home Down below of the empty login field just press on the green words "click here to join". Than you come to the registration site.

4.Go to "Register" and create account

5.To buy something at Silk Road you neet Bitcoins, so go to any shop in your region and exchange money into Bitcoins,for example here: https://mtgox.com/ here: https://www.bitinstant.com/ or here: https://www.bitcoin.de/en

6.Before you buy any item read the Silk Road Buyer's Guide. Buyer´s Guide Silk Road Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=215422721877319

7.If you want to be "100% Safe" you have to encrypt your delivery adress with PGP Encryption PGP Download: http://www.gpg4win.org/index.html
How to use PGP Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SywCI91kfq0
Very Good Silk Road Guide: http://www.gwern.net/Silk%20Road


To order from Silk Road is 100% SAFE because the system of Silk Road exists of these 3 components:
1. TOR ( anonymous browser)
2. Bitcoin (Anonymous method to payment)
3. PGP (Program to encode delivery adress) "Like" Silk Road on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/SilkRoadMarketplace

How to access the Silk Road Anonymous Marketplace through TOR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVY1WAGzfyE
More Information:
Silk Road Buyer´s Guide´s: http://www.gwern.net/Silk%20Road
http://mainstreamlos.blogspot.de/
https://vimeo.com/channels/silkroadanonymousmarket
http://www.tumblr.com/blog/mainstreamlos
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/nicolasc/publications/TR-CMU-CyLab-12-018.pdf http://feeds.feedburner.com/SilkRoadAnonymousMarketplace
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=215422721877319
Silk Road Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_%28marketplace%29 PGP Encryption Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_
Privacy PGP Download: http://www.gpg4win.org/index.html How to use PGP Encryption: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SywCI91kfq0

Quote from anticultist

Silk roads is pretty much used for buying illegal drugs online anonymously as far as I am aware.

You can buy guns on silk road among other things, and they have a comment section like amazon.com to rate the seller. I think this is neat in the way that they are requiring and using a tor bridge to hide there site (that changes) as well as for users to get on the site, and using bitcoin as a form of payment, seems like a interesting collaboration. I know bitcoin has been popular and possibly sustained and popularized within the black market community. I'd say tor is going to have some serious anonymous funders in the future, if that haven't already. Based off the silkroad model I could see this becoming a more popular blackmarket venue for goods and services in the near future. Though we do have the deep net or dark net where black martket which basically where bots and search engines do not go so you simply can't go there on a search engine where some black markets are at.

I watched a video on tor development which was very interesting. It's not foolproof but if someones internet traffic stays below 20 kilo bytes or keeps internet traffic relatively low when using tor they should be fine as it looks like web browsing traffic. I'm wondering though if piratebay or another bitorrent site is running through a torr bridge though they shouldn't be able too as tor basically disparages people from running tor traffic for bittorrent download because it slows the network down and occupies bridges that could be uses in countries where they censor the internet. However if you are running a bittorent client through tor set the traffic speed to around 20 or 30 so it at least looks like you are webbrowsing, think of it like running within a pack of deer, if you run too fast you will be easier to see, however if you run with the pack the pack will conceal your movements much better.

The video is pretty good I recommend watching it, nice accurate stats, I like how they point particular variables within the graphs, really a nice video I'll put it up below. I believe they could of sat there for years explaining all the crazy things that happen but most of the time they talk about the two biggest internet censored countries being china and Iran. I do not agree with everything they say in the video or there approaches but altogether very interesting in their approach.

How governments have tried to block Tor [28C3]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwMr8Xl7JMQ

I read something in wired where it said bitcoin began to do a major surge up when a piece was done on silk roads blackmarket, but soon after the market went back down again.

In wired magazine

For a while, he was right. Through 2009 and early 2010, bitcoins had no value at all, and for the first six months after they started trading in April 2010, the value of one bitcoin stayed below 14 cents. Then, as the currency gained viral traction in summer 2010, rising demand for a limited supply caused the price on online exchanges to start moving. By early November, it surged to 36 cents before settling down to around 29 cents. In February 2011, it rose again and was mentioned on Slashdot for achieving "dollar parity"; it hit $1.06 before settling in at roughly 87 cents.

In the spring, catalyzed in part by a much-linked Forbes story on the new "crypto currency," the price exploded. From early April to the end of May, the going rate for a bitcoin rose from 86 cents to $8.89. Then, after Gawker published a story on June 1 about the currency's popularity among online drug dealers, it more than tripled in a week, soaring to about $27. The market value of all bitcoins in circulation was approaching $130 million.

The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/all/

podcast
http://www.wired.com/mp3/features020.mp3

I did not know that a person can exchange bitcoins for real currency. I thought once a person exchanges real money to bitcoins, there was no exchanging back to real currency. Sounds pretty interesting.

Anybody know anything about light coin?

http://litecoin.org/

This is what Russia Today says about it:

RIAA warns against bitcoin, The Pirate Bay in latest 'notorious websites' list

Hoping to convince the US federal government to block websites it deems harmful to business, the RIAA has submitted its list of "notorious websites" with an especially notable version which includes a dig at the digital currency bitcoin.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a lobby group working for the benefit of the major record labels and other heavyweights in the music industry, submitted the list with the hope that the US Trade Representative (USTR) will block those sites from the internet - or at least make them harder to access for US users.

RIAA executive vice president Neil Turkewitz wrote that the purpose of the list is "to expose businesses who operate illegally, whether by profiting directly from the sale or other distribution of illegal materials or from facilitating such theft."

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the RIAA's counterpart in the United Kingdom, also convinced the British High Court to block 24 sites. The Pirate Bay, Kat, Torrent Reactor, and Extra Torrent were among the "notorious" sites that will be blocked in the UK starting Wednesday.

"Music companies are working hard to build a thriving digital music sector in the UK, offering fans great convenience, choice and value, but these efforts are undermined by illegal sites which rip off artists and contribute nothing to Britain's vibrant music scene," BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor told Forbes magazine.

"We asked the sites to stop infringing copyright, but unfortunately they did not and we were left with little choice but to apply to the Court, where the judge considered the evidence and declared that ISPs should not serve access to them," he continued.

Most of the sites in question provide downloadable links, or torrents, which then redirect a user to a movie, music, video game, or software file. Torrent sites make headlines far less often than Google or Facebook, yet attract nearly as many users. The Pirate Bay, for example, was the 72nd most visited website in the world in October 2013.

"We highlight certain sites that are so central to the activities of a particular society that they almost single-handedly prevent the development of a legitimate online music marketplace," the RIAA's Turkewitz said in a statement.

"Others actively champion their supposed subversiveness by proclaiming to be advocates for freedom of expression while undermining the careers of creators whose very existence is based on expression."

The RIAA also mentioned the growing bitcoin currency as a service contributing to copyright violation. Bitcoin is a decentralized peer-to-peer currency transacted using secure digital wallets, and is thus very difficult for law enforcement to track.

Seizing this opportunity, users have kept The Pirate Bay afloat by donating bitcoin to the site. Law enforcement, unable to freeze assets as it would have done if the donations were received in standard funds, has had no choice but to continue playing catch-up with the Swedish site's current administrators - even after the original founders were convicted of facilitating infringement.

"The true operators of the site remain unknown," the RIAA wrote in its letter, as quoted by TorrentFreak. The convicted individuals claim the site is owned by a company based in the Seychelles, although no evidence has been provided.

"In April 2013, the site started accepting donations from the public by Bitcoin, a digital currency, which operates using peer-to-peer technology," the statement continued. "There is no central authority or banks involved which makes it very difficult to seize or trade Bitcoin funds. In May 2013, the site also started accepting Litecoin, another peer-to-peer based internet currency."

Observers have wondered if copyright enforcers, in trying to undercut the "notorious websites," have inadvertently supplied them with potential customers.

"This list should not be understood to be comprehensive," wrote Michael O'Leary, vice president of the RIAA's sister organization, the MPAA. "It does, however, indicate the scope and scale of global content theft and it introduces some of the ongoing challenges rights holders confront in protecting their intellectual property."

http://rt.com/usa/riaa-bitcoin-pirate-bay-notorious-993/

I have to say I still think bitcoins is interesting. A currency unregulated by the guberment as well as a alternative method to circumvent the traditional red tape.

I'm for the free market/free enterprise and no government within the market place (I do not want to eliminate the state). My perspective on the RIAA is that they are not for competition or a even for capitalism for others unless it's for themsevles. From how I view the RIAA they want to maintain a shoddy market model in a market environment that has changed. Instead of actually trying to adapt the RIAA would rather get the government involved to enforce and maintain a shoddy business practice. I can't fault the RIAA because they are perfectly rational to try to maintain what they have by getting the government to enforce rules within the market, but the RIAA is a good example of how corporations actually maintain power by the government within the market place and when something new comes along that is competition how these particular corporations maintain power through government force to dominate that particular place in the market. I'm just glad that when a guberment gets involved in anything really are fairly incompetent to regulate or enforce the rules they impose, therefore people will more times than not will think of new and innovate ways to circumvent rules imposed by the guberment when it comes to these types of things.

"RIAA represent legal/official companies and artists, and they are a totally responsible and reasonable group."

For sure I agree they are a perfectly rational self-interest group however when they use the government within the market place to slow innovation within the market place this group isn't a group that is for capitalism or free market ideals unless it's for themsevles. This is why I personally cannot support RIAA who go against free enterprise and free market ideals when they use force by the government to do so. The government is fairly incompetent in really doing anything right , on budget, in a timely manner, enforcing rules for everybody, (etc...) when it comes to the market place which is to me the only positive point.

"Bitcoins represents amateur hackers and people who want to avoid leaving a paper trail, because they are buying illegal or grey area products."

I wouldn't say just for amateur hackers for sure they could be a small base among others in the bitcoin community. Bitcoin represent for example a school of Chicago type of thought. Bitcoin concept attracts people who want a alternative to government based and controlled currency which also a nice way to circumvent the red red tape. Not to say bitcoin doesn't have it's problems. I read a few books on the U.S. money it was relatively easy when the U.S. first started out to start making it's own currency hence gives me a better understanding as to why it was so easy for the bitcoin concept to come into reality. The current problem with emoney is it still needs to be backed by something. The positives of emoney allowing for buying black market goods is pretty interesting as well a good for free market/free enterprise.

It would be interesting to see if there is any direct competition between drug sellers how sell drugs on silkroads to see if over time to compete they have had to lower there drugs down to compete. Maybe some don't lower prices down because it's defined in the drug world as a brandname meaning the quality of the drug towards it's clientele is much more potent than the same drugs it's competing with.

"want to avoid leaving a paper trail, because they are buying illegal or grey area products."

For sure, because the current system we live in isn't really a free market/free enterprise system this is why there is a black market because the government in effect indirectly made the black market when they defined whats illegal to have. For instance I am not into smoking crack because it's bad for you, however however if Rob Ford the mayor of Toronto wants to smoke crack he should be allowed to without being thrown in prison. The fact the government is indirectly creating a black market for these things means higher crime rate, higher prices etc... The government is in fact causing more harm than good when it gets involved in the market place. The more jobs/bureaucratic structure created within the government that are in fact meaninglessly and not productive for the market place also means less jobs /potential meaningful jobs within the market place. In short the government does way more harm than good in the market place and when the government imposes it's force onto the market place it's slowing down free market/free enterprise which ultimately is bad for the consumer.

"Crack is illegal, hence jail time. Buying it with pretend money doesn't make it anymore legal either."

It's illegal because the government makes it illegal you are correct. At that because it's deemed illegal you have higher crime rate, and more people in prison because of it. This is a heavy burden on people who pay taxes. Make it not illegal maybe tax it and therefore drugs are more profitable win win for everybody. Right now by making crack illegal it is a higher cost economically across the board. That simply doesn't make economic sense to people who wants to make money.


"RIAA are not a free market group, they are a representative of copyright holders and support protection of intellectual properties of companies and individuals."

I agree with you this is exactly why I can not support such a group when they use government force to influence the market they are in to hinder the market.


"They have nothing to do with promotion or prevention of the free market. They merely exist to sponsor protection of their affiliates properties, and to promote their works."

I agree totally agree and as I have previously stated above that the RIAA isn't for free market or free enterprise unless it's for itself in the previous statements I said above. The RIAA has no real way for themsevles to influence the market, matter in fact I think the RIAA is a particular bureaucratic structure within the music industry at which if the government had no role in the market the RIAA would have no incentive to exist in it's current form.

My problem with RIAA is it's interaction with the government as it attempt to get the government to hinder the free market/free enterprise within a particular market through force rather than adapting to the current market. RIAA by doing this proves onto itself that it's current business model is weak and flawed and again rather than adapting to the market it would rather self-impose a rather old structure that no longer works within the current market place.

The market we had 50 years ago has drastically changed to what we have now, and 50 years from now I suspect it will drastically change even more. I cannot justify the use the force within the market to slow down free market/free enterprise values because they are unwillingly to adapt to the new market which will probably happen with or without RIAA support. I simply cannot agree with the type of structure RIAA is that basically hinders market progress. It's basic economics though it's rational for why RIAA does the things it does it certainly isn't for the consumers benefit and ultimately it's not for the markets benefit as a whole when it slows down free market/ free enterprise.

Quote from anticultist

I feel as if Peter Merola has been thrown onto the forum again. Bill are your copy and paste buttons getting hammered ?

haha for sure lol, No I totally understand. I know in general we have never really seen things eye to eye but I still value your thoughts. Speaking about Peter Joseph, I think Peter has a understanding of how the market works but I do not think the way he comprehends things is right matter in fact he's been usually way way way off. I'm not sure if I'm getting my points across coherently enough though I'm attempting to explain my particular market values in layman terms. I do not believe having more free market and free enterprise within the current market is that unrealistic because it's been proven to work time and time again. However Peter is a marxist he wants to eliminate money, class system, and the state and to replace it with his marxist utopia. Peter's approach is not rational it's never worked however throughout history free market and free enterprise values within the market have worked time and time again.

I'd say we're at a disagreement which is perfectly fine and in my eyes is a great thing. Your approach which is not really good or savvy economics from my perspective is to have more governmental involvement within the market system my approach is to have little to no government within the market system as to work more optimally. I'm simply using logic and reason at which has been based on more knowledgeable people works within the academic field. Less government within the market leads to a better outcomes within the market place versus more government within the market place results in less productivity in the market place. Free market and free enterprise values have been tested within the real world and have been proven to be a successful formula for a thriving economic environment, more government within the market system threatens free market and free enterprise concepts.

I'm not trying to be an ass here but I am trying to get a point across of what works and what does not work and the RIAA doesn't work, if it actually worked it would of been successfully stopped bittorents from having illegal content on them, or even more simple the RIAA would of stopped illegal recording of music which has been happening for decades now. When it comes to the war on drugs as well, well the war on drugs is laughable I mean are we exactly winning the war on drugs lol???

Our system isn't exactly perfect, it is progressively getting more government involved within the market system every year. Whenever the government gets it's hands on something it doesn't exactly do great things. When has the government ever stopped funding projects that do not work? rarely, it continues to blow sometimes even more money on projects that do not work, within a free market system this wouldn't happen as it either works or fails.

I'd recommend looking into reading a few books on economics possibly start with Milton Friedman book on called Free To Choose. I'm simply not basing this off from my opinion but from intellectuals within economics who by far have a better understanding than I of the situation as a whole. I have consider a lot of approaches and perspectives and as of now feel the things I mentioned above are the best options though I do not want to get to much in depth as you or others may not understand the more complex issues academic have raised about free market/free enterprise concepts. I'm trying my hardest to explain these concept in Layman terms but it's hard since I feel I'm cutting out important aspects as well. I suppose through time I will be able to explain such concepts/understanding in a more digestible and coherent way.


References:

Free to Choose: A Personal Statement
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-A-Personal-Statement/dp/0156334607/

Milton Friedman - Why Drugs Should Be Legalized
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

Milton Friedman - "On Liberty and Drugs" 1991 Conference on Drug Policy Reform (1 of 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QULAf1wZNhs

Milton Friedman - Public Schools / Voucher System
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syp_jR4BNBk

Milton Friedman - Public Schools / Voucher System (Q&A) Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhrn3hAGtFY

Milton Friedman - Rights of Workers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJEP7G7C0As

I'll try to answer some the of statements.


"I haven't stated my economic position, and quite frankly I am not really sure I even have one. I just disagree that the RIAA is a bad thing, since they act on behalf of property owners. Since people don't seem to respect the value of other peoples property, the RIAA and other international like minded agencies have had to legalise and enforce this upon the public via governmental legislations. If people didn't steal the property of artists in the first place there would be no fuss, and you would have no RIAA to contend with regarding governmental legislations."

I figure I would say something about this just to present a type of understanding I agree with.


"The free market does not include free shit that others own. Free does not mean everything is free. It also doesn't mean what you personally consider valuable should not be free and everything else should be."

I'm sorry you may have misunderstood, when I say free market it means privately owned businesses that are not using the government to enforce policy. When I say free enterprise that basically means I think competition is good within the market.

"The free market is a place where everyone can sell their creative work and ideas, creations and products are all made available for sale to people who are willing to purchase them. Being unwilling to pay for something doesn't mean you have the right to devalue it and have it for free, that is anti free market and results in temporary interference by legislative practices [controlled market] to enforce free market values once more"

I agree with your definition of a free market in the first sentence however when you involve the government within the free market it's admitting that your current business structure no longer works and when you impose old business structure via the government to a newer one that goes against free market and free enterprise. If your trying to suggest that the government is somehow knowledgeable in the free market I would strongly disagree and point to several failing bureaucratic structure within the government that the government is doing horrible in. I'm just astounded how we can continue to allow the government within the market place when in fact it does a very poor job in anything really.

"Being unwilling to pay for something doesn't mean you have the right to devalue it and have it for free"

I'm not devaluing anything. Just because I disagree with the RIAA in supporting a old business structure that doesn't working within the new market does not mean I devalue a musicians work one bit. I agree we need to prosecute people who steal however I do believe this is steeling in the slightest even if the law says others wise though that doesn't mean I will break the law because I disagree. This is simply not a good thing for free market and free enterprise values.

I'd say if anything the music is an addict to the upswing of the music market however it's going in a downswing and is still addicted to the market as it once was in, when it should be adapting to the market as it is today because that is in fact the real reality of the situation. In today's market because of technology people who normally would have no business within the music industry are finding it really easy to create good quality music.

So you have a industry that now is being influenced by software and the internet where someone in a third world country with little to no musical skills can create works of art and potentially share it to millions. Why would one expect pay to stay the same within the music industry when the requirements for competition are that one has a computer with internet to share with millions in a relatively short amount of time. The music industry is being changed by technology and it's failing to adapt, therefore it's going sue crazy using the government to affect the market in hopes of imposing old values within a new market. Nothing is being stolen, if it's that easy to copy of piece of work then one should really not consider a music career as a fulltime career but more of a hobby.

Steam is a good example of a online based gaming industry where steams environment is really conducive for game developers and game players. The music industry needs to find it's way to adapt to the current market.


"Making the RIAA into a bad guy because it has had to react to the theft of property of its clients is strawman. The problem lies with the people committing acts of negligence against the RIAA clients. The RIAA behaviour is reactionary not causal."

I never said the RIAA is the bad guy they are doing a perfectly rational thing I am putting blame on the government for getting involved in the market first place however just to note I'm not for eliminating the government either.

"I guess you aren't watching the news, slowly but surely the very thing you are complaining about is happening. ISPS's are having to block websites because of this crap, and every year provides more downtime for criminals. I don't care whether you value artistry or artists, but I do care that you value peoples work and ownership of property. If you deny the right of a person to not give away their property for profit or free [their choice], then your complaints about a free market are bullshit. The free market is a persons right to profit off their work, and the whole theft of work is the exact opposite."

You are telling me that people are not recording things from a rented DVD over to a there own DVD for permanent viewing still? How will you combat that? At that it's been a little over a decade with torrents and still they are having problems controlling them. Unless of course you live in china which already has to much government control which is something no one wants. Then again China has fairly lax patent laws and rarely enforces it hence why there are so many knock off of patented goods from china.

In that only way you will get the type of control you want is if clone what china is doing except it would need to be even more intrusive. Typically when the government does one thing something else gets affected as well and takes a hit. Therefore when ISP's block torrent sites because of illegal content then all of a sudden ISp culd possibly block google or yahoo as well as getting into massive lawsuits to try to make some coin potentially. I could not fathom the type of internet we would have if the RIAA truly got it's way. It would be way worse than china that's for sure.


"Plus your argument is a fallacy, essentially you might as well be trying to say that if theft wasn't legally right then it wouldn't exist, or if the RIAA was efficient they would have eradicated human propensity to steal. It's a fallacious line of reasoning. People steal whether the RIAA exists or not, the RIAA however are trying to protect their clients from as much damage as is possible. To demean this effort just shows that you value peoples need to steal more than you value the content creators right to sell their product and protect it from theft. Which goes completely against the free market, and in fact means that you think work should be for nothing, or perhaps you are saying only certain peoples work should be for profit and everyone elses should be for free ? Either way that kind of reasoning is flawed."

I disagree that I have committed a fallacy I mean I'm basing my understanding on academics in the field of economics. Not that they could be wrong but I don't thing they would say the things they say without backing it up. This isn't stuff I'm simply making up, or from personal experience but is coming from logical and sound standpoint. If someone can present a argument that's better I'd listen to it.

However following your logic if we treat the virtual environment as the same as real life environment then if someone recreates lets say a clarinet as to look like another one then that is stealing. I would agree with that line of logic. It's not stealing if there is no real loss of a physical item stolen. Meaning for virtual programs it's a matter of copying the program at no loss to the user the program was copied or the user receiving the copy. However in real life there is a loss if someone steals a clarinet however if someone copies the look of a clarinet there is no loss.

It's virtual content that is reproduced. I would agree that it's potential money that will not be made by the maker but that isn't the fault of the users for creating a better way to get a hold and share information nor is it really the music makers who couldn't have predicted such a environment could exists. I will say it's up to the people who produce the music to adapt to the current environment. I also will admit I have no clue how the music industry would adapt to a bittorent environment however I think spontaneous order comes to mind in the sense that the people within this market will find a way to continue to exist in a new market environment, it shouldn't be the role of the government to dictate what goes on in the market.

I simply did not making things up my logic is based on academics within the field of economics who made such statements or the like thereof. I don't have to support the RIAA or the concept of a RIAA or the government being involved in the market. I do recognize that as of today that how is the reality of the situation. I can say without a doubt because of such actions it's slowing down forms of free market and free enterprise within that particular industry and that's something I cannot support.


"As far as drugs go I don't much care if they are legal or not, if people want to take them, or buy them I still don't care. That is their personal choice and has nothing to do with me."

I agree, but it proves my point that people who claim to be a capitalist unless it involved there own industry. I'm sure drug dealers with disagree with drugs being legalized in america because all of a sudden they would have new competition to compete with. Making something illegal typically creates more of a incentive to be in that market because the higher the risk the better the reward.



I understand where you are coming because the way you explained it is how the market is ran today however that doesn't mean I agree with it, or the best way to conduct business. I have strong investment in 3D printer company and this subject about the RIAA has come up many of times as that may indicate how the 3D printer market would go if 3D printers were cheap enough to be used for the average consumer.

I do not normally recommended documentaries to watch but watch a documentary called Sound City. It really goes into depth of how the music industry developed but more importantly it's failure to adapt within the new market. The music industry of today is no different from other industries that has governmental involvement in it. When I talk to people about music or healthcare or what whatever I'm basically reciting the same problems over and over again but usually in not so much depth like I did with the music industry.

I just wanted to put up a side from a economist perspective at which I buy into. I'll try to keep this short and any future response 1 to 2 sentences long or less because we're at a disagreement which is great but I don't want to beat the issue if we're both at a standstill. I competently understand where your coming from but I don't buy into it, I think maybe a year ago I would of bought into that type of argument you and others have made but not at all anymore really.

I understand where you are coming from it's a rational position to be in. I do not agree with your logic at that my arguments are based on many academics in economics who have basically said that when you get the government involved in the market the outcome is not going to be good and in fact it causes more harm than good. This is data based on past historical economic trends.

The RIAA isn't in favor of free enterprise as it wants to force using the government to impose old market model that does not work into a new market environment. I don't blame the RIAA because they are trying to protect there own interest but the rest of us are fools if we let them get away with it.

"Ironic you should suggest that the use of technology on one hand should devalue a job, even though the creation of music is no easier than it ever was in the past. The creation of a high quality recording is just as time consuming and difficult as it ever was, your lack of understanding in the topic couldn't be anymore obvious here Bill. Likewise the reason RIAA is stepping in is because they are trying to keep up with technological advancements, and even the playing field in favour of the content creators until something can be done about the rampant theft online. IN your worldview people who use technology that can be stolen should not do what they do, or do what they do for free. Which pretty much shows that you think one rule is applicable for one and not for the others."

I'm not a music expert or remotely in the industry but to use the only thing I really have which is anecdotal type of evidence, so to start I am not really musical inclined person and I was able to create some nice midi files that sounded pretty decent. At that I have talked to a few people in the music industry and most say nowadays all it takes is a person with a computer, software, and internet connection to make really good quality pieces. I watched the sound city documentary and people very high up in music production have said they can't compete with technology because anybody nowadays who and I quote has a computer can do produce high quality work equal to that of the professionals. This is a good indication to me that the entertainment market is diversifying and money is being spread into different entertainment industries, therefore the music market needs to figure out a way to compete at which places like Spotify or Pandora have developed a nice virtual niche market within the music industry.

I just want to say again this isn't necessarily my world view but in fact is backed by more knowledgeable economists. I would not say things so lightly if I did not think it wasn't back by academics as well as made logical and rational sense to me. I've competently understand your claims and they are rational claims however coming from a economic perspective I do not agree with such claims on many level one of the more important levels is because the government shouldn't be involved in the market.

At that I find myself listening inadvertently more times than not listening to groups who have no labels. Though my taste in music is almost exclusively towards heavy metal.

"That is why international communities are acting together to create an international basis for the legislation, hence a governmental kind of intervention.You need to have diplomacy when it comes to international law, and you can't just do it from your bedroom on your own. The kind of changes necessary for IP rights require major networks and world interaction. "

Again look at how well the UN has worked out lol

"Gross exaggeration, and frankly unrealistic."

I disagree, that's exactly what you and the RIAA would like. To maintain a old model like that you need to to do things like that.


"And that's why you are out of your depth regarding the topic of intellectual property and copyrights. You don't understand the idea that a creation, whether it is digital or physical is still an object, and is the property of someone. Trying to differentiate the difference between them as if stealing a copy of something as opposed to the original is somehow inherently different is dumb. The theft of a car is the copy of the original car idea on paper. However stealing a car would get you into a shitload of trouble. Somehow in your skewed worldview stealing the copy of something because it is digital is somehow inherently different. Truly shows how little you even understand what you are talking about. I don't know what academics you pulled this line of reasoning from, but they are clearly long overdue a research grant. In fact I don't care who they are, they are completely wrong about Intellectual Property law and copyright issues."

I have an idea I mean I do have a business in the IT industry and all and have been in court over such matters. This isn't my skewed world views I'm using logic and reason to define a basic premise. The music industry needs to find a way to survive in this market without using the government to do so. Steam a gaming platform has done so successfully so it's entirely possible for the music industry to adapt as well. Industry changes all the time the music industry will as well in time but it probably will not be the same as it is, then again I could be wrong but I don't think so.


"Seen it, and in fact it only showed how one company didn't manage itself correctly. It had nothing to do with the music business as a whole, rather it pointed out the failure of a business to maintain its own operations. It even showed the digital studio around the corner, and touched on how computers and sequencers were becoming the new 24 channel recorders. The idea in that documentary was that the Neve desk and the shape of the drum room/position of the drums was a sound that couldn't be emulated, and that was what made the sound room good. However, that alone was not important enough to keep it floating as a business and that was it's failure. It shows Dave Grohl trying to recapture the sound by investing in the desk, but all in all it's pure nostalgia."

I never talked about how Sound city never managed itself correctly I'm sure you are right however it is interesting over time how the music industry was so different back then to what it is now and that is exactly what I got from Sound city among other things. That in fact people never expected to make a lot of money in the music industry back in the day however things have changed. The music industry as of now needs to accept the fact there product is not in much need as it once was and therefore the money will probably never be like it once was in the industry as well. This is a type of thing that happens in the market all the time. Things change you got to adapt you can't sue your way out of it and when you involve the government into it things get worse than better.



"A least I know what product specifications to steal and give away online free to everyone else. ;)"

Ironically I have been in similar situations. I never got government involvement and simply changed the license (to protect me) and when such thing occurred I was able to figure who and where it was coming with and resolve the situation at hand. So it's happen to me a few times in the IT sector and in all the occurrences I figured out ways to deal with it sometimes I lost out but I knew getting the government involved in such things wouldn't solve the problem either. Nothing is really set in stone you gotta move to the new cheese when things change, that's how a market works. I'd recommend reading a book called "Who Moved My Cheese?" as it explains change in the most simplistic manner.


For sure if you can do so do it lol. I'm banking on the fact that not many people will know how to build a 3D printer because it's a bit complicated. Even trying to build a part that needs to be assembled is pretty hard to do and not always economical feasible. This is kind of insane but during a meeting me and another individual figured out that it's not actually economically feasible to make 1 metal screw in a 3d printer versus buying 12 from a store, it's about the same cost. Then again it depends on the person one could argue that it is feasible when you consider traveling to go to the store, wear and tear on the vehicle, etc... For other parts such as a pex pipe (used in plumbing) it's more economically feasible to make in a 3d printer.

With 3D printers if in wide use we have to work within the realm of this reality even if I do disagree with it so naturally we'd have to take an approach like the music industry (I'm a hypocrite) in possibly supporting something where a person has to pay money for a particular license to a particular blueprint online and then they can legal make a copy of whatever that product is on the blueprint. I don't agree with that but I also realize I have to be legal within this current market environment.

My thinking in general is to not support any government involvement in the market. I'm not for eliminating the government and at that if people actually steal a item where there is an actual loss that in fact they should be prosecuted under the law. I personally want a free market/ free enterprise at which the outcome is where people have money in their pockets, where it's easy to get a job, and where innovation is not slowed because of a lack of free market and free enterprise.


More references:

Rob Reid: The $8 billion iPod
Music industry economics: "Comic author Rob Reid unveils Copyright Math (TM), a remarkable new field of study based on actual numbers from entertainment industry lawyers and lobbyists."
http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html

The numbers behind the Copyright Math
http://blog.ted.com/2012/03/20/the-numbers-behind-the-copyright-math/

From gigabytes to petadollars: copyright math begets copyright currency
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/from-gigabytes-to-petadollars-copyright-math-begets-copyright-currency/

What To Do When Attacked by Pirates
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303552104577438212250619458

The Sky Is Rising!
http://www.techdirt.com/skyisrising/

The Sky Is Rising 2
http://www.techdirt.com/skyisrising2/

RIAA Insists That, Really, The Music Industry Is Collapsing; Reality Shows It's Just The RIAA That's Collapsing
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120217/15023417795/riaa-insists-that-really-music-industry-is-collapsing-reality-shows-its-just-riaa-thats-collapsing.shtml

Google Search Data Makes the RIAA's Censorship Efforts Look Pretty Dumb
http://gizmodo.com/google-search-data-makes-the-riaas-censorship-efforts-1294240896

Who Moved My Cheese?
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-My-Cheese-Amazing/dp/0399144463

Oh yeah meant to post this up in here a while back but completely forgot.

Remember when I said above silk road is used for drug deals.

Seizure_and_arrest on the wiki page.

On October 2, 2013, Ross William Ulbricht, alleged by the FBI to be the owner of Silk Road and the person behind the pseudonym "Dread Pirate Roberts," was arrested in San Francisco[37][38] on suspicion of drug trafficking, soliciting murder, facilitating computer hacking, and money laundering.[13][39] On 4 October, Ulbricht appeared in federal court in San Francisco and denied all charges, whereupon the hearing was rescheduled for the 9th of October.[39]

In anticipation of transfer to New York, Ulbricht became represented by New York lawyer Joshua Dratel, a former lawyer for Guantanamo detainees.[40]

The FBI seized over 26,000 BTC from accounts on Silk Road, which were worth approximately $3.6 million at the time. An FBI spokesperson said in an interview that they would hold the bitcoins until the judicial process finished and after that, they would liquidate them.[41] On October 25, the FBI reported that they had seized 144,000 BTC worth £28 million that they believed belonged to Ulbricht.[42][43]

But of course this happens as is usually the case.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/07/silk-road-20-resurrects-online-drugs-marketplace