attorney. i said, i just saw a plant that i want to buy. he thought i was the craziest guy ever. and he told me a million things why i shouldn't get it. one, it was the largest food company, that it was getting out of the category. this was a plant this they were selling as is. that means all the mistakes and crimes and everything that's been done in this plant, it was on this turkish guy's shoulders. and then he said s -- i'll tell you one more thing, the biggest problem, you have no money. [laughter] you haven't paid me for the last six months. >> ah. >> it was true. i hadn't been paying him. so that was the thing. and i figured it out with a small bank. >> did you finally pay him? because this is on the record that it could be used against you, a confession. >> yes. he later said, i wish i was a partner with you then. so the first day i bought the plant with an s.b.a. loan, small business administration,

was august 15, 2005. hired five people that kraft let go. and there was a bar across the street and people who were coming to that bar were bikers. i had only seen them on movies, and they're scary. [laughter] and when i saw them -- >> they said, hamdi, come on over. >> if i had seen them before, i probably wouldn't buy it. but that was the first day. and those five people and me and, you know, i could not describe how scary it was and how lost i was, and everything that the attorney said, it was true at that moment. i did something really, really crazy and i didn't know what i was going to do next. so my first board meeting with , mike, e people, they rich, maria myself and mustafa

and frank. they said, what are we going to do next? and the first thing that i recognized from the picture and when i went there the first time is the wall outside. it was white, maybe 15 years ago. no longer. it was horrible. and i said let's go to the ace store and let's grab some white paint and let's paint these walls. and mike said he was retired, and then came back to the plant. he's been in that plant for almost 25 years. he said tell me you have more ideas than this. [laughter] >> well, you know, i just want to -- i mean, we just had brian greene up here. he's one of the most cosmic conceptualizers and thinkers. did you think the universe of yogurt was just a universe of -- i mean, at the time -- i mean, again, you're clearly successful. but one of the questions is, i remember the yogurt.

i liked yogurt then. i remember greek yogurt coming online and taking on more and more. it is interesting that a turkish guy is making greek yogurt. >> only in america. [laughter] >> yeah, only in america. you go back to istanbul and -- does that play well in turkey? >> no, no. the turks are angry, the greeks are angry, the turkish are angry -- >> we were going to come out here and take a selfie with all of you and then tweet everyone. but in any case, it is a big thing. but i mean, when i began thinking about talking to you today, i didn't know, where did you steal the market from? when you look at the absolute dollars out there for this sort of product, there's some finite null. i didn't know whether you were displacing velveeta cheese or displacing yoplait or whether the universe was getting bigger, or have you made the universe bigger? >> you summarize the the whole

thing. actually, all of it. >> it was an accident, if i did that. >> all of it. we created a market. some of them came from the other categories and some of the people started eating more. but when we started, there was greek yogurt by a company who brought from greece 10 years before me, 10 years. i mean, you're talking 11 years actually. so they created this buzz of greek yogurt in the specialty stores and some fancy places, but not in the mass market. but someone who grew up with yogurt, yogurt was the simplest thing that you had. it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, lived in the city or not, it's the simplest, purest food and you should have access to this. i couldn't understand why you have to go to new york city, a specialty store, and pay $3 to get a good cup of yogurt. so i worked two years to make that, and when i made it, i said i'm going to go to the mass market first. so my first store was

shop-rite. my buyer went there and said, well, we have five know ban any's we want to put on your -- chobani's we want to put on your shelf. it's $30,000 to $50,000 to put on the shelf. he said we need that money to be paid. we didn't have that kind of money. we said, what if we paid with the yogurt? so then you sell, you can take some of it and for the weeks, we can pay it off. and then the guy asked a very nice question. he said, what if it doesn't sell? and we said we'll give you the plant. we literally said, well give you the factory. but that guy -- >> did they want the factory? >> no, he sold it. he sold a lot. actually, he called me two weeks later, he said i don't know what kind of stuff you're putting into this cup. i don't want to know. but i cannot keep it on the shelf. from that moment on, i knew this wasn't going to be about selling, it was going to be about, can i make it enough? i'm this tiny little guy in

upstate new york who worked two years to make this cup. now it's selling and i'm going to make the big guys wake up at one point. so this is the destiny of every small food setup. you have a dream, you work hard, you don't sleep, you have neck pain, back pain, all kinds of pain, right? [laughter] you don't go to bahamas, you don't do anything. [laughter] >> yeah. he was in the bahamas last weekend, so don't feel sorry for him. >> i was there for two days. >> i was trying to track him down and he was telling me about the roosters on pink beaches. so he was doing fine. you then moved -- you've got another plant in twin falls, idaho. are there similarities between this he had misston, new york, which is -- chuck schumer loves you for saving this town and these people. tell me about twin falls. we have a lot of cover. i've got to get to vladimir putin and whether he either

chobani. >> what happened is from those five people i launched the brand in 2007. this is something that people need to know what happened. the magic really happens in the new towns, like upstate york. with those five people we created a brand that became number one in five years. and from that five, we have right now 3,000 people. in 2012 -- from 2007 to 2012, within five years, we went from zero to $1 billion in sales. [applause] and this is -- some people said, and i haven't seen anything otherwise. some people said this is the fastest growing start-up ever, including all the technologies. but one of the most amazing things is until 2012 -- 2013, actually, we all did it independently. so we stayed independent. and we invested in that factory that i bought from $700,000, almost $250 million.

and then we built a factory in twin falls for $450 million. and we built it in one year. i and all the people working the company had never had this kind of business experience before. we were never marketers, finance people, operators or anything like that. so we figured it out along the way. and you know what the secret is? not a big deal. [laughter] it's not a big deal as much as people try to make it a big deal. what they do, when you talk about these things, it sounds like, oh, you have to go through some kind of schools or you have to get in with the big corporations, you have to have this kind of disciplines, you have to know all the textbooks and everything. b.s. you need to really be there and along the way, you figure it out. >> what was the biggest mistake you made at the beginning? [applause] what was the thing -- obviously you got beyond your biggest

mistake. or maybe you're perfect and you've never made a mistake. but what was the biggest mistake you made from what you thought you would need to do and you changed course? >> the biggest mistake i made is a human mistake. it's towards -- as the business kept growing, you know, 500, 600 million, two brabbeds and a plant in australia -- brands and the plant in australia, the people that you start with is your friends. you share the dream together. and as business grew so fast -- >> those dreams become complex. >> and the capability of being able to handle that kind of business is a different one. so you need to change the skin and you need to bring more people, different people. and, you know, i struggled with it. i should have done it maybe a year or two years earlier, including myself, you know. i could have brought some different people in. these are the entrepreneurs and people like us struggle a lot, and i think all the issues are

human issues, mistakes that are human mistakes. but i think i've done or we have done together, we've done more good moves and redistricted what was going to happen in two years or three years. so these are way overshadowing the mistakes that we've done. and i kind of try to keep it simple. but it became really big that it wasn't as simple. so we're trying to put a structure on it and make sure chobani goes on for a long, long time. >> before you answer this question, i was in a green room last week with a young man, he's an entrepreneur out of washington. i don't know if many of you are familiar with sort of the 15th and u street area in d.c. there's a place called cake love. and this guy created something. he brought in people from the neighborhood and he's just created a big thing and he was out there talking about his new

product, which is cake in a can, which he's supplying to some various large chains now. it was interesting. i was thinking about the fact that i was going to be seeing you here. and he's really moving forward. he's struggling. he's not a billion dollar company but he's worked hard in the community. i was going to ask on his behalf, what is the biggest thing he can do to get on a road to more dramatic success? other than appearing on msnbc? i'm not sure that helped him. could hurt him with a lot of consumers out there. >> you really have to have a great product. i mean, i worked two years to -- people said, this is good. i said not enough. then they said, this is -- >> did it used to be crappy? >> it was good. then we made it the first month, it was still better than what it was in the marketplace. but my expectations are really, really high. and the cup, i mean, there's no yogurt cup left in the world that i haven't seen. when we launched chobani there was five bags of cups from

china to colombia that they took off from my office. -- once ally have to the product is perfect, then the rest is really your capability. i mean, there's a lot of stuff that you can do right. >> get it out there marketing. >> yeah. >> did vladimir putin not letting the official yogurt sponsor of the u.s. olympic team getting in, did that help? because we're all talking about it. it turns out that most of those people in sochi are sanctioned now in the united states and europe. >> we were really heart broken. the olympians were eating chobani when they were training in this country. it was in their kitchens, it was in their smoothies. they came to the plant. it was like a festival day. all the community farmers, the kids, everybody in the factory, we all made this palate together. we did this in 2012 after london and we were hoping this was going to go and, you know, it hit the wall. >> there was a lot of speculation that the change of

the uniform from the under armour uniforms affected the performance of some of the athletes, but it was really the absence of chobani yogurt. >> that's right. we believe in that and we were sad. but the next olympics we believe we will do it. -- you know, it is food people forget a simple cup of yogurt or a simple loaf of bread or whatever you get from the store, it's available when you're in turkey, greece, italy and in your city. but you've got the supermarkets in twin falls and in new york, it's a shame what is in the supermarkets. and the manufacturers, they could definitely do better. they can do better. they can take the preservatives out, they can take the colors out. >> talk about that. we've got a minute and 22 seconds. i went on -- if any of you haven't done it, i'm not advertising for him, but you have a really great web page. i went on my iphone. you have this thing called "how

matters." tell us about how matters. and about the issue of ingredients. can we really walk away from all the preservatives and everything out there? because i think it's interesting, because when you go through the stores, there aren't that many foods, i think, that i'm eating that are probably along the lines of the ingredients that you have. i'm pretty much of a bad eater. but you're telling me i can get on without all of that. >> yeah. and it's your choice. maybe you live in washington, d.c. you could, if you wanted to -- >> i need stuff that will survive a month in my refrigerator, maybe two. >> >> availability to good food is a human right, it's a basic right. who's going to make this? everybody wants better food, but it is too expensive, and it's not there. so guys like us, the big guys, they have to put the human in the center, meaning somebody is going to eat this, somebody's baby is going to eat it,

somebody's friend is going to eat it. that's what how matters, how you make your food matters. and it goes beyond that, that when i started with those five people in that community, the culture of chobani became that everybody came to work and go back to their home and said they've done something amazing today. and then the promise that a certain portion of the profits go back to the community, first in our own community and then expand. so i believe business is the best vehicle to solve issues in the community and society, and it's the vehicle that is sustainable because it's a business. but the business has the right mindset that not only the founder or the c.e.o., but everybody in there, that when they walk into the plant or the offices, that they're going to do something right. and the return that comes in, it will go back and do something more right. and it will be the effect of going on and on and on. i'm proud that chobani, every act that everybody does every day -- they're not perfect, but

we have the right mindset. we're not perfect, we're trying. >> well, before we thank you, we're right at the end. you just got a $750 million loan to expand. which food company out there should really fear you? >> big guys. i love fighting with the big guys, you know. i think one thing that -- message to people in the food world is when they tell you, oh, these are people, they have a lot of marketing money, they have a lot of plants, they have a lot of people, you will find out that the big size that they have is actually becoming an advantage for you to be fast and smart, and it's really fun to play with them. [laughter] >> ladies and gentlemen, hamdi ulukaya. everybody wave. we're going to do our selfie. everybody waving? yeah? say hi. hold on.

i'm going to send this to turkey and -- [laughter] here we go. >> send it to greece, steve. >> there we go, there we go. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> only in america. my favorite line. and you can walk into my house one night and i can serve chobani. it was great. thank you. next, we have david kestenbaum of npr. he's going to tell us what's happening to our money, where it's going, how we're going to spend it, how we're going to pay for things. with jeffrey alberts, phillip bruno, and nicholas carrow, c.e.o. of block chains. welcome. [applause] >> i'd like to tell you a quick story. a few years ago, a colleague of mine started hearing about

bitcoin and i said let's go eat lunch with it. people are saying, this is going to be the future of money. we thought, great, we'll go buy lunch in new york with it. it turned out to be incredibly difficult. it took two weeks. you exchange dollars with bitcoin, got hacked and had to shut down. they doubled from $12 -- >> the ultimate high was about $1,000. >> it was a long time ago. we had to find a guy who had bit coins, happened him dollars cash. he gave us bitcoins, and there was only one place in manhattan that took bitcoins and it shut down. so the question is, where are we now and whether it was legal as currency, or what it was. so could you just sort of quickly -- maybe each of you could bring us up to date on one little part of that and tell us how far we are now. >> sure, i can speak just on the extent of the law that relates to bitcoin. and the short answer is, it is

legal. but regulators are all still trying to figure out exactly what it is and how it can be used. you can use it legally and illegally. >> buying drugs is still illegal if you use it with bitcoin. >> afraid so so you've had some regulators come out and make statements about certain legal compliance. the i.r.s. has had certain rulings. >> and bernanke said the word. it's all significant. it is legal, but i think it's going to be a couple of years until people kind of figure out how all the pre-existing regulatory mechanisms are going to apply to it because it's constantly changing. >> nick, can i buy lunch in new york? >> a lot has changed since you went and tried that. i live my life 100% on bitcoin. my company pays all of its employees in bitcoin and we're a bankless institution. we have employees on four continents and there's an unbelievable amount of human and financial capital pouring into bitcoin projects. from the last year, just in our

company alone, we've seen growth from 100,000 users to over 1.5 million. i think it's really important to remember that outside the confines of even this room, bitcoin is an absolutely global phenomenon. for example, in argentina, there are probably 400 or 500 times more restaurants, bars and services accepting bitcoin than here in new york. that's because there are real fundamental reasons there for why it's more interesting and an approachable financial solution for the people than maybe in the united states. >> is there a restaurant in new york that takes them? >> there are several. there's a bar not too far away from here called ever. the crep rein brooklyn and everal others. >> i think what's interesting ere is bitcoin is a currency or a store of value, so we're seeing some interest in that regard. >> explain what those two are. >> so a store of value is, do you want to hold your life savings or some portion of it

in bitcoin as a means of keeping your money? the other is as a medium of exchange. so that's for like buying lunch and doing other things there. i think what we really find special, though, is thinking about it as a network, as a way to transact and to send money point to point without involving a financial institution or an intermediary. because most things up until now have been set up as these hub and spoke networks, where there's somebody in the middle and all the transaction goss through that. but this new phenomenon is a way to transact that doesn't involve those intermediaries and doesn't involve any of the fees associated with it. so it's incredibly low cost. >> in other words, these are kind of two visions of the bitcoin future. one is that it's a real currency. everyone talks about how much they have and they use it to buy lunch. and the other people hold on to the bitcoin. the other is that it's a way to send money from one place to another in a cheaper way than

the credit card system or the banking system, right? and you're saying the second one seems like more of a go than maybe the currency. is that right? >> i don't know how to handicap these, but i would put more currency on the second one, which is the ability to have it as a low-cost exchange vehicle. and as a network. and, you know, it's interesting. i interviewed 20 years ago one of the founders of visa. this is when i got into the payments industry. and he said, look, the internet is going to revolutionize payments and we're going to be able to do point to point trance ookses -- transactions. we're coming into that right now. >> one of the criticisms of bitcoin is that it's basically digital version of gold. and economists left, right and center will tell you that the gold center was a bad, stupid system to have, mainly because you can't adjust the amount of money. there's no central bank that can say we can extend the supply. there's no way for the cash in

the system to increase with population. so you get what's called deflation, which means that every day that goes by, what you're holding is worth more. that may seem great but it's also a disincentive to spend. if you say, well, why buy the car today? it's going to be cheaper tomorrow or the next day. in fact, bitcoin has gone up in value. if you were stupid enough to buy a pair of alpaca socks, which were some of the first things that were for sale, you basically spent millions of dollars for what's now a pair of socks. so why hold on to it? how big of a problem does that seem to you, that it's finite, it's sort of digital gold? >> look, i'm not an economist, but there's a couple of responses to that. one is that, i think i have the same general instinct that phil does, that a primary value of bitcoin is as a means of payment. so the criticism that you have is more focused on its value as a potential currency. the second is that i think we are so far away from the notion

that bitcoin would actually be like a foundational currency for a country or a large percentage of people, that the deflationary aspect of it is not likely to be terribly relevant. it would be have to be a high percentage of the economy deflationary aspect -- you would see negative effects. >> one is that you can't have a central bank for money supply and the second one is built-in deplagues because you can't create more, right? that would still be a problem. you've seen the value of it shoot up just for different reasons, right? >> i would actually challenge this, because some of the research has been conducted on the block chain itself. so we can actually study transaction velocity in a way that's impossible -- >> a block chain is whenever you do a transaction, this is what records it. >> a professor at stanford has looked into this very carefully. interestingly, about 50 years of this kind of thought of deflationary currency would cause people not to spend it as

quickly is possibly inaccurate in the context of digital currency. i believe that is from the reduction in friction and the payments themselves. what we've witnessed is that the transaction volume and the speed at which the money is moving in the bitcoin economy is at parity with the u.s. dollar. if this holds true, the research will most likely be incredibly informative as more currency innovation comes forward. you know, i think the other thing here is we need stability in the value. right now there's been some estimates that 80% of the transactions are actually more speculative in nature. and i think this has to get to a period where we don't have 10% swings in the value a day or even more over the period of a week, that people are going to trust it as a store of value. and to get from there to something that is less speculative and much more for currency and commerce is going to be a messy process to get there. but that's the bet that you would make if we were to see it

to be a store value in the future. >> bitcoin can be used as an investment or currency. what we're witnessing right now, if you believe that payment network is valuable because it allows you to transact anywhere in the world instantly basically for free, in order to ride those rails you have to have possession of the currency, the bit coins themselves. so you basically need to buy some of those credits in order to play in the game and it's a little bit like -- imagine if we were having this conversation in 1970 and a bunch of people were sitting around the room and saying, man, i have this idea. we're going to revolutionize the postal system. we're going to let people send messages to and fro each other instantly for free. people said it's crazy, but we did it, and everybody uses email every day and they don't understand how it works under the covers. but it lets us crend with our families and lets us send messages for free. that's the concept of the bitcoin. imagine in 1970 if you had the opportunity to invest in the credit system that lets you use email every single day. that's kind of what's at take

with bitcoin. that's why there's a lot of speculation in it right now. it's totally yawning experiment right now. i wouldn't advise anyone throw their life savings in it, but go study it. to be ignorant would be like putting your hand in the sands of the financial future. >> there are plenty of counterarguments that turned out to be stupid. but we'll move on. can i ask a question? it's hard to see with the lights. how many of you have actually used bitcoins to buy something? just raise a hand. >> for me, my credit card works really well. my credit card works fine. i don't notice it as a

consumer. what is going to push me to deal with the hassle of bitcoin? >> i think you're bringing up a great question. the target example, there's protections. no one lost any money. except for some of the financial institutions that issued it. so it's great. bitcoin is irrevocable, the money is gone. that's great for certain transactions. you know, what you look for is around use cases. why is it good for you? and personally, i used it when i needed to move money to rent -- to rent a vacation house and i needed to transfer the money to sterling, it's great because there's less friction and it's cheaper. >> tell me what you did again. >> just to rent a house. so renting a house, they needed the money. i moved it to the real estate agent who was in the u.k.. >> who accepted bitcoin? >> yeah.

>> there's a phrase i like, which is the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago and the second best time is today. i think you just need to recognize that there's a lot more at stake here than revolutionizing shopping in new york city. when you think about the 2.5 billion people on planet earth that don't have access to a financial system that's completely ignored them, then today there's an opportunity for them with, a smartphone, to put a bank in their pocket, a bank that lets them interface and interact with each other and around the world instantly for free, basically. that's a really powerful thing, if you think about it. let's put aside the shopping portion of this as well, because there's a lot more that we can revolutionize around the world with this type of technology. and people have been ignored in a lot of ways. so that's something else to consider. >> so one of the concerns most early on was that of the people wanted to be anonymous, because they thought

they were doing something illegal. and in fact, they shut down silk road, a big online drug site. do we have any information about that, about what fraction was through silk road ? it's hard to tell from the data who's buying what we shut down one big company, but can we tell how many people were buying drugs from silk road? >> i actually don't know the percentage. but it was a very large amount of money. >> so silk road was in a marketplace where people could exchange and buy things from socks to narcotics. it was shut down by the u.s. government. but the interesting thing is that it was shut down by the u.s. government and immediately afterwards everyone called for the demise of the bitcoin and journalists said it would never survive and it was only used for bad things. two weeks later it started its fastest runup in value in its entire history of the it's been called a bubble and it's been

called dead before, and that's just, i think, the challenge that we all face in the industry is to continue to communicate the value that it serves and we're still here. we're building and innovating and there's more money moving into bitcoin-related projects. >> what can we tell about what people are using bitcoin for? you can see there are jumps in traffic, say in china, which you assume is people trying to get around currency controls. or they can change it for bitcoins and switch them out and put it into dollars. for those people, that's serving a real need. they're not using it to buy lunch, but it's serving some need. how much do we know about what people are using bitcoins for? >> i'll try and talk about it just a little bit. so people with tag addresses in the bitcoin network. it's a way to verify that transactions are going where you'd like. if you're into doing donations for a charity, you can made

immediate international transactions happen without having to take fees for a cause, for example. if you are doing payments for vacation homes and things like that, that's a >> i think remittances will be a big story later as more systems come online to replace the networks that are being run by companies like western union. >> i assume banks and regulators. i understand you can't name names, what is the feeling there? there is a great deal of interest in this. financialy institutions are in the mode of

just studying it right now. this is not just something in passing. they are very serious about it. i've talked to some regulators around the world and central banks that are really looking at this. is looking less from a currency standpoint as from an pay.ation of how to it is a little too early to go design adopt this and t a payment system to run a nation on. >> is not just a better way to send money from one bank to another, but a way for anybody to send money to anybody. >> they're looking for not just a way to design a payment system , but also how do they reach other areas, what is the social impact that you have from getting into the banking system. how do you think about making that more advantageous?

example, when we see paper payment, cash and check, go electronic in the traditional sense, we have seen some -- countries add to their the growth each year. there is impact we see there and can we make it even more efficient through something like this, and within the even more impact on gdp growth globally. in terms of an everyday tonsaction, like if i were do this instead of a credit card fee, wow much cheaper would this be? what theends on merchant fees are. right now they are quite high for except the record, but there are certain use cases. isa typical credit card fee

between 1.5-2 percent for the physical world. the institution has to stand in and make the payment. >> if i buy a cup of coffee and it is two dollars, they pay for sense. how much cheaper would be with bitcoin? >> the fee is less than 1/10 of a penny. the payment was in silly to the merchant. they can spend that money right away if they choose to. ok cupid, overstock.com, that will be a story that continues all year long. we you will see a lot more online merchants accept that point. they can do it without taking any of those fees. overstock.com has not had a single fraud case related to

bitcoin. >> they probably spent years in rooms trying to figure out how to save a few percent. if they're going to hold on to bitcoin, the coin are very volatile in value, much more than the dollar. yes, the transaction costs are lower but they are taking on this other risk. >> that can convert the transaction or they can choose to keep it. , is thee witnessed store is different outside of the u.s. than it is internationally. i met a woman who is in shanghai who accepted bitcoins and does not accept credit cards because it is too slow. there are lots of examples like this where they are keeping it. it is a different way and they

believe in it. still shut itment down if it turns out that most -- >> iraffic is not don't think it would be possible for the u.s. government to shut a practical or legal perspective? >> i don't think they have the practical ability to do it. so much of it functions outside of the united states. criminalize use of it, but they could not stop the network due to its decentralized nature. by the way, if you are using bitcoins, here's how you should treat them when you file your taxes. you must to that now, right? they acknowledge that it exists. are obviously responsible for your taxes wherever you live. i pay my taxes.

you have to do it based on property rights. every time i buy a copy -- a couple of coffee, i have to talk to light my capital gains. bitcoin is tricky. sometimes it looks like a new digital commodity and sometimes it operates a lot like a digital currency. sometimeslight it is a particle and sometimes a wave. but they are at knowledge and the working. expect more thought as it goes forward. to build a safe home for people to explore that. that is what we are looking for in the industry. >> there is a certain extent to which it is a vote of

confidence, simply to issue regulation. they may be good and bad, but they decreased the risk for major financial players when they're thinking about moving in to the space. there is no regulation, they have no idea which way it will go. there's a certain value to that. one of the related developments we have seen over the last year is major financial players have started to move into this. they bring their background at knowledge of people from the banking industry who know about customer regulations and anti-money laundering regulation. they bring that knowledge to companies that have incredible coders that think creatively about compliance. if you bring these more sophisticated players in, you will see a lot of development that will rapidly expand the industry. feel if the you

system decided to offer bitcoin banking services? >> i would be thrilled. i think that would mean they have discovered a reason to be innovative again. i think the challenge is on everyone to build better systems. , hope they get involved because they're been working in finance for 50 years and we don't know everything. do you see any interest in anyone doing that? >> no, it. -- no comment. they're all looking at this and trying to figure out what to do. it think there are any commitments at this point on what to do with it. inre is old technology cards. that technology does nothing for

an online transaction. this is also a solution for the online space. >> when i think about the disruptions over the last 10-15 years in technology and the digitization of things, we used to send mail and now we send e-mail. we are to buy records and now we download songs. to not expect the digitization of money would be a little naïve. >> some small part of the money exists in forms of paper and coins. >> i think one of those questions you asked earlier is that we get to watch this money supply grow constantly. sure, there's an argument that maybe that helps control the deflationary cycle, but the money supply grows every single year and we get to spend less of that income. bitcoin can be spent different

ways. i don't think that is a big problem. i think people have to vote with their confidence. >> recently, we moderated a bet between two people on bitcoin. one was a columnist for reuters who was betting that bitcoin was going to die and no one would remember it in five years and the other is a venture capitalist who is very bullish. they bet that in five years time , one in 10 people polled would say they bought something with bitcoin. i want to ask all of you which side of that that you would take. do you think that five years from now if we did a poll of americans, one in 10 would've bought something knowingly with bitcoin. i think your caveat is 10ortant, because one in will have spent some form of virtual currency. it might not be bitcoin.

it might be bitcoin and they don't know it because they deal with an app with which they buy things online. i think speculating about whether they know how the guts of the transaction is going to work is hard. meant literally like them thinking of it as a currency. >> i think it will. how widely known bitcoin is now. >> yes, within the previous month. >> the other part of that, the common part is really important. in al, which is come up serious way to transact, it has about 80 million accounts now in the u.s.. it,many people really use 15%s really important and

plus of e-commerce transactions. that is only a small part of everyone's life. ?> five years would you take the bet? tight. is a little atif you look at the speed which the growth is happening, it is absolutely hockey puck and it is growing faster. hockey stick, sorry. >> thank you very much, this has been fun. [applause] thank you, guys. i am holding on to my wallet. thank you for coming. next up, we have the founder and ceo of kickstart her. i could make a lot of jokes about what we are going to kick

start, but i think you have already heard all of them. byis going to be interviewed andrew sorkin of the new york times. to him when hes completes the interview. cronuts. your kr high yancy, how are you? have --l go quick be because i have a lot of questions. understand what this whole kickstart a thing is really all about. point?s the inflection what was the thought that got this to happen? what was the story behind kickstart her?

>> kickstart or the website is five years old as of a week from yesterday, thank you. it was launched in april 2000 nine. the original idea was eight years before that i might our dinner. -- before that by my chen. he wanted to propose a concert to people. it was a way to test an idea publicly and allow things to only go forward if there were people who would support them. he had that concept and didn't know what to do with it. he was working as a recording engineer and a preschool teacher and a waiter. he moved back to new york in 2005. i was a rock critic at the time and he was a waiter at a restaurant in brooklyn. we met there and became friends. who is at in a friend

designer and tried and failed to make this website for four years because we were a waiter and a rock critic any designer. [laughter] aen we finally managed to get group of technical people to work with us and then in 2009 the site was finally launched. it was a long journey and just a lot of guesses and mistakes, but somehow it managed to come out. >> who is it for, though? there are probably people who get e-mails from friends and others to try to get them to give them money. who is supposed to be using it on one side and what sort of base case is there for me to actually hand over the dough? this point, 100 50,000 people have lunch projects with kickstart her. they have been supported by 6 million people from 218 countries and territories around the world. it is very global. if you went to kickstart her

now, you'd see people making movies, starting restaurants, making comic books, pieces of design, putting on plays, , anythingeserves creative for you or making something to share with other people. we don't have any sort of demographic box that we put people into, it in fact we have demographictic -- info about the people who use kickstart her. it is a canvas for people who want to create something with the support of other people. >> it is not an investment. oculus just sold itself to facebook for $2 billion. these are goggles are you aware in the future. we won't even come here, we will just wear goggles. that started on kickstart her. there are people today who gave pissed, them who are right? >> i will respond to that.

a lot of really cutting edge stuff that is happening in society is starting on kickstart it. people here are funding the future. you're getting a glimpse of two or three years from now and crazy things that may or may not happen, just like really wild ideas. who'syesterday a man trying to build an underground parking new york city. there are people trying to build a pool but you can swim in the east river. they are saying it will be there in two years. the future is what happens here. oculus rift is a virtual reality that was started by a 21-year-old kid named palmer lucky. i couldn't make it up. he basically put up the project saying he created his goggles brought virtual-reality to a height. you could get an early prototype

for 300 bucks. they raised $2 million from kickstart her and it started to take off and became the people's tech, the internet's favorite thing. people will go to videoconferences and lineup for an hour and a half. they would throw up and be blown away. it is totally worth it. it is incredible. so it got bigger and bigger and they raised a bunch of venture capital money. building hardware is expensive and hard. ,hen about two months ago facebook had bought them for $2 billion. >> so if i give them money, how my supposed to feel about her? >> i gave them money. i gave them $25 because i thought it seemed really cool. i thought this is awesome and it should exist. and now it does. for me, i supported because i thought the world do -- would be a lot better if oculus rift was real. i don't want to wear one all the

time, but if i want to wear one it would be great. it gets complicated when you have facebook involved and huge sums of money. what i thought when i was watching the debate was nirvana. i used to be a rock critic. music was my primary love. felt ifed how it you you bought the first seven inch and then suddenly smells like teen spirit happened and its on mtv. myn you think, wait, that's band. what does that mean? is a complicated thought. there is this thing of cultural ownership or emotional ownership. those feelings have largely gone away. most tweeon makes the movies ever. we have just given up on this.

the grant machine of capitalism has won. and yet, you see the same notion come out about a piece of technology, something made in a plant in china. design is where the culture has shifted. i don't know that they would've been successful if they were trying to raise money from investors. they came to kickstart her because he wanted to take an idea to the public. >> does that make kickstart a form of charity? to some degree, you aren't happy when people try to sell things on the site. on the site.ewards different kinds of ways like credits or passes or stickers. but it really is charity. >> there is a mantra that we say a lot is that kickstart it is not a store.

righttrying to set the expectation for backers. your supporting expectation of something, you are not buying it. you are the reason why it is going to happen and you're going to learn about it and see videos from the factory or in the lab and exotic. you get the relationship with the. it is about expectations. there always is a return. generally a return is a copy of the thing being made. the question of what kickstart it is is very interesting. it is not directly one-to-one. i don't think it is charity butuse there is a return, there are elements of altruism, absolutely. it has similarities to investment and that the money is upfront and it is going to create something later, however, there is no financial return. be ank it ultimately might

-- way of transacting. i think this way is distinct and it is ultimately about creating a human relationship and money serving as a mechanism of that. about fostering something new, but really doing it out of a desire to shape the world into what we wanted to be. there's a really pure spirit to it that we try to uphold and on her as best as we can. >> so far, we have talked about startups. people who didn't have much and had a vision for something and people got behind that. not start withd success. increasingly, you see people the spike lee, zach braff, people who decided that they wanted to have a tv show or movie and they want to get funding. there's been an argument that the bigger names to some degree have even begun to crowd out the smaller names.

what do you make of that? last year, spike lee, neil young have launched er.kstart he it is strange when i see kickstart are listed on a video. great that that happens. this is a tool for people to take an idea, share it with the world, invite people to become involved and go through the process of creation according to their rules. you do if you are spike lee and have made to thing and malcolm x , you still have to answer to somebody. when somebody writes a check, there are demands it and with it. sometimes it doesn't fit with someone wants to do. at that moment we are a great opportunity. if you are zach braff and you have a rabid fan base on the

web, go to them and say let's make this movie together. first,t to see the movie they get to be an extra in the movie, they get all these cool things. can you imagine martin scorsese letting you visit the set for 500 bucks? that is awesome. that is not scorsese begging you for money, that is him giving you the opportunity to be harder some anger you love to do. i think a lot of the cynical respective's seem to think that audiences are sheep. but i think audiences are smart. these are things they would always have liked to have, but the entertainment industrial complex to not allow. it was about moving a singular product. a movie is 120 minutes of a moving image on the screen. i think it is shifting that. see exactly the opposite. this is bringing tons of new audiences to kickstart her, tons of new creators supporting the project.

the platform grows it is benefiting everyone involved. >> was the most amount of money so far the people have raised a kickstart her? sitting in the honest right now and i have a brilliant idea, what is the chance that i'm going to succeed? >> it is 100% for all of you fine, beautiful people. date, it is a billion dollars that have moved to the system. days about $1.5 million a that gets pledged on kickstart her. that is a thousand dollars a minute. the largest single campaign was something called the pebble which raised $10.2 million. that is a smart watch, the first smart watch out there. on my walk here i said to people wearing them. that has been the largest

project in terms of money raised. the very first project raised $35 from three backers. for was called trying dollars. the guy said i want to draw a picture of something. give me five dollars and i will do it for you. that is still the essence of kickstart her. pebble is just a version of that. the way our system works is that money only changes hands if someone has reached their funding goal. there is a massive vetting of the public of every single object which is really kind of amazing. it is this incredible safety mechanism where the collective intelligence of humanity says this is cool or this is not cool. it helps sift out a lot of stuff. 44% of projects reached their goal. over 90% of all the money goes to those 44%. you really make your goal is you get very little.

10% of money goes to projects that don't make their goal. that says that collectively we as the public are sniffing things out. we are up people or ideas that we like and think are worthy of support. i like that. i like that there is a clear difference between what gets done and what doesn't. seeing a lot more competitors in the market. you became a ceo how many months ago? >> january 1. you just spent the afternoon ursus manta spent an afternoon with the ceo coach. when you think about the competitive landscape and what this will look like in the is a one platform is kickstart her? or is it going to be a fragmented thing where charities will go to one place? how you investout crowd sourced

ments where people will have equity on the other hand? end? on the other >> our goal is to help people create things, help people make stuff. we don't support charitable fundraising. we will not support investment. we are very focused on a single thing which is honestly just where our hearts lie and where we originated and what we still care about in the thing that we pursue with a lot of love. i think there is a pretty good chance that if we were different people running this week could try to be the walmart of crowd funding. i don't want to do that. it doesn't seem very interesting to me. it is not what we care about. there will be other things. there will be platforms focusing on investment. that is fine. , there were platforms

existed before us. they have all copied us since. the original crowd funding campaign was alexander pope's translation of the iliad from greek to english. he found support from 700 subscribers who gave him money and took in four years translating 16,000 lines of poetry. their names are in the first edition of gilead, this is still the version we have today. we have mass media and large companies subsidize in our. there is a long history of this and there's a great future for this. it is still very early on. , harmonious and claims to kickstart and all of the platforms combined. i do think that will always be the case, but i think that this market will continue to grow and interesting things will happen. >> he said that you won't sell the company, you will go public. what does this -- what will this look like in 10 years, mr. ceo?

>> well, andrew. we try to take a long view of what we try to do. we want to be a cultural institution. we exist so other people can do things. i'm in service to for people who work with me in kickstart a. we believeidea that in very deeply and i feel like we are trying to shepherd into the world. help of this -- health of this mission is important and we think being owned by giant company would be best for that, is that we imagine very traditional things like profit-sharing to make sure that the value we create get shared with our community. >> we are out of time. what does the ceo coach tell you? [laughter] we talk about the challenges

of the job. it is a strange job. some of my friends who are ceos talk about the pressures and the crushing weight you feel the fear and terror and the thrill and excitement of responsibility. i couldn't imagine anything better to do with my life than this. >> this morning on c-span, a discussion about robotics and law. diplomats talk about the ukrainian-russian conflict. scholars discuss the few much free speech. and later today's "washington journal." you can stay in touch with current events using any phone any time with c-span radio audio now, call 202-626-8888 coverage,ngressional public affairs forums and today's "washington journal" program. erry weekday listen to a recap

of the day's events at 5:00 p.m. eastern on "washington today." long distance or phone charges may apply. now a discussion about robot and the new legal field of cyberlaw. law professors from the university of washington and temple university discuss how applies to robot and whether robotics creates new issues requiring a new approach to legal doctrine. this was part of a university of miami on school conference robotics. it's just over an hour. >> so robotics and the new cyberlaw. when i saw the title of ryan's newr i thought uh-oh, cyberlaw, i'm still trying to get my hands around the old newrlaw and now there's a

one coming. on and saw that that's not quite like that. the is not pushing aside old cyberlaw or thankfully the old siesh lawyers and -- cyber lawyers and cyber law law.s for some new cyber let me say, before i dive into in a sort of an apology sense. complexery nuanced and argument that he has that i will get to in a moment. these are issues i've thought a lot about and have a jumble of ideas about, so it may come out jumble as weas a go forward. so ryan's focus is on robotics the law. the study of robotics. how we should think about the challenges that it presents to the law. what are the questions we should be asking and let's focus on these now as the field is just

started. and his thesis is that robotics the study and practice of the legal issues raised by should bechnologist absorbed into or become wrought part of theme larger cyberlaw project, which province has been the of lawyers and scholars and studying thecs legal issues raised by internet technologist, a very different technologist. i'll summarize his argument in a moment. but before i do so, just a comment, some of you, especially those of you who are not legal academics may be disposed to think of all this as insignificant, a kind of inside baseball, who cares what you it. cyberlaw or law or technology law or whatever, just get on with it. angels on a pin

nonsense, get rid of that and just get to the issues. very much with ryan on this. i think the questions he's asking really are important. stuff actually matters, and it might even matter a lot. to confront the new challenges posed by robotics one way or the other and it will matter which communities with which set of ands and knowledge preconceptions and understandings step up and to those challenges and answer those questions. and thinking about it now makes a difference. there is a path dependence to all this at the early stages of development of a domain. it could well set the direction many years to come. a cinecti key, meaning a small part of the whole that reviewses the whole, very yool in the fractal universe

like the one we live in. problem,ctikey of this the question ryan is asking is whether ryan or others can post robotics law on cyber prof be for those of you who are legal academics i need not tell you is one of the important place, gatheryberlaw academics to discuss the issues of the day. importanta very feature of the development of cyberlaw over the years. important things have gotten discussed there and so a question is whether it's sense to raisea robotics questions there and get to look at and it turn it upside down. threegument proceeds in

steps, he talks about cyberlaw, the law meets the internet, he law meets robotics in part two, or is meeting robotics to meet robotics or will surely meet robotics. and part three is the two,ctions between those cyberlaw and robotics. so the development of cyberlaw. when the law met the internet, happened, how did the conversation about the then new proceed, along what when, was it organized faced with that particular disruptive technology. there,nds much to praise i'm happy to say. the cyberlaw community he says core features what he calls the essential objectiveof the study. the cyberlaw community identified early on the central tensions that these would pose law and legal institutions, these essential qualities that labels connection, community

and control. connection meaning the astonishing degree to which we were all suddenly in instantaneous communication with everybody else. one to one, one to many, many to one. series ofto a questions, obviously, about the of speech. less obviously about the property andr property right in particular. the essential quality of the sudden abilities for collaboration and confrontation,nd among and between groups of all sizes, largely independent of location, or the physical distance between them. ofs led to a series of sort core questions in cyberlaw, persistent challenges about injuries diction and and -- injury is diction -- and finally the essential

of control. the coexistence on the internet powerful forces of democratization and decentralization, but also a from his paper, exquisite new forms of control.nce and which again lead to a series of privacy,tions about about power, about property and accountability. cyberlaw conversation worked pretty well. inhink that's ryan's point part one, and i agree with him. the internet is more familiar than it onceday was, he writes, at least in part longse of this 20-year conversation which again quoting has paid dividends of structure and clarity that one would have hoped. we figured some stuff out. the questionst right. if not the answers, and i'll a minute. so in that's part one, cyberlaw. the development of cyberlaw.

robotics, thisut new disruptive technology on the generate at will distinct catalog of legal and policy issues. some ofwhich will, but which will not, he says, echo the central questions of cyberlaw. so he organizes this sort of tensionss the central of robotics law along different axes than cyberlaw. community, connection and control, but he calls thele social emergence and meaning. i found this part as a stranger to robotics and the law not about it, iht much found this section particularly interesting and insightful and helpful. le bod it, robot, unlike the inernet, act in the world, the physical tangible world of atoms. hisink that's part of definition of the robot. although i gather from the over the laste

couple days that it may not be everybody's definition of a robot. but he has again in this wonderful phrase, the robot ra activee general promiscuity of data with the harm.ty to cause physical this leads to a host of legal questions about agency, causation,ity, liability. we've heard lots of that here. recognizes which are quite foreign to cyberlaw, andseem to be important will be important in robotics. essential quality he identifies is social meaning, that the law distinguishes very importantly between individuals between individuals and their tools, between the an i and inan i mat. uniquely an are a --ow to more

and disen tangling persons from instruments. so i'm with this all the way. fining thislike i'm all quite fascinating. right about on the cyberlaw side and it sounds on the robotics side. together. brings them not with standing these differences in focus and subject matter, robotics law is or can conceptualized, he argues, as a part of cyberlaw, a home should find within cyberlaw that cyberlaw tould expand its horizons host this new conversation. that is about to begin about technology.ive and i'm afraid i have to part here.y with ryan i feel a little ungracious in doing so. i'm a cyberlaw guy,

i'm a visitor from cyberspace this room. veryou are all treating me ies who pittably as your guess. and ryan comes knocking on the cyberlaw door asking for a place cyberlaw table, he says where a very interesting taking place and i'm turning him away out into the cold, you know, go build your own boat. ladder is follow toeded up. it a violation of what the ancient greeks called the relation. and zeus deals very harshly with people that, ceb thebel odyssey. to be inhospitable. but i think the conversation have will flourish best, actually, outside the confines of cyber law.

me say a few things about that. i've heard a lot of fascinating legal issues, questions being debated here over the past 24 hours, but they did not feel questions.aw the jurisdictional questions at cyberlaw under the deep background here and not the focus. free expression questions at the heart of cyberlaw, the property questions don't seem to be at the center of the issues you are grappling with. even think ryan disagrees, actually, with me. actually thinks that robotics law is a part of cyberlaw. taking the commentator's prerogative. commentators can either turn to author and say here's what dummy, or morek, deliciously they can say no no you actuallyat think. ( laughter ) i'm in the latter. is talking ryan

about, i think. ryan is talking about this conference. ryan is talking about this conference, which not coincidentally was started by cyberlaw people as an extension of the work they were doing much to me, this conference, very much like a in 1995 ornference 1996. in the following ways. questions than answers. whatto know sometimes factoid over here is connected to what factoid over there, how will interrelate. there are no real experts yet, claim this deep expertise on these issues because the expertise is sort of being developed as we speak. there's a tension about what emerge in the next few years, everybody is look act head to see what's coming. talking about things some of which will never come, i suspect, some of which will come in two weeks or way before you

it. lots of conversation about lines.g disciplinary the line between the inspired is very difficult discern. it's either crazy or brilliant, hard to know. a lot of talk about definitions, definitionings. is there a gee whiz quality to it. compliment.s a the line between what is and what might be is a little blurry. these days if you go to an internet law conference you go to a copy right law conference, lot less gee whiz and vay is the way i look at it. ( laughter ) that last night. the lines are drawn, the winners and losers are clear. this way, here are the parties. everybody know what is everybody

to say.going it's all been laid out. and this is reminding me of what was like in 1995 when that thenot true, when you be know what anybody was going to say. real opportunity, it's a fabulous opportunity. in 1995, you're behind the veil of ignorance, so making think about rule and law without the winners and losers piling in and fighting purely as a sort of economic battle ground. it is about the ideas and it is issues.e and i think that's what ryan is talking about, he wants to take that energy here in the room and some structure to it. i don't think cyberlaw's structure is the right one. cyberlaw's process is the right one. and i think that is even what he means. about interdisciplinary pragmatism, with the attention

to metaphor. it's all about how people were benking about it that can transplanted in a way. but not what they were thinking about. when i was talking to aaron at the break a while back he had a metaphor. cyberlaw is the boat that, the boat that just sailed a while back into the seas of seas confronting the new disruptive tech not. -- technology. we're looking at cyberlaw, robotics should emulate how it was sailing but not where it was sailing, in my view. because it was sailing to a different place, and asking questions. this attention to metaphor, i think it also muchdes a deep distrust experts, a willingness to entertain questions that seem no matter how crazy they are, i it was an important part of the early cyberlaw the collegiality

that is very hard to describe, impossible to document in a law review article, but i do think was a very important part of the early cyber law, the community figure shit out, as they say. two more comments about his we'll open it up and let ryan respond. madef the things that cyberlaw distinctive was its early focus on the question, talking hell are we about, what is cyberlaw. much discussion and debate early on. does the subject matter we are even exist.ually i'm reminded of this, i've been of time witht international law scholars these days and they should do more of thinking.of isaiah berlin famously said the best argument against international law is that it exist. they could use some of that but we thought a lot

about it in the context of the of the horse. and since i got your attention, let me tell you the story of the aw of the horse because is cool story. it's an enduring truth in cyberlaw, anyone who is familiar know what is i'm talking about as soon as i say law of the horse. one of the first conferences on cyberlaw was held at the university of chicago, hosted by the university of chicago legal forum. were of the people who then interested in questions of internet law, cyberlaw, were there. an important moment i think for the field. university of chicago law school an important institution. datingsort of a val i moment of sorts. a lot of people didn't know what cyberlaw was and university of chicago was giving us the first to kick off this exciting discussion of new as frankissues,

eastabrook, adjunct professor at chicago lawty of school, graduate of the university of chicago law school, very much identified university of chicago law school. important figure would come and kick off this new cyberlaw conference, this is the moment. but of course it's not exactly happened. eastabrook, first speaker tells the room full of cyber lawyers academics, there's no such thing as cyberlaw. he begins with a story, the dean school, he says, kasper, was always proud to say course in the a law of the horse. there are lots of legal issues horses, torts committed by horses, contract involving gamblingegulation of on horses, medical treatment for horses, veterinary practices. but nothing is gained by bringing them altogether into a horse,on the law of the

there's no illumination of either horses or of the law generally will be gained by bringing them together. and cyberspace law he says is that. it will not illuminate the law and it will not illuminate cyberspace. to bring it together. and then he leaves. even remember if he took questions. in my memory he didn't much it a if he just store picks up his paper and walks out, which he does at some point, just walks out. talk about a buzz kill, welcome the to the conference, go home. eastabrook was wrong about sayslaw and ryan almost it. but i'll stay it. he's wrong about cyberlaw. the part oneust of ryan's of this paper is that he was wrong. it did illuminate the law. bring lead to insight to these strands of law together. liability, webout

know more about the relationship between copyright and free speech, the name of contractual obligations, a lot of things that are important because we were talking to each other in cyberlaw. looked up the university of chicago. they do not have a course called or the law of the internet. courses however, have in network industries, the law computer crime, technology policy, and telecommunications law and regulation. when i saw that list i thought boy you really should bring those altogether. but they probably don't because it would be a little frankassing i think for eastabrook. can't do it. a lot of courses about horses, you might want to bring them altogether. so here's my final point. so the law of the horse question, in a sense and his discussion is about exceptionalism. technology, whether it's the internet or robotics or radio or vaccines,

what makes it exceptional in the law. of study ont worthy its own. what makes it not the law of the a sense. and he offers this definition, the mainstreamto requires a systematic change to the law or legal institutionings reviews or if necessary to displace. balance.xisting he looks at railroads -- like that definition. systematic change of the law. railroads, the uptake of negligence as a of anity rule as sort exceptional response. radio formation of the f.c.c., vaccines, development of the food and drug administration and of national institutes health. he calls these major recalibrationings of laws and institutions necessary to keep the law doing what the law does when it works. exceptional in the

sense that they require these major recalibrations, but so i'm way, i'mall the reading through this saying this is really good. and he gets to the internet says not so much. i don't see, he says, any systematic known vaguesings in doctrine. unlike radio, he says the internet did not lead to a new agency. you begin this discussion about the exceptionality of robotics, i completelyave this backwards, in a sort of mag any of september -- magnificent way actually. it may be harder to get it right than front wards. that there is no new agency, that there's no federal bureau is testament to just how exceptional it is. there's no new agency because what then figure out hell this agency would look like, where it would get its authority and how it would do it is supposed to do. the f.c.c. cannot figure that

out. c net neutrality, they can you get itsow do internet.nd the all the discussion about whether then is or is not governing internet. reflects out exceptional this is. id one more example, because think it fits. i was about a month ago i was in here,dam and i will end at a roundtable with two days of about cross border internet based searches. i was theas full, only american full, there were about 25 people, judges, practicing lawyers, some legal academics mostly from central europe, germany, belgium, the netherlands, some u.k. antwerp d.a. kicks off the, have reason to

believe somebody in belgium, in antwerp, has committed a crime, go to get a search warrant from the dually authorized authorities to search, doing whatever i need to show to them, and to search his e-mail in box, i get the authorize to do that, following the law, turns out his account is with a provider, often google but pot necessarily, he's got a and the data is in the cloud. do. do i a cross border search requires perfect miss from the sovereign the searchrritory proceeds. it's like an invasion. if the belgian police come to bank in miami and say i'd like to see the records, i have belgium,warrant from the bank is not going to let them in. works.not how it they need permission from the sovereign to conduct the search territory.

so where does this search in the cloud proceed? whose territory is being invaded, and whose permission do i need to get. the room was full of people they --ted to come comply with the law, so they lawfully.eed they had no idea what that entailed, no idea at all and not was toothe law technical or complicated or they didn't understand it. smart, people who day.with this law every it was hard in 2014 we still out the answerd to that question. hason't, the legal system not, it's true there's been no systematic change in legal that does not make it unexceptional. it's because it is so, because difficultion is so that over the last 15 years we have not figured out the answer

to the question. we've asked the right question, we have not figured out the answer yet. it's because the internet technology is so exceptional that we don't, we have not yet out what the systematic be.ge is going to okay, that's a little bit of and rant.er but as you're thinking about these things, keep all that in ise. so go build your boat my, go build your boat. up.build in field and i don't think you need the umbrella of cyberlaw, and i'm get whereit help you you're going. ryan. >> yes. so i'm not going to say much. a couple quick things about first of all thank you very much.

it really is an immense honor to thisyou commenting on paper. see thate way, you can this is not just because he's sitting next to me, but i really have to recommend david's book for anyone who hasn't read it. it vel really very interesting terms of what the areing cyber law questions and the previous history, and i like the structure. read. really great so, as to the substance of your comments, it was a little bit hard to pay attention because i was jotting down ideas that i'm steal.o but to the extent that, you know, i hope i can use your notes.

to sayny way i vus want two very small things before opening it up because i think from you, from my our community about this as well. one is i at least attempted in part to gesture in which roibs and its essential qualities eliminate -- illuminate something about the law. for instance, the notion of e thatcan ends, the idea there would be thens that would be unpredictable by design, reveal the extent to which on --al law relies helps to reveal the extent to foreseer law relies on ability and come preliminaries things. --

compliments these things. it shows the dichotomy between and person that you sort of see in the law over and over. margot talked in terms of the race, property versus persons, a stark delineation, and i think social meaning aspect of robotics men us to see that. is that thing i'll say why a new cyberlaw, which really goes to the heart of your claim. i really tend to agree with you that you're right about what i'm saying. what i'mght about saying at one level. the agree that it is more procedure that a like to copy. extremely it is difficult to overlook the fact that so many of the meaningful contributors to the robotics law come from the cyberlaw community, and i just want to say that my decision to characterize it initially as a

new cyberlaw is central teej nick two senses, one is unfortunate, i guess, and the other more fortunate. the unfortunate one was it's cite, what worked about process. >> the conference in 1996 was a really cool conference. comup indication -- but that doesn't mean it's not important. maybe ke can talk a bit today about how to evidence that to myay that makes sense audience. and that's unfortunate, that's a about the wore that's hard to cite. other thing that's strategic, with respect to ishnology and law, cyberlaw town.g game in if you want to get smart tech lawyers and --

lawyersgists and lawyer, where am i going to post it. in the sense that if i-characterized it as the new cyberlaw, i wouldn't have you commenting here. so i win in that way, right? but i also appreciate the subtleties. so with that again with my deep thanks, i just want to open it questions. people's >> 30 seconds, michael, just by way of clarification. not mean to suggest that the study of robotics is the law of the horse. or that robotics law will not illuminate -- i am completely in agreement with you that it will. whathat's all we've heard i've heard over the past 24 hours convinces me that there of deep issues here about personhood and authority and responsibility and liability

be illuminatedto with, through this discussion. but i think it's on its own boat, as it were. i wish it well. visit.'ll even come michael from the university of miami. when there when, as he was judge eastabrook decided to slam all in the chin. but i think he my have taken a or two. but i want to put you guys, an for why maybe both of you are wrong, one of the things you agree about, and that is of the horse doesn't apply to either discipline. because i've been teaching a long time, i also taught e commerce for a while, commerceve up than e colors.it became and eastabrooks prediction that the cyberlaw, certainly for practice that cyberlaw would become a sub field of everything

else, rather than a field of its own, range truer and truer. the e commerce area and still not all. i still teach a course called but this year i told the dean its years are numbered. the dean wants me to keep teaching it because students line it, but i'm a little nervous about it because it's become disconnected islands of uniqueness, which no longer have theme exceptmon the network, a theme which they share in common so many other subsumedich have been into other sections of the law. there are still things kid do, but they're not as coherent as they used to be. me,ne thing that occurs to if robotics is the new cyberlaw, arc?it have the same it's very useful and sensible to understandof people the technology and therefore can make sensible rules about it in the beginning, right, we hope us and that's one of the

reasons why i started this conference because i kept thinking a seen this movie before. getdards are going to written, they're not going to ways that, the lawyers could have told you would cause untold grief. in theet the lawyers room early with the technologies a lot pain. so if that instinct is right this is a remake of the robo law hasaybe after howeverre many years it no longer makes sense to think about it because i don't know what. so the only thing i can think of that makes it different, maybe mix the ending different in the remake, are the issues that we john robert in the panel. what extentf to

simulations of personhood become so good, whether or not they have consciousness, how do you tell? tell, so the information becomes so good that it becomes increasingly meaningfulo make instead of comfortable decisions the machines and people. that, maybe that's so far away that that's not even relevant, is it the same movie or not? and am i right about the ending because i guess i have a different ending of the movie than david's movie. david is watching a happier movie than i am. quick response. interesting that, so here we are, michael. we disagree about the law of the

horse, this trout that we've been bouncing around for 20 years. to think that there are unifying principles about cyberlaw, about, along the lines was talking about, about the jurisdictional issues it raises. you can talk about one little piece of section 512 copy right act as a copyright issue without section 230,to the all of that. we're not going to resolve that here. i think, actually meant to include this in the talk and i'm i did, it's the meta question that's interesting. eastabrook did us a great favor, totally inned averdict tent, although maybe he really is an evil genius. he did a great favor focusing everybody's attention on that on.tion early

and after 20 years we know where we stand, we're not going to that, we have very different views about it, but again icess was, i think what's what ryan is trying here.us on thinking about what made that last panel a robo panel as opposed to a cyber. there were things that were very reminiscent of, as peep cyber debates about privacy. and then there are some special it.gs that this brings to i think focusing on that is part what was makes a discipline a discipline. is that it is looking at itself and saying what makes us a discipline. >> honestly i think i lack the answer thiseally question well. i can tell you that intellectually what i'm interested in is the ways that the law had change probe

systematically as a consequence of a new technology, that strikes me as interesting enough on its own terms that i don't worry too much about how the movie ends. want -- >> you're a young man. >> there you go. and so forth. yourhat's my nonanswer to great question. >> steve woo from the silicon valley. saw your paper come over the transom weeks back and i was so excited to read it and thank you so much for adding to the thought process. mental part of thinking about it, as i saw the title and is well expressed by david. i'm more in david's camp, which i don't think cyberlaw is maybe the proper way of terming it and maybe you didn't even that, because of all the reasons that david said. backhat i think about is

in the 1990's when i was in the a youngeraw firm as law firm, i was thinking oh, cyberlaw, this is exactly what knee, we need to look as jurisdiction and intermediate liability. thing happened on the way to cyberlaw, which is i didn't really practice it too much. i did practice information uphnology law, and i ended doing secure electronic commerce, going to michael's what i noticed is there are a lot of commonalities andeen networked nonnetworked law. for example in information recognize that internet plays an important role in information security law, but there are a lot of information security legal issues that draw on common issues of integrity andy, availability, having nothing to networks. in the early 2000's i was talking about pod slurping,

stealing trade secrets using i pods, using it as a storage to walk away with it. soy was worried about these kind of things just as i was of interception of network traffic through the internet. an internal network and therefore not internet traffic. so there are all these kinds of strange difference as monk these types of modalities securityation vulnerabilities, some of which are internet, some of which are not. thinking about it as internet may be too narrow. but if you look at information broadly, iwritten think that the idea of launching one.vote is the right but we're going to go into a different direction. in addition if you think what makes robotics unique, in my mine, it the potential for behavior, the e american ends you're talking about, that really adds a new didn'to things that we talk about a lot in the information technology days aere we're going into

different direction. one of the things i was thinking about in terms of maybe a next paper topic that i might put in for consideration would to a andoes it mean autonomous device or software process is working are oh, on is defective from a legal perspective. i don't think we've comes to that with that and autonomous behavior, that unpredict ability, when does it off the rails from a legal perspective. that's the interesting part, in my mind. and ultimately when you were talking about, well, if we say iny the process is right terms of information technology law, what can we cite to. and part and partly to give a nod to michael freekin, he was at the beginning of something really great. when me we called it cyberlaw that just the beginning. it grew far beyond that and part of the vehicle was the american association section of science and technology law including its information security committee where it was

pioneer in terms of creating interdisciplinary publication, international in scope, and those are the things that you to.cite so i'm a member of the section, section,r chair of the and ryan was a cochair of the artificial intelligence and robotics committee of the section, so this is one place can you cite to some of the old publications of the section. >> so first of all, that's helpful, everything what you see. maybe you and i can work together about those cites. it may come across that i haven't thought about what is, and actually i've angsted over that i men'sly. kit thateld the tool the field brings to bear, the methodologieses, is it the that are deployed within that field, is it the structure, as dated mentioned?

personnel? if all of a sudden everybody in nowand economics right started to sort of make slightly different, would that be enough define a change? trivial word, it's not to try to figure out what defines a field. me what's important to bring either out of to export from cyberlaw or to have within the reallyrk of cyberlaw, it is this methodology. that hasn'things come up yet is what i find to be you've brought it up, steven, what i fine to be so cyber law is its interdisciplinary pragmatism. one of the things that judge eastabrook was obviously wrong right, was in idea that it mattered that the people in the room weren't computer scientists themselves and within

danger of winning a nobel prize for computer science. paper, doesn't matter if it in privacy or row calle what are whatever, i two or three serious robotics or ontever it is i'm working and so i can ask experts about technology. that's the idea of us getting together, rolling up our sleeves some --g it not as doing it altogether, that's the thing i want to bring to bear. are many others. neil has mentioned them and of course at least one paper by michael has as well, the role of analogy.and there's a whole tool kit, whether you call it information or cyberlaw, that grew up with the internet and widely. a plied more i'm saying that's an extraordinarily useful set of things, people, methods, concepts that will be very in domesticating

robotics. so i hope that gives you some sense of my thinking on that. >> i would say too just to finish the thought that the andficial intelligence robotics committee is part of of theerall mission section to bring different disciplines together to whatever be, to havepens to those kind of discussions that you're talking about and can be a vehicle that continues the we're having during this conference until the next conference. very quick thought about what ryan was saying. this interdisciplinary phrase.sm, it's a good i think i means something, i thek cyberlaw may have been first, there was certainly a sense and much disgust sense of had to know something about the technology. not talk intelligently

cyberlaw ifsues in you really knew nothing about, if it was just a big black box, understand the dcht n. s. wars, you to know what the d. n. s. is doing, you had to know how files get copied to about intermediary liability. be talking to people who understood this stuff better than we did. and i think to the extent you are hoping to emulate that, i couldn't support it more. criticalhats with a part of, to the extent cyberlaw was successful, that was a big part of it. you,want to say thank david, i probably shun say this because a berkeman fellow center, but screw cyberlaw. boat, andr own leaving aside the strategy and the structure for a second and

talking about content, in theas an article guardian about your paper and he says for the life of me i can't principle a legal that would apply to the robot that wouldn't be useful to the verdict a.d vice and i feel like your paper offers a lot of counterarguments there. he's saying and my guess would be you have an answer to that and that that is precisely why the law of robotics is so different from cyberlaw. but i'd be interested in hearing what you think. thing that you know this be but an early draft of this forr was called the case robotics exceptionalism. and you liked it better that interesting. i hear you. and i have to think it through a little bit. to yeah, i intend to respond cory has been an immensely

helpful on this. exactly?id he sea i'm not sure i got the full import of it. >> he says a lot of things. about how there's a distinction between software and how essentially we're just talking about software. but he says for the life of me, out a legalre principle that would apply to the robot that wouldn't be computer. the >> so it just another, this is of software and computers and all that stuff. that.n upon to here,on't want to do it

but i intend to, because i think that you have to draw lines and you have to have reasons for asse lines lines, and even we talk about computers or software we're drawing lines for reasons. and i'm drawing lines for reasons, and so let me leave it there. but thank you for bringing that up. >> i love the paper and i think david's explanation of it is the most entertaining presentation we've had over the two days, and also one of the smartest. so i think that ryan is basically right, and that eastabrook was basically right. agendae cyberlaw circa1959 is the law of the horse. even the dns, the e commerce, the i.p., they're all settled get into what david oy-vay moment.

what's interesting is where privacyre writing, and is one area and robotics is another. and i think it's interesting framed the ryan's paper not cynically, but along the lines of his paper is really thet whether he can post on list serve. a lot of peep might say, what's a list serve? some sort of tell graphic -- tele graphic mechanism. i think were cyberlaw, this agree, fen with what saying,right ran is that cyberlaw as a spirit, as a set of toofls, as a methodology, openness to new ideas to potentially crazy ideas and to interdisciplinary sharing and is veryation, i think

much alive. but it's called privacy law, and it's called robotics law. other ones too, i just don write in those fields. think that that's what we is that from cyberlaw point where the law and let scholars imagine that actively grapple with new emerging problems between law and technology. this is the lag that kevin panel,about in the last the law falls behind, and it's what we call cyberlaw, and we to call it something else, but some of the same i thinkill that gap and that's what's going on in privacy and i think it's what suggesting should be going on and i think at this conference is going on in robotics. but that said, eastabrook was the long term. but in the long term we're all deand in the short term really things are happening

much. >> neil, you're not suggesting that this conference should be called, instead of a conference about robotics and the law, privacy and the law? of those. one those andhundreds of there was privacy is obviously a core challenge in this makes the, it's what we had a conversation about places in thes of law. the challenge is to iticulate what makes different when it's a robot. and i think there's an answer to that. answer to that in a way that maybe could be better not.ulated or but something is different about it when that happens. it's not the same old privacy question. it's certainly should be connected to the people who are, have been thinking about privacy for a long time. is a new question in that

sense that something new is put semie table, when it's a autonomous agent. or at least that's the claim i .hink you're want to be making >> so i think it's hard to number of people who style themselves as being essentially in the cyber law feel or maybe they're in the sort of internet speech field or maybe they're in the copyright field, but they group together if at all by the overarching term of cyberlaw. it hard to ignore the fact that are of these people grappling with the exact set of issues that i've identified here. woo, stuart benjamin and the about machine speech. that's a question for sort of us, you know, and

people noodling through the sort of infringement and ownership consequences of machines creating copyright. aren so it's like these cyberlaw folks who are now sort of grappling with these kind of and they differ. so the movement, part of what of a new cyberea law, is the folks who do cyberlaw are now grap eking with a different set of issues, sites cyberlaw?hange my argument maybe has good premises but doesn't sound right. maybe what i'm saying is true, but it does not e up in the conclusion i believe. so i got to rethink that in light of our conversation. half quick things. in the 19th century there >> so in the 19th century there was railroad law which was the lucrative field of corporate

and commercial law and now there's amtrak so these things have a life cycle. but if ryan is defining cyber law as a set of tools and an approach to problems and a focus on technology, then robertics not only not the new cyber law. robertics is a subset but cyber law is a state of mind and starts to look like a methodology which is in some tension with what i said but the research agenda goes away and the fields change and end. >> but we're all being pragmatic or what jack called in his book, we're making due with the tools at hand to try o muddle through problems. >> ken