Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 10, 2016, 04:05:34 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on March 10, 2016, 02:07:35 PM

Quote from: schlonged on March 10, 2016, 08:59:20 AM

4. the largest music monetization company is MUSE

What the fuck is that?

Okay this is Peertracks and apparently the Bitshares asset is MUSE.

Peertracks runs on the Bitshares block chain, which means it can't scale[...]

The Peertracks Note features is interesting. It might turn audiences in P&D targets though, so I am not sure it is desirable. It is also not clear if these are illegal unregistered securities under SEC law in the USA. I do know that in the case of airplane VIP memberships the Supreme Court ruled they were not subject to the Howey test. I will need to study that more.

[...]I just don't think the masses are going to be tuned into Notes as something they are interested in. You are basically trying to turn the serious music fans into speculators. A rule of Marketing 101 is don't assume you can change an Apple into an Orange. You must target a real existing need, not a fantasy. Yeah speculators here will think Notes are cool, but the actual music fans I think will perceive it to be a negative feature and an insult to love of music. You basically corrupt the musicians teaching then to do P&D instead of produce great music. Sigh.

Definitely the Peertracks Notes will be illegal unregistered investment securities if fans from the USA are allowed to buy them. Follows quoted is an excerpt from my prior research. The key point is that since Notes are transferable and they are mainly purchased with an expectation of gain from reselling them, then they are an expectation of profits significantly due to the efforts of the artist and his fans, i.e. effectively a common enterprise. This is why both Kickstarter and Indiegogo have strict Terms of Use that prevent any 'perks' which are "any form of 'security' (as such term is defined in the Securities Act of 1933)" or "any form of financial incentive or participation in any profit sharing"

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on October 30, 2015, 06:39:40 PM

C. Expectation of profits "significantly" due to efforts of others.

When tokens are created and issued (whether it be an ICO or tokens created+assigned during mining), if they are acquired primarily for investment and not primarily for use (in what ever ways a token can be used other than for holding for appreciation of value), then there is an expectation of profits due to appreciation of value.

The fact that no investor is in control of the decentralized collective "common enterprise" qualifies for the "due to efforts of others" clause of this criteria of the Howey test:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4524095741732962732&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&as_vis=1&kqfp=10330650611816444522&kql=132&kqpfp=14710406364156655404#kq

Quote

investment contracts may be found where the investor has duties that are nominal and insignificant or where the investor lacks any real control over the operation of the enterprise

So the only way a crypto-token can potentially avoid qualifying for this criteria is for there to be no expectation of profits, either because the tokens are never obtained for investment or always the primarily consideration is the use value and not the appreciation of value. As documented in my prior post and here in another example, if the primary consideration is the use value, then there is no expectation of value appreciation:

http://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/1975/535-p-2d-109-2.html

Quote

Jet Set is a nonprofit corporation, organized under the laws of Washington in 1970 for the purpose of owning and operating an airplane in order to provide vacation travel for its members. The club scheduled flights to fixed destinations. Members were permitted to reserve space on any flight on a first-come, first-served basis; however, scheduled flights were often canceled if there were insufficient reservations. Members, in addition to membership fees, paid approximately one-half the cost of commercial airline fares for their flights. Flights were limited to particular dates and destinations. Membership also included participation in certain social activities sponsored by the club, including parties, ground accommodation packages and social activities at some destinations. Memberships in Jet Set were transferable.

After Jet Set was incorporated in 1970 "select memberships" were sold for a price of $1,000. The proceeds from the sale of these memberships were placed in escrow until Jet Set secured the use of an airplane. Approximately $70,000 was raised from the sale of these memberships, which were lifetime and nontransferable in nature, and entitled the holder to fly on any Jet Set flight for $20. These memberships were also subject to monthly dues.

I find it useful to quote the Indiegogo Terms of Use as follows:

Quote from: https://www.indiegogo.com/about/terms

Prohibited Campaigns

Campaign Owners are not permitted to create a Campaign to raise funds for illegal activities, to cause harm to people or property, or to scam others. If the Campaign is claiming to do the impossible or it's just plain phony, don't post it. Users must comply with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with their Campaigns, including offering Perks and using Contributions. Campaign Owners shall not make any false or misleading statements in connection with their Campaigns.

Prohibited Perks

Campaign Owners are not permitted to offer or provide any of the following as a Perk:

any form of "security" (as such term is defined in the Securities Act of 1933);
any form of financial incentive or participation in any profit sharing;
any alcoholic consumer products (vouchers or memberships offering physical delivery of alcoholic consumer products are permitted);
any controlled substance or drug paraphernalia;
any weapons, ammunition and related accessories;
any form of lottery or gambling;
any form of air transportation; or
any items promoting hate, discrimination, personal injury, death, damage, or destruction to property; or any items (a) prohibited by applicable law to possess or distribute, (b) that would violate applicable law if distributed, or (c) that would result in infringement or violation of another person's rights if distributed.