I know it has "coin" i the name and you can "sort of" transact in it, but it's best to look at Bitcoin as a commodity like gold. Don't try to use it as money. It's worth what others are willing to pay for it.

I don't know why governments want to promise big dollars up front. Why can't they negotiate a $ amount for each new job created and at the end of the tax year the company (FoxConn) provides proof of full time employment for X number of workers and they can get their credit. No job creation, no credit. I understand there may need to be some credit up front to help cover capital expenditures, but you can't take all of the risk out of it for the company. They need some skin in it too.

1.- Even if you buy an album (or a license ) you cannot legally distribute it.
Nothing was said about distributing anything. Having a digital file on a machine that is accessible to others is not distribution. What if I left a CD on my car seat and the door to the car was unlocked? Is that distribution? My point is that I think the RIAA should have to prove that an MP3 someone owns is "unlicensed"..people have purchased lots of "licenses" over the years for lots of music and they may be the legal owners of a valid license to the contents of a specific MP3. Also, if someone else who "owns a license" to a specific piece of music wants to download someone else's digital copy (because their own copy is on vinyl and they no longer own a turntable), then what is wrong with that?

2.- Why would "RIAA or whomever" had the right to charge money for "all music produced"? Even music produced by non-RIAA artists? Even music produced outside the USA?
To be more specific, I could have said "all music produced to which they have contractual rights assigned to them". If we're talking about the RIAA, then it would be the RIAA catalog. If we're talking about music that is licensed to some other organization, then it would have to be separate payment to that entity. Quite frankly, the whole idea of an artists signing away the rights to their music to an organization will probably go away. The distribution aspect of the business model of those organizations is rapidly disappearing, so they really become a "marketing organization" for an artist..it seems that the free market forces would make it uneconomical for "marketing organiations" to be able to demand total control over the licensing of an artists music because others would be willing/able to do it without that. Maybe they would do it for a cut of some revenue number or some other financial calculation. The business model will just have to change, like everything else.

3.- What makes you think any artist is going to profit from this? That's funny. I wonder how any artist profits from the accounting practices of most record companies right now! Besides, as was stated earlier, I don't think the largest part of an artists compensation will come from recorded music contracts, but from other sources...after all, there weren't any "recorded music contracts" until the 20th century, so artists made it OK before then, and they didn't have the many other options to make money that exist in todays age.