Will 3D Printing Break Copyright?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/don...
Breaking Copyright With 3D Printing!
Tweet us! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel Facebook! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Talk about this episode on reddit! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Idea Channel IRC! bit.ly/pbsideac...
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
3D Printing: The hype is real! Engineers, Designers, and everyday consumers are using this new fabrication process to conceptualize and create things that were once impossible. But what does this mean for the future of manufacturing and where do these 3D prints fall on the thin line between copyright infringement and fair use? Is it possible that 3D printing will do for objects what MP3s did for music; by once again radically transforming the way we look at copyright? In this episode of Idea Channel, we sit down with Michael Weinberg, head of litigation at Shapeways, a 3D printing company located in New York to get an inside look at their facilities and discuss the how copyright is handled in the 3D printing world.
Thanks to Michael Weinberg for taking the time to chat with us!
/ mweinberg2d
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHECK OUT OUR NEW T-SHIRT!
bit.ly/1U8fS1B
Designed by:
artsparrow.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------
TWEETS OF THE WEEK:
/ 728593813078446080
/ 729737793627369472
------------------------------------------------------------------
FURTHER READING:
Content ID 3D Prints
www.repository....
Articles written by Michael Weinberg
www.publicknow...
3dprint.com/77...
www.publicknow...
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mental Floss:
/ 727906665215971328
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASSET LINKS:
1:42 3D Printing Thingiverse - Simple Planetary Gears - PrintrBot Simple Metal
• PrintrBot Simple Metal...
1:51 3D printed knife Butterfly Knife
• 3D printed knife: Butt...
1:58 PYLOS /// Large scale 3D Printing by IAAC
• Pylos - Large scale 3D...
2:02 Make a wooden cup
• How to Make a wooden cup
2:07 FELIX 3D Printer - Coffe Cup
• FELIX 3D Printer - Cof...
2:26 makerbot replicator mini time lapse tree
• Makerbot Replicator Mi...
2:56 Large format industrial 3D printer, the VX2000
• Large format industria...
2:58 CES 2016 - 3D Printing, Laser Cutting, Virtual Reality, Holograms & More
• CES 2016 - 3D Printing...
3:01 Electroloom the 3D Fabric Printer
• Electroloom the 3D Fab...
3:42 Making of Centriphone by Nicolas Vuignier
• Making of Centriphone ...
5:41 3D Printing how to make moveable parts
• 3D Printing: how to ma...
9:42 A 3D Print That Looks Like It Comes Out Of Thin Air. Time Laps & Real Time. Rostock Printer
• A 3D Print That Looks ...
9:45 Amazing 3D Printing Demo
• Amazing 3D Printing Demo
9:47 Cube 3 Unboxing & Demo Print (3D Printing)
• Cube 3 Unboxing & Demo...
10:08 3D Printing Splashy iPad Stand on the Ultimaker 2
• 3D Printing Splashy iP...
12:00 Spiky 3d Printed Art
www.solidsmack....
12:05 3d printed face by sophia kahn
www.sophiekahn....
13:55 3D Printed Boat
3dprint.com/32...
------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSIC at 07:44
Monotone - Minimalist
/ minimalist
------------------------------------------------------------------
Written and hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
(who also has a podcast! Reasonably Sound: bit.ly/1sCn0BF)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbr...)
Copyright (and patent) is already broken. The idea behind them was originally to protect and promote creativity by giving LIMITED protection to creators in order to allow them to profit from their creations before introducing competition from derivative works. Originally they lasted 14 years, which was long enough to turn a profit, while still leaving time for others to build on it while it is still relevant.
These days, these laws have been bastardized by corporations to serve them. Companies like Disney have paid government to provide them perpetual monopolies on these properties. This does nothing but stifle creativity, which is the exact opposite of the original intent. Creativity is an iterative process, building on what came before.
This is a very poor video. It doesn't aboard the moral en ethical implications of the Copyright system. If we could print food, we would end starvation. We can now print houses, but some greedy fuckers are not happy with that.
Well that's informative copyright hardly promoting any creàtivity it's all about money, but money limited to owner of company.
@@OjoRojo40 Of course they are not. The biggest obstacle in the 3 - D printing community was to find a way to help customers 3 - D print their own products. The manufacturers never allowed them to do that because they never sold the CDs required to make these home 3 - D printers work. They forgot to do it.
-"Would you download a car?"
-"Oh hell yes! Print me a Ferrari computer!"
One of my reactions to those old piracy commercials.
+jorgenhb I wouldn't be able to sleep knowing that the company might need to shut down a factory or two due to loss in sales.
+jorgenhb Idiots should just download a better helipad.
+Prof. Luigi It's going to happen anyway. There are a million reasons why automation will eventually put everyone out of business.
+Prof. Luigi
As Michael Weinberg already pointed out, if you were listening, it's a lot more effective to find a way to provide some incentive for people to print only genuine Ferrari cars (i.e. Print Files made by Ferrari themselves), than it is to try and stop people from printing Ferraris.
People has already printed Ferrari that's the beautiful part.
After all the experiences I've seen on RUclips involving copyright I no longer care about copyright. I'll buy my own 3D printer and print whatever the heck I want.
+Wolfee a butt plug?
@10:30 I think he makes the most important point. DRM of any kind does not interfere with those who are determined to go around it, but constantly interferes with legitimate users just trying to get by.
It sounds to me like with the popularization of 3D printing all objects are becoming more like knitted objects. What I mean is that if you have or see something that's knitted, with enough time, experience, and knowledge, you can reverse engineer the recipe(pattern) that was used to make it, as well as identify the materials, and if you have equivalent materials and the necessary skill you can recreate it in a very similar copy. Not everyone is going to know how to knit or have access to the time, materials, or skill, just like not everyone will know about or have access to the proper 3D printer and materials for replicating something. Some people sell the actual knitted thing, but some also sell patterns for people to create the thing on their own.
For manufactured items, it's like they suddenly became knittable but there weren't any official patterns to buy so the knitters just made their own. But replace "knit" with "3D print".
it's so weird hearing "description" instead of "dooblydo".
+FinalDragoon He was probably embarassed to say Dooblydo in front of a lawyer.
+Ularg 14:40
is saying "dooblydoo" infringing on copyright?? 😂
Reminds me of John Green. :)
Kara Garrett yes it is, AvE will get you strapped on to his clapped out Bridgeport milling machine and run a few passes on you.
You said you hadn't paid shapeways anything, but it was a lie! You paid them a visit! J'accuse!
We're onto you, Mike!
PBS Idea Channel: EXPOSED!
That dramatic zoom after saying it's not sponsored was everything.
One way I feel that 3D printing opens up the world is analogous to how a software developer sees computers; if something is not right, we write software to better it, to tweak it. In recent years, physical tinkers/makers have been making a similar transition with 3D printers.
The company with the biggest issue I've heard with 3D printing is Citadel miniatures (the makers of Warhammer and Warhammer 40K games). Their first step was banning any 3D printed miniatures from being used in their stores, which is pretty reasonable since it's THEIR stores. The next step, and I'm not 100% sure this was intentional, but lately their models have been getting more and more intricate and using more angles that are harder for most 3D printers to make. So in the end, the threat of 3D printers has kinda helped the table top gaming community - Citadel still sells plenty of models, the players get better, more dynamic, more challenging models to paint. This I think has been a pretty good way of dealing with the threat to that industry by 3D printers =)
I am absolutely fascinated by what 3D printing could eventually do to change the economy. If everyone can print almost every object (or at least an insane amount), the world would be radically different. Consumer society would be radically changed, because you no longer consume products. You just buy some raw materials and print yourself. It would also radically change globalisation, because on the one hand trade becomes much less important (why important from China if you can print it in your home?), but it also makes global trade much larger. If I design a product that can be printed, I could sell the design globally.
I can even imagine something like a 'spotify for phyisical products' or something.
+wiet111 To the question if it would radically change consumer culture, I think yes and no. Just because you can 3D print a spatula does not mean you can make anything you need. We still need advances on making culinarily safe 3D printed items, and it will be difficult to make them heat resistant enough to cook with. The process of 3D printing makes it very porous and generally uses heat or UV sensitive plastics.
Toys for kids will be available but the span of what kind of materials you will be able to create will still be very limited. If McDonalds is making toys they know they will be making thousands, and so they can do it at a far higher quality and lower cost than someone in their garage.
This still opens up a lot of room for engineering and creative exploration, but when the quality of items becomes increasingly apparently biased to the mass producers then I doubt the market will swing too far.
That being said many niche stuff will be covered by the 3D printer. Need a new clasp for your bag? You might be able to 3D print it. Need something to hold a knife? 3D print it. Lost a piece for a board game? Why not 3D print it? I think the biggest effects will be in the niche and replacement markets and the artistic community.
+wiet111 But do we still have enough oil to make the plastic?
+Zongineer bioplastics from recent organic oils. oil as a fossil fuel maybe not but there are many naturally generated oils that we can draw from.
Good example of the concerns is to look at games workshop, who does nothing but miniatures, all of which can be 3D printed.
9:20 first thing I notice is that the phone has only 7% battery left
9:31 Wait... What's a 'description'? All I've got here is a Doobly-doo.
I'd like to add some detail to the issue touched on at 13:44. The problem was that just3Dprintit ignored the terms of the Creative Commons license on the models. I made a video about it because *my* models were among those used. In the video my angle being that they were just generally being dumb about it from a business perspective, but the comment section of that video has surprisingly found a bunch of people who think that just because the models were free, as in beer (gratas) that they're free as in speech (libre). Those who, even after having the explained to them, insist that it's a legal gray, so they're going to keep doing what they do. I guess they really really want to be able to profit off the hard work of others without compensating them. Well, it's the American dream, isn't it?
So far the CC license hasn't been challenged in court, mostly because of the sorts of things that CC covers. The flagrant violators are so small time that no lawyer will take the case, as the chance of payout is infinitesimal. So the violators keep on violating thinking that they're safe. This shouldn't have to wait until it has a martyr to settle it, but often that is the case.
Manufacturing started in the home and moved out into factories. Now it's moving back into the home!
An iTunes of 3D printing is what's needed, like Shapeways is. That's my understanding of what they are. Loved this interview.
I believe that it should be the MISSION of anyone who believes in a post-scarcity economy to destroy copyright. Copyright in its current form is an egregious use of skeuomorphism that attempts to apply a zero-sum scarcity model to a digital medium.
With 3D printing, copyright is still an issue, but now we're faced with patents as well. Patents make no sense in a world where objects can be physically rendered by a computer. The fact of the matter is: artificially creating scarcity only benefits those who control the production of an item.
I believe we should set the precedent with 3D printing that patents do not apply in said space so that when replicators become a thing (and you know they will) we can create what we need without fear of legal conflict.
I also believe that Intellectual Property in all its forms is a First Amendment issue and that, if copyright continues to exist, it should exist only to protect the little guy from having their work unfairly poached (until we move past money, anyway.)
+The Linux Gamer " Patents make no sense in a world where objects can be physically rendered by a computer."
Could you explain why? Patents are designed to protect novel ideas from people who want to exploit them (at least in theory). If the computer copies your hinge design or someone creates it in the old metal working way really is not different.
But what if I come up with a good idea, shouldn't that be protected from Disney making it into a movie franchise without me making any money? "Patents make no sense in a world where objects can be physically rendered by a computer." That's like saying that copyright makes no sense from the dawn of the age of Gutenberg's first movable-type printing press. Or the VCR. "I can just copy it, regardless of the laws protecting it, so what?" Patents are in place not to protect the Edisons of the world, but the Teslas. The Edisons will always make money; the Teslas will dream up a better way to make the world than money altogether. As far as the First Amendment issue, I'd say that's a pretty big stretch. Making something is an action, not speech; but the Supreme Court _has_ upheld that money _is_ speech, so crazier things have happened.
I love the image of building a car while driving it. Kind of sums up the whole of experience!
It won't break it, but it will make it easier to move into a post-copyright world :)
+Richárd Hriech Cross your fingers for a post-money world
+iluan Hernandez Think about how stupid your comment is.
+Richárd Hriech Solution; post-money world.
+Richárd Hriech copy right does not protect the artist's it protects the company's, studios, and other commercial art industries, such as Disney. Disney makes million do they really need mickey mouse copyrighted for forever (keep in mind that copy right is 75 years+ the authors life. In the case of 3D printing once you print something you have put money into that object for the filament for the 3d printer. copyright kills small artists and only protects studios and big company's who don’t need it
Jacob Daniels You're wrong.
Our poor implementation of laws *can* give an unjust and illogical advantage to big companies. But to say that it's all bad is wildly inaccurate. It protects artists, inventors, scientists and businesses.
Invent something new? Get it patented.
Write a book? Take plagiarisers to court.
Release a new product? COPYRIGHT.
Ah, you didn't PAY each other anything, but what about the transfer of non-fungible assets!? I'm on to you Idea Channel.
+SparrowFae "Transfer of non-fungible assets" is a really depressing way of saying "collab video"
I think I prefer the standard idea channel format to this. You did this chat format well and your guest was articulate but I feel that without the narrative momentum usually present in the scripted episodes of idea channel that there wasn't the same hook to keep me watching through parts I wasn't interested in. Keep experimenting with formats though, you've done some good stuff recently.
Great episode - really enjoyed it.
also, I'm really enjoying these new format of interview style episodes (like the mixed drinks/glassware one). nice to see you guys experimenting with your style of production. i do still think the tried and true Mike-Monologing-against-wall-of-records-with-lots-of-visuals is pretty killer =)
Disney already broke copyright, fam.
+Sen Flores hahaha, agreed
I wonder whether it will become the case that you can make things for your own personal use but not sell them, I can see it that Dyson would never be able to stop you printing spare parts for your own cleaner but would come after you with patent lawyers should you ever try and sell them on. I can see this always voiding your warranty (providing they can tell...) as you have designed this part yourself by measuring the broken pieces and making something functionally the same in 3ds Max rather than using their own production method. I think it would be cool to see companies selling single use print files that you could take to a local licensed printers who would be able to vouch for correct materials, calibration etc to maintain your warranty, providing a certificate of some sort kind of like the service history of a car.
It would be ace to see spare parts being made to order like that, with a trade catalogue in the store from which you could find your vacuum cleaner model and part code with a price to have it that day, it would no longer be a question of keeping that part in stock but of having the right kind of fillings or plastic. I dread to think how many spare parts there were made for minidisk players etc that went straight to landfill because they became obsolete before they started breaking.
I also think it was pretty cool what Nokia did with the Lumia 820 in that they released the basic model for the case so that you could customise it and print yourself a new one without having to spend ages making sure it fit properly in the important places. I would be nice to see this kind of open source online library of things opening up, I wonder whether there would be a flip side of illegal torrents where you can get all of the necessary parts to make that new Karcher pressure washer in one batch and spend the weekend making one for yourself. My question here would be how this works with patent laws, I imagine that you would be in hot water using the genuine files that someone has stolen but would this be the case if you could prove that you bought a washer, meticulously studied all of its parts, recreated them yourself on 3ds Max and then printed and assembled a second washer for yourself. You aren't selling it, could it be similar to a physical equivalent of studying the chords to cover someone's song?
I guess the root of the problem is that if hypothetically everyone purchases a 3D printer and uses it to print out what they need instead of buying it(eg. hinges, figurines etc.) then it poses an obstacle to the money making capabilities of the people and corporations that hold copyrights and patents for the things being printed which is at the moment against the law. One possible solution to this is selling different kinds of 3D printers to people to use in their homes and different 3D printers to companies. If a person wishes to print an object under copyright they can pay the company for a copy of the design of that object and print it out in their homes. If a person wishes to print out an object of their making then they can design it and send that design to a company who will search through a database of copyrighted objects and if they don't find a match they will print it out and send it to you. This prevents breaches of copyright to a large extent. Please tell me if i am wrong I am speaking only with the knowledge I have gained from a few episodes of crash course
+Neil Botelho
The problem, I think, would be that a design is simply a digital file.
With the level of success the Music and Movie Industries have had in shutting down The Pirate Bay (i.e. none at all), what happens if a similar site, with a similar dedication to staying "live", so to speak, arises for Print Design Files?
The fact that a design is simply a digital file isn't a bad thing. I agree that 3D printing puts the so called "object-based" industries in the same position as the music industry when digitisation was introduced but it also provides an opportunity. When the music industry faced the internet they evolved and now they thrive off of websites like RUclips and discover talented artists from here too. The object-based industry must do the same thing, they need to minimise the copyright infringement to whatever degree they can and then they can begin selling designs instead of finished products. Doing this would open the doors to people in their homes to design things and sell copies of hat thing to other people to print out. They wouldn't need any money to set up production or to set up distribution. Even the already existing companies could do the same.
Aw, super interesting talk but I was hoping to hear some thoughts on real world examples, like Claudia Ng's Bulbasaur planter that got a cease & desist (is a functional hinge that looks like a Pokémon infringing?) or the more recent legal battle between the estate of Marcel Duchamp and Scott Kildall and Bryan Cera's Readymade: Duchamp Chess set.
The latter is especially interesting to me since so much of Duchamp's work was recreating and fabricating his own work in editions. The versions you see of his urinal and readymades in museums are artisanal Italian reproductions commissioned in the 60s replicating the original found object urinal (which may never have even existed in the first place). So if Duchamp was alive today, couldn't he 3D print a urinal, which wouldn't be protected since it's a functional object that we then could not 3d print his 3d printed version since once Duchamp made it, it became art, and was therefore no longer functional?
This is like Gabe Newell said about piracy "Think of them as your competitors, build a better service and the customers will come to you", this is why I play steam and not any consoles.
I've been thinking about this exact problem and I have some ideas on how to protect IP and make consumer 3D printing profitable but I don't have a clue where to start.
You mention a clear distinction between functional objects and non-functional, design, objects - What about stuff that's both functional and has a very specific non-functional aspect to the design, like an ornate door knob? Protected by copyright or not?
This makes me want to print an accurate depiction of every Disney character, ever.
I wish I had a 3D printer.
It sounds awesome.
+Paradox Acres Hey huniepop guy. Fancy seeing you hear.
+Paradox Acres I wish I had the skills to create things to be 3D printed.
+Paradox Acres You can get one for aroundt $400, so they are actually pretty affordable. printrbot.com/shop/assembled-printrbot-play/
It's hardly 1000 dollars unless want to print a life size car
As I think about this, I wonder if there might be something to take from the ideas about reproduction and use that are established in the hand crafting community. When dealing with something like a knitting or crochet pattern, the pattern is considered more of a licencing for the person to make the finished object, but they are not allowed to then sell the item (at least commercially).
9:54 I dont think we are anywhere near a 99% accuracy (hence something that scales) classifying object from verticies with only patent papers as input. For example, People can simply print a part of the patent and print other parts somewhere else. People can print extra parts and remove them from the product.
I think that 3D printers are just one half of the IP question. What about 3D scanners? That is surely the next step. Just as 2D printing led 2D scanning, 3D scanning must be following in the wake of all the 3D printing technology, and I can't imagine it is far behind. As scanning improves, it is feasible that we will be able to incorporate spectral analysis, x-ray, electromagnetic imaging, etc. to create perfect scans of, well, everything, and print anything.
At that point, what happens to intellectual property? Can you copyright a steak or your grandmother's recipe for egg noodles? When we can perfectly duplicate anything down to a microscopic level, what happens to invention and how is it protected?
We do indeed live in interesting times.
+Taggard Andrews What do you mean "how is it protected?"???
This is something I've never understood. How on Earth does an idea need "protection"? Protection from what?
You first need to recognize the very concept of property, which is an entirely subjective and arbitrary concept that is not actually held by all humans (and very few other animals). Once you accept that people can own things, you can then understand the societal concept of protecting that property. Not a big leap to go to intellectual thoughts and creative product being owned by those who created them, and then extending that protection to those intellectual pursuits.
If you understand how you own your house, you should be able to understand how a songwriter owns his song.
Taggard Andrews
No, it IS a huge leap.
Information is not a physical thing that physically exists. You can't own it.
It wouldn't even make sense to "own it". Just what on Earth would that even mean?
Do you not get how IP works today? Google "Intellectual Property" and it will all become clear.
***** I don't disagree.
I think a valid point is the fact that the physical world and the digital works differently.
How will oversight work? In the digital realm there are ways to coordinate millions of users but that's not the case for D3 printers.
Someone making a chair out of wood for home use won't flag any system of copyright. Making copyright law virtually unenforceable in practice.
+Serah Wint
There's this pattern of five dots on the 10 Euro note called the EURion constellation. When a printer or a photocopier detects this patter it refuses to print it. maybe this kind of thing could be used to prevent copyright infringement. When the design file is purchased it doesn't have this design but any copies made of the file will have it and once the product has been printed the file deletes itself. I know some people will say that someone will come up with the technology to stop this but it will still minimise infringement.
Neil Botelho
You are overlooking the fact that people with 3D printers will be able to print 3D printers.
There isn't going to be a controlled commercial industry for this.
We can print copyright infringing 2D posters, but how many people do? The same applies to screen printing our own T-shirts. No one does it. It's not worth prosecuting unless it's being done for profit. 3D printing is the same thing. Most people simply won't bother.
One big difference is that 2D posters are purely for looks. 3D printed objects can be almost anything you currently need/want so people would be more likely to do it with 3D printing.
Well, it's unsurprising that issues crop up. It's an entirely new concept. Then again, copyright has so many problematic elements to it in general when faced with the modern reality, that one can easily question if it's fit for purpose, and isn't just handing undue legal power to groups who don't deserve it at the expense of everyone else.
I think there will definitely be an impact in the future when it comes to collectibles. Why pay $300 for a fancy limited-edition statue when you can just download a 3D scanned version of the original statue and print a copy for cheap?
For the first 20 seconds of the video, I thought that your guest was a 3d printed model of Michael Weinburg
I do think it worth mention that copyright when it was first created had a really short life span because it was only meant to keep people from immediately copying something that became popular and not keep people from using it ever, and I do think all these system need to be revised with that mentality in mind to some degree at least, because locking something for ever not only slows the original creator creativity but also prevents other people for fear of breaking someones elses content.
+Left4Cake How does it slow their creativity? Or, rather, how is a "slow" creativity a bad thing? Wouldn't you rather have them make a piece with time and effort than just churn out shallow piece after shallow piece just to keep something on the market? There is no damage to having a lifetime copyright. A shorter copyright wouldn't prevent a simple noun-swap. Heck, a longer copyright would allow more creativity because people would have to come up with something unabashedly new instead of just doing something with someone else's work, even if that "something new" is just a sort of noun-swap.
Ok. Well in theory what if Bransotcker had sole copyright of anything involving vampires for example. How many vampire movies wouldn't we have. What if Aliens got StarCraft shut down because the race design were based of it, or Sonic the Hedghog wasn't allowed to include Super Sonic, or if Hunger Games was to similar to Running Man (Arnold Schwarzenegger).
***** But that's not how copyright works. He doesn't get control over the concept, and concept control has never been the point. It's always been about implementation. You would have a point if that were how copyright worked, but it's not. Copyright works in a way custom tailored to encourage competition and creativity and has had more than 200 years to make sure it did encourage competition and creativity. Besides, copyright doesn't last forever. It never has and never will. As it stands, it is bounded primarily by the life of the author plus some amount of time. That lifetime bound is important because it gives artists a nice safe area in which they can create. They can make something to the best of their ability instead of having to make sure they complete it within a certain amount of time so that they have a certain number of items on the market. It allows the author to maintain authorship and integrity of his works.
+phoxxentswrath Right... Except when sony uses to own the Happy Birthday song... With is onr this that Did actually happen.
***** I'm not sure what you mean by this. The whole thing with the happy birthday song is just royalties for that particular song. There is nothing preventing the creation and use of a different song about birthdays carrying a jolly tune. Sony's (is it Sony that holds the rights? I didn't think so, but I'll take your word for this since I don't know otherwise) ownership lies exclusively in use of that tune with those lyrics within a commercial product without the consent of the rights holders. You can sing it at a birthday freely. You can make a new birthday sing freely.
I love the downloading a file for a part and printing it out. Maybe this will make our household appliances and other fixable items less disposable.
This kind of question really shows the frontiers that are being overrun and whole new spheres of influence that are being forged. For the system we are in, just like how Music and Movies ran the gauntlet and became digital and online friendly, manufacturing, open source, and garage industry will have to make the same transition as previous protected industries. And its going to be even stickier because you will be dealing, in many cases, with items that are not ephemeral or ethereal, they are real, physical, material constructs. And then on top of IP you have a new question mark for many people who never had to deal with manufacturing or real objects having to see the dichotomy of having violent limits placed on what you can do with your own private property, even for personal use. It would be like saying you cannot play any Stevie Wonder on your own keyboard in your own home. Or that the cake you baked was too similar to something from Martha Stewart. People will not like being limited on what they can do with their own property and the ramifications will be all the more severe and aggravating for those who run afoul of them.
Stephan Kinsella has a TON of videos and papers on these kinds of subjects. He is an IP lawyer, but unlike most any lawyer in the world he actively campaigns AGAINST the specialty of law he practices. Historically, functionally, and morally, IP is a shaky institution. Voluntarily through contract is about the only way to validly restrict anyone in their use of their own property. And that is still less suffocating as there is no presumption of coercion in its practice, only what the contract specifies or the loss of market confidence.
+Hal Gailey I dont see a functional way they can stop anyone from producing what ever they want in their own home with a 3d printer. the issues you bring up would only apply to services like shapeways who are the middleman and would have to identify what was being printed and disallow it.
sure it can be argued that new consumer 3d printers could have copy protection of some type, but it'll be just like DRM standards on CD and DVD, cracked within days. And better yet, NO way to stop reverse engineering, since all a person would need is a physical version of the item, and a set of calipers to take measurements, to create a functionally almost identical copy in 3d, which would then be DRM free as their own file. while laborious, its not impossible. as i have already done this for a few broken parts on items i own with my 3d printer at home. The only way it could be stopped would be to outlaw private ownership of 3d printers. And i don't see that happening for a long time, if ever, and it would be functionally impossible to do as well, since most DIY 3d printers are made by the user from parts purchased separately. no need to purchase a complete unit. plus there are people like me, who would form a sneakernet to traffic files around to people that wanted to build one.
besides, IP lawyers in the movie and music industry already tried a scumball move like that when VCRs and cassette recorders became common, the same legal precedents that kept them from outlawing consumer media copying will apply to consumer 3d printing.
fakiirification That's the point. You cannot stop anyone, and the only legitimate way to do so in the first place would be voluntarily through contract. Stephan Kinsella does a pretty good job of illustrating a lot of the gotchas and inanities of IP.
The future is going to be a constant conflict between centralized and decentralized modes of operations and the attempts of the people involved to remain unencumbered or force their way into other peoples' affairs.
It's a headache, can't create anything anymore without fear of laws,
+MrSkyTown anymore? where have you come form that this hasn't been an issue your whole life?
+MrSkyTown It is less 'more laws' and more 'existing laws one is accustomed to ignoring'.
3D printing has gotten a new community excited about fabrication, and lowered the barrier to entry somewhat, but has not really changed the landscape or truly created any new capabilities. 3rd parties who manufacture for clients have always had to worry about being handed designs that are owned by someone else, and the trade of other people's designs has always had IP issues.
The problem is newbies, people (including companies) who have no experience in this space discovering these limitations for the first time. It can be shocking, but the shock will wear off.
+neeneko I understand
You might dig this older story about Games Workshop protecting the intellectual property of their Warhammer miniatures from 3D printing. It reminds me a lot of the music industry's initial reaction to MP3, just as Michael had described. www.tested.com/art/makers/452866-how-home-3d-printers-are-disrupting-miniature-gaming/ It's a curious case for those of us in the tabletop industry because so much of the value of our products and our infrastructure comes from physicality, materiality, and scarcity.
+Daniel Solis this is where the quality of the material is judged not just by material and stability but also means of manufacturing. it is harder to replicate a precise mold of a figure than it is to generate a precise computer model. following that it is also having the means to produce. alot of game figurines that are sold on the mass market are molded and often there is a tell tail seam to show it. this may be an aspect of an authenticity check similar to playing cards which are possible to reproduce with the right materials.
When a lawyer working at a 3D printing company understands DRM's effects better than the companies who implement it...
I feel like Idea Channel has become more laid back and chill. Back when it started it was all frenetic and constantly moving. Not saying it always has to be the same, but I always enjoyed watching the GIFs and picking out where they were from. It feels more like a real PBS show now. Still interesting, but more like something you'd see on TV.
+Stephen Leotti I think it's only for the special episodes where he meets with people, like the pizza episode. Other episodes still have that personal vibe where he's close to the camera and talking to us fast, kind of like Vsauce's style. Still, I agree, there have been a lot of these more 'TV' episodes lately, and although they've been a little slower I've still enjoyed them so far.
cheesypoohalo Exactly. I mean, I watched the Discovery channel all the time, so I'm used to this kind of stuff. It just feels weird seeing Mike do it.
I still can't get used to the new camera! This new one has all the colours washed out and I figured they'd change the settings, but it still looks the same haha
cheesypoohalo It's definitely less vibrant than before. I guess they're allowed to experiment. Still miss the old days a little though.
I'm staying optimistic and blaming it on nostalgia, but yeah I hope things don't change too much :)
Awesome job hosting.
I recently saw a Netflix movie called, "Print the Legend". And one of the dudes 3D printed a gun. And the company who sold him the 3D printer came and took his 3D printer from him. That's an extreme example I guess, but whats to keep companies from taking away peoples 3D printers. I'm ignorant to the law side and how all that really works. Maybe someone can clear it up with some facts.
I have ordered a 3D printer (just a desktop sized one), and I am very excited for it!
When I get it, I don't feel any copyright should be an issue if I am making the item for my own personal use. If I download a 3D model of Mario to print off and have on my desk, why should I have to pay for that? The machine is mine, the 3D model was made by someone else (who is giving away their work for free) or myself, and the materials to make it are mine. Other than the "intellectual" property of the design, NONE of that belongs to the company (Nintendo in this case).
If companies wanted to earn some money off of their characters or whatever, they should setup an online store that provides already made 3D models to be printed for a fee. If I went on Nintendo's site, and was able to purchase a 3D model of Mario for say, $2. I would do that. They don't need any more than that, since the only thing they had to pay for was the person to make the 3D model and the bandwidth for me to download it.
I would never pay $2 for a model of mario to a print
That's crazy, the idea of software restricting what you can 3D print, haha. Cool video!
+Frank Blackcrow So silly. I already have a book that tells me how to build a working SMG out of plumbing parts from Home Depot, written by a guy who was actually arrested for it in the UK ("Expedient Homemade Firearms" ...def. not
right-wing or a gun nut, but I do LOVE Paladin Press😆). Would a 3D printed gun be significantly easier? I think probably not significantly.
Additive printing has two huge advantages over music (and e-books, which I think are a better analog) not discussed here.
First, norms around 3D printing can *start* in the modern age, rather than being dragged there in a decades-long legal process. The rules and norms around music and books were formed at a time when the only technologies available imprinted information onto immutable objects like books and records. You can see this in the legal battles around them. The original laws treated the information in books as physical object with location and some marginal cost of reproduction, and those laws have been awkwardly ammended to deal with the de-physicalization of artistic information. But the distinction between file and object is natural to 3D printers, and communities and businesses build that into the practice.
This plays into the more important distinction, which is that 3D printing isn't a zero-marginal-cost technology. The .mp3 was so troublesome to musicians precisely because the information could be converted into its valuable form (sound) at essentially zero cost, which is what made fighting music theft feel like bailing out a boat with a fork. Copying and owning a physical 3D model of Mike's face, on the other hand, has a non-trivial cost and can't be done ad infinitum. Maybe there will still be *cheaper* pirated versions of these objects, but it will always cost something, so artists and industry in this area will never have to contend with the peculiar economics of zero-price competitors.
The comparison with .mp3's seems especially tricky when you're talking to someone from Shapeways, which specializes in quality materials and passes through a central point rather than being peer-to-peer. When there's such a non-trivial cost of production, it looks a lot like a traditional market for physical things. On-demand book printers like Lightning Source have been doing this with books for years (which is why I think books are the closer comparison). And while it's a big deal for the book industry, Lightning Source and Shapeways are hardly the next Napster.
+Elliott Collins Yeah, this tech is taking birth in the modern age itself, but do you really think that'll stop lawyers from applying decades or centuries old laws to it? :(
Secondly, yes there is a cost attached to it. But there will still be problems. Assume that the tech is advanced enough to print complicated objects like phones(instead of just plastic stuff). If you design something looking like an iPhone 12s, don't you think Apple will have a problem with it?
You brought up the case of artists. Suppose there's a 'sculptor' who designs awesome stuff and 3D prints them and sells them at a high price. What's stopping me from creating a 3D model of the sculpture using some imaging technique, then selling my own versions, which will be exactly the same, but at a much lower cost?
+Bhupinder Saini
There's not much stopping you. Except.... Michael talked about the importance of what a community sets as it's values, didn't he? In the Art-buying community, buying a more expensive "real" artwork is often more desirable than buying a less expensive "fake" one. And yes, this is different from most other commodities, where something that is virtually the same but costs a lot less is often more desirable to consumers. There are exceptions, of course, which most often have to do with branding.
In other words, you could try and sell fakes. But if it's easy to see which are the real ones and which are the fake ones (for example, with the kind of authentication talked about in the video), you may find that your sales numbers are far less than you had hoped they were.
Ahsim Nreiziev What you say applies well to an ideal world...maybe even to first world countries...but not everywhere... Case in point: you know what happened in china
+Bhupinder Saini ... What happened in China?
I cant help but notice that you've transitioned from the record wall to a professional looking set. This got me thinking that a lot of other RUclips channels seem to have made a move from user created content to small production company created content. Small production companies like the green brothers( vlogbrothers/crashcourse etc.) and your PBS digital friends seem to be slowly raising the production quality bar. This strikes me as similar to the ecology of a forest where trees shade the forest floor making it hard for new growth to form. As more professional filming and production techniques proliferate through the RUclips market newer content creators may have a hard time competing for resources (viewers and ad revenue) this becomes even harder as ad blocking software becomes more prevalent and ads that are "built in" the videos become a bigger share of revenue. Established creators have a large advantage attracting these resources and reasons to try to squeeze competition out. I believe that this isn't your goal or the goal of most of the current generation of creators especially for those of the educational vein, but I wonder if its been talked about. Anyway food for though.....or as you might say: "here's an idea"
Great video! The inverse of this argument is interesting as well, I work with high end 3D scanning equipment, and the act of scanning a work of art with high enough precision creates can create a digital copyrighted work. I often face question similar to the following: Is a scan a copyrighted object? By re-printing, it becomes identical to a casting of the object. If we scan a sculpture, does the artist then own our copyright on our scan data? What is different from a highly accurate scan and artist creation?
IP control can be an issue as well, we have some companies wanting a reverse engineer of a competitor's part, and we quickly end up in a grey area, Is this scan any different than taking detailed measurements of a part and reverse engineering it? Or is a digital 1-1 representation need to be treated as something more?
@PBS Idea Channel
- Question -
What would happen so far in the cases regarding ill-intent and 3d prints. What I mean is if a person were to create an object with the intent of using it for something for something now considered to be a crime, who would be held responsible, also would the punishments be held the same as in non 3d print versions (stabbing with print gets a similar sentence to regular stabbing).
- Another Question -
So far, are there any new types of crime that have appeared as a result of 3d printing?
One possibility I can think of would be if a company claims the ability to print a specific part they designed, where not everyone has the tech to do so, and then a person gets their hands on the tech and prints and sells the objects. Would they effectively be stealing the object in question? Or just ignoring the patent/copyright?
Great episode, and if you guys are interested in some copyright discussion about youtube, The podcast "Hello Internet" featuring CPG Grey and Brady from numberphile has a couple episodes discussing it.
Excellent primer! I've witnessed this tech completely TRANSFORM parts of the toy industry in just a few years. 3d-printing has empowered fans & entrepreneurs to rapidly prototype new action-figure molds easily; going from add-on kits for existing Hasbro / Takara Transformer toys to now beating the IP holders to market w/ often better, competing products. So far, these are expensive, unlicensed 'premium' versions (much more $, smaller batches) though demand has made them ubiquitous. This competition has forced 'Has/Tak' to improve their IP & products, increase productions on some items, while improving sales on a few lines but has also helped kill aftermarket value for some 'Legit' made toys. The Transformers brand relied on stories, Lore to build the brand; now these grey-market Decepticlones are assimilating that brand w/ support of 'fans' eager for more plastic idols. Have to wonder if the net effect will allow the medium to survive.
3D printing is so fascinating :3 it's literally magic as far as I'm concerned.
This video should have drawn the distinction between personal and commercial use and open source and commercial 3D models. Also, is a 3D scanned object copyrighted if it's slightly modified or does that count as transformative?
Whoa those transitions - brings me back to my '90s childhood watching PBS.
One of the more interesting aspects of 3D printing that you didn't mention is cosplay. If someone makes a 3D model of, for example, a stormtrooper helmet and distributes it on the internet (either for free or for a profit), what are the legal implications of that?
Why would it? Just because I can rob someone doesn't mean property rights are dead.
+Jimmy Hough Fair argument. However it may become hard to enforce copyright, due to the ease of break copyright anonymously and potential volume of infringement. Then the fact that there is a law prohibiting copyright infringement becomes null and void in practical terms.
As with the entertainment industry, there is a sea change in process. The outcomes of which are hard to predict. I run a small company that that designs model tanks in CAD, have them 3D printed, cast them in resin, and sell them. I would not have been able to start my business without 3D printing, but I do fear that my business is too small to deal with copyright infringement.
I spend days, even weeks, working on each of my designs. If they got leaked online I might be able to get them taken off the more above-board websites, but there is no way I could counter the distributed net of people printing stuff in their own basements.
+Jimmy Hough if youre using someone elses idea claiming it as your own to make money, then sure. But if youre taking someones idea and improving upon it, i think its fair.(you have to give credit to the person who made the base which youre improving upon).
but in the end nothing is 100% original, and its disingenuous to claim an idea is 100% yours because you were influenced by the outside environment, people and things to arrive at your original idea.
can you imagine science without calculus, newton invented it by himself and by sharing that original idea he indirectly improved and continues to improve the lives of billions of people.
another example is Half-Life/Counter Strike(1998/2000) a huge reason why these games still survive today (meaning millions still play it daily) is because of the fans who modded and continue to improve and find new ways to play the game. The people using someone else's original are the ones who made it successful and are the ones who keep it alive.
+Jimmy Hough If everyone could rob anyone, property rights would be dead.
Then what if you put on the market a key that can open any lock?
+eg0zb they are called lock smith guns I believe and are regulated.
Games Workshop is not getting a cent from me.
How does the law work regarding this example?I buy a plastic fork, legit, with money from a store. I 3D scan it, and print copies so I don't have to buy more if they break. Also, does that differ from taking the same functional object I bought, and recreating it by hand with design software and printing that?I don't know if the 'design' of the fork would fall under copyright with it being functional.
I was going to complain. Software is almost always functional, but it is copyright protected.
However, it turns out, the lawyer knows more than me (a layman). Two and three dimensional sculptures are only protected by copyright in the case that "such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article."
I do imagine in the future being able to buy files that you can print at home, like with DVDs it is a one time buy that you can use as many times as you want!
I think something important to discuss is not just copyright and patent law but on items that are simply illegal to own at all. Such as weapons of various types in various nations. There needs to be some legal basis on where the burden falls. Is the person that made the design at fault? The one that manufactures it? What about cases such as a minor getting access to these things?
Admittedly the United States has less to worry about since its usually the use of an item that is illegal not ownership but lots of nations where it would be a major issue.
I can see a system like Steam or Netflix for licensed and verified 3D-files for when it's absolutely crucial that the parts you're printing are up to specs, as in the example with the aeroplane. Stocking items is expensive as hell, but a 3D-printing shop with access to high end SLS machines can make things on demand. I might take a couple of days instead of waiting up to a few weeks for said parts to get shipped halfway across the world. It would also be better for the environment to manufacture things within a short distance from where they are to be used.
I-is that... a Biting Pear of Salamanca plushie?!
GOD, I WANT IT SO BAD!!
I think it's awesome how 3D printing has given more people access to less expensive prosthesis. Furthermore, through the ability to customize and integrate other sensors and microprocessors, a prosthetic can evolve and become a greater part of the individual's identity, as evidenced by Viktoria Modesta who incorporates her customized prosthetic into her art. She was recently featured in Make magazine (makezine.com/2016/05/09/evolution-first-bionic-pop-artist/) as well as Interactions (interactions.acm.org/archive/view/march-april-2015/welcome-recognition-and-empowerment)
There needs to be a change in law to take the money away out of copyright trolling to eliminate lawsuits against 3-D printing. As long as copyright trolling remains a legitimate business model, 3-D printing will remain a tempting challenge for all copyright trolls. Since the trolls have no interest in going to court, they will file lawsuits against the customers of 3-D printing and not the 3-D printing companies. Always sue the small guy without the money or legal counsel to afford a lawsuit and pay off the trolls with a $3,000 offering to settle the lawsuit out-of-court.
3D printing is a great tool for certain applications, absolutely! I just wish the media would stop saying they're "replicators" via Star Trek. It's not the same thing. It doesn't actually have the same function. It doesn't work in the same way. It's Not a replicator. It's a 3D printer. They're two different things.
And if you think otherwise, please, go do some research, get some science. Layered material is not atomic restructuring. 3D printing is Not replication the way it's referenced in Star Trek.
The underlying process may be different, but the concept of building something on demand from data is an obvious analog. I think the main difference is that a Star Trek replicator can create different substances, whereas a 3D printer currently needs all of the right kinds of raw materials, so you can't 3D print a cup of Earl Grey unless you already have a container of it, but it's easy to imagine adding voice recognition and some common designs to a 3D printer so somebody in their garage can print a specific tool or machine part on demand with a simple voice command. "Muffler bearing, 1993 Toyota Camry", "left-handed crescent wrench", "8-inch pipe stretcher", etc.
+John Harvey The material and range is more what I was getting at. I totally get how it's an analogue. The media actually *equating the two is really my gripe. (ie talking about 3D printing like it's literally Star Trek in real life.)
How will 3D printing laws affect copyright if the object is print in a country where it's copyright don't apply and then is shipped to another place?
Just like tax evasion?
+LuisMonday If you have a lot of spare time, you can look up the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
Question for Michael:
If I sell a file online for a functional object, and it works fine on my printer. However, the user's printer isn't calibrated correctly, is calibrated differently, or uses a different material, and the part fails, injuring someone in the process. Where does liability fall?
The person who printed it. If you license someone to use a patent you designed but they mess up manufacturing it is their fault if it breaks.
I couldn't care less if something that I printed was protected or not. If I want it and am able to print it, I will do it. Now I won't go out and sell it to my friends, but I'd rather make it than buy it.
I personally think that copyright law is stupid (I think Capitalism is stupid, and it was created purely to support Capitalism), so if you're acting morally, even if not legally, I see no problems.
My school has a small 3D printer and I already made a Han Solo in carbonite figure. And I am working on a cup holder. I use 123D website. Never had i thought about the copyright I just made things I like.
+John Werner designs and art for private use cannot be effectively policed. if you were to try to start to sell the file access or the finished products is where the IP laws start to take effect in a meaningful way.
Well it's like fanart. If you're not selling it I guess there's no problem. And my school has one too, but sadly I don't think we're aloud to use it.
+Amaz1ngWhale why not?
+John Werner I assume it's because the "ink" is too expensive. They only use it for certain technology classes :/
+Amaz1ngWhale at my School we just pay for how much we used
* awkwardly requests * "Let's highfive"
please clap
Trust is the only category that matters on the internet. Trust ratings will dominate every new market as the Internet dominates every new communication medium. This is inevitable, however highly detrimental to corporate entities that rely heavily on false trust.
3D printing is just a fleck of steel on the spear, and the spear is aimed directly at the corporate heart of our Petrodollar modern existence.
What does Michael think about translation of already existing 3D objects into printable files? Such as printing replicas of movie memorabilia. Also what would the case be for translating a 2D drawing into a 3D print, for example Brett Ryder's Third Industrial Revolution 3D print. Which is a accurate representation of the original 2D media and if this would infringe on the copyright of the piece.
One of the most appealing aspects of 3D printing for me is the capacity for artists to be able to offer a physical object to their viewers. With that comes an interesting question in regards to how art mediums are translated. If you go to deviantart and download an image of fanart from a popular media franchise, it's not illegal, at least as long as the artist isn't directly profiting off the selling of that fanart. However if you downloaded a 3D rendering of a character or object from popular media and 3D printed a figure of it, is it still considered fanart or is the nature of it being a physical object now classifying it as a bootleg?
3D printers can only print out objects using one material at a time whereas different products like locks or computer chips need different materials with different properties if their are to function properly. Maybe 3D printing is only a threat to the design oriented and collectible industries that make things like figurines. Maybe 3D printing will make industries sell their products based more on quality rather than anything else. Maybe this is a good thing? Tell me what you think
+Neil Botelho That's true for now. But I don't see it staying that way forever, a lot of 3D printers already use two materials. Support material and part material, granted they are both plastics but they are different types.
Ok after all of this I have a question: what should I, a casual 3d printer owner, look out for? I mean I design myself, but I mainly download from thingiverse and myminifactory. I do not aim to make a profit from what I print or say that I made it. Should I be worried? Because after all if this I think I should be. Are the objects I download from thingiverse ok or should I verify that the uploaded is also the creator? And finally, what about the physibles category on thepiratebay?
Our production team is working on a set of 3D Printing courses on Coursera! IP and Copyright also touched on via John Hornick along with software, hardware, research and more. Coursers are freely available on Coursera from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Really interesting episode. Unfortunately I don't have anything compelling to write a comment about hahaha.
What about creative and functional objects? A keychain bottle opener that is disguised to look like an animal, a shower head that looks like a T-REX head? SO many objects are both utility and art.
The idea of having a database that 3d printers check is scary. It's like adding a wifi chip into a Hammer and Chisel to make sure you aren't using them to make a rip off sculpture. A 3d printer is a tool like any other. And the use of that tool to infringe copyright shouldn't be a concern, but if that infringed end result is being used in a way that infringes copyright.
Should I get sued if I made a Warhammer sculture out of toothpicks? No. Should I get a cease and desist if I tried to sell that sculpture as an alternative to an actual Warhammer figure? Yea. But you don't stop it on the tool level or creation level. You stop it at the sellers level.
+Ularg So, that would mean you could only stop it if you pay a company to print warhammer figure for you, not if you do it on your own private printer with your own plastic. Which is actually how the world functions doesn't it. This seems like it could possibly be a problem in a future where 3D printers are as common as normal printers, but that kind of thing is still a long ways away.
+Gorinich Serpant I believe as long as it stays with you or a close friend, there really is nothing copyright law can do about it. Now, hosting 3D files that the printers use online, on the other hand, I can see how that can be taken down. But I don't see how I could be taken to court if I made a Space Marine in a 3d modeller and then printed it out on my own 3d printer.
Would an artist have to send sketches of his work to make sure it isn't infringing on any copyright when he's just doing it to practice for himself?
I dunno, I just view the 3d printer as a tool and wouldn't think it smart to put restrictions on it that you wouldn't put on a screwdriver.
+Ularg That makes sense.
If I have a 3D Printer and I want to print "A Thing" and it is Copyrighted and/or Patented... will I get in trouble if I use it for Personal Use. I.E. Using it for a functional purpose around the home or office, or as an art piece on my desk or fireplace mantle.
If so, Why?
P.S. Can I 3D Print a Bacon Bowl? Very Important that both are answered!
It was very interesting that Michael Weinberg mentioned the incorporation of norms and standards into the law, because it strikes me that that's more a feature of common law than our current legal system. But I would assume he knows more about law than I do, and perhaps this only occurs with novel situations like 3D printing.
I think the idea that any copyright or trademark at all stopping people from printing what they want in any way for personal use is what a lot of the 3D printing community is really scared of. I see a lot of people really trying to stop this sort of thing being implemented in places like Thingiverse, where at the moment it seems like a utopia of people uploading and downloading things for others to print and use. I think that right now without any sort of copyright being used there, people are so much more free to improve upon other people's work and modify things into whatever they desire, which is a big part of the 3D printing community, the idea that someone's sculpture of a T-rex skull could be turned into a shower head (that actually happened by the way).
For a lot of this, I'm still in a wait and see kind of mode, but I definitely find the pilot example used in the video to be something I can get behind and actually I was thinking about that like a minute before it was even brought up in the video. Like for a little plastic item I probably wouldn't care that much about where it came from and I would have to look at it on a case by case basis, but in the realm of being able to conveniently 3D print a part so I don't have to go to the store or even in the realm of 3D printing food, I damn sure want to make sure that crap is safe.
Copyright has been bent and broken before 3D Printing anyway. From weird knock-offs, to hand-made stuffed toys, to paintings, customs, sculpts and drawings.
I liked your shirt. It looks like a cross between plaid and a circuit board.
This is one of the things that could happen in the near future.
I want to print a 1.5 meter high Finn statue. I order it from the company Modelopia. They pay nickelodeon something based on what their policy are on 3d printing. In this case, they want 10% of the total untaxed price the consumer spent on the product. Modelopia sends me an email back to update what the final price will be which was 1000 dollars, plus the cost for sending the item to my local post office.
Maybe you don't like Finn that much, but would rather have Tommy Wisseau from The Room in your living room. Gonna be so much more simpler getting that statue now.
Speaking as an aircraft mechanic with inspection authorization I find your analogy to a broken part being 3d printed and put on to an airplane highly highly highly something that would never be done that part can not be tracked with an 8130 and no mechanic would ever put that part on an airplane and put his butt on the line to get grilled by lawyers like you
In a similar vein to this, I think that the issue of whether or not its possible to "own" a language would make an interesting video. If you want a pop culture connection, there's the ongoing legal action by CBS/Paramount against the fan-owned Axanar Studios, which is a current case that addresses (partly) whether or not CBS/Paramount own the Klingon language. There are some cool philosophical, legal, and linguistic viewpoints on the issue. Thanks for all y'all do at Idea Channel, and for the great content y'all create.
So I think a huge question that I think would be good to have answered is: Where does personal use fall in all of this? If I want to print something for my own use and will never sell it or make money off it, how does that get considered by protection laws. I think a good example here would be an artwork that was released in limited volume. Maybe you can't afford the actual item, but would still like a copy. Assuming that you never sell the item and have no intent to sell the item or pass it off as an original in any way, where does that fall in the legal quagmire? This example does present an interesting situation, in that you can't really claim any harm to the artist, since the artist most likely wouldn't benefit from future sales of an original and since the 3D printed object is never presented as an original you can't claim that it directly hurts the value of the originals.
Where I think personal use gets more complicated is in everyday items covered by patents, where you print the item to save money. In this case, even if you never sell the item you are directly hurting the patent owner by not paying for their item. The issue here though, is that while a single person may cost a patent owner a small amount of money, it can easily add up.
+noshei21 In general, with copyright law, making a copy of a protected work isn't allowed. It doesn't matter whether you sell it or not (although selling/distributing copyrighted works is also not ok). The copyright holder has the exclusive right to make copies or license other people to make copies.
+slut4berniesanders I think that this is a fair use question, since +noshei21 brings up questions of market harm. A quick run through the factors suggests to me that this is pretty clearly not fair use, although I had to think about it; a single personal, not-for-profit copy that is nevertheless a full copy of the original serving the same function as the original is sold for is generally going to be taken as not fair use, although I can't 100% guarantee that for all circumstances.
As a side note, while I don't know of any case law precisely on-point, I would expect that someone making a limited edition would claim that the promise of it being a limited edition and not having cheap copies available later is central to the inflated sale price of many such editions and thus that you're harming their profits anyway.
Nice to see Michael as something more than a name in my news feed. :) I'm a librarian, and the legal issues involved in makerspaces in libraries present their own interesting questions. The general feeling seems to be that we (libraries) can deal with a lot of the copyright issues via a 17 U.S.C. § 108(f)(1) notice, though. If you're interested in learning the legal issues there, I would recommend this book: www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=11548
intellectual property law is already broken
+Xennus The Shadoe It was considerably less broken then traditional copyright to start. And the community is largely composed of practical minded scientists and engineer types. And... they have the horrible example of the record companies to learn from.
I think the end result will be reached cleaner and more efficiently then you think. After all, the entire goal of IP law is to effectively compensate people for the hard work of thinking up good ideas. (and the harder work of proof-checking said ideas)
Hehehe... The point of IP law is basically to prevent our Capitalism from decaying into Communism (or something different entirely). I think Capitalism is doomed to be replaced by some new economic system.
X-Blade Wielder Pure, raw Capitalism has almost as many flaws as pure Communism. Mostly because PURE Capitalism has zero rules about "cheating" and therefore rewards the salesmen and lying bastards more then the creative or hard-working types.
Only black markets have ever worked on pure Capitalism. Everyone else works out rules. Some rule systems work better then others. And rule systems have a finite lifetime before the cheaters break them. And so you need new and better rules.
kin2naruto Yeah, I see what you're saying. Essentially, there can be no Utopian economy until the individuals are themselves Utopian citizens (which is an entirely different discussion). I do, however, see the economy taking a radical shift over the course of the next century, and I look forward to what that new, revised system might be. Of course it will have its flaws as well, but hopefully it will continue to _approach_ that Utopian economy.
+X-Blade Wielder +kin2naruto
*The point of IP law is basically to prevent our Capitalism from decaying into Communism*
When I saw this comment, I actually thought you were a communist. Given your next comment, it seems you are not. But this assertion is correct, capitalism (and every other system in existence) has to have ways of preventing crisis and revolution (a significant crisis will also bring with it revolution). The reason regulations exist is usually either a. To calm people down and prevent revolution, or b. to benifit the powerful. Without these regulations the system would either collapse, leading to either communism, or another hierarchical system that has the same flaws and will inevitably collapse.
*Pure, raw Capitalism has almost as many flaws as pure Communism.*
Communism is simply a stateless society were everyone works according to ability and receives according to need. It is achieved once capitalism has given us enough organized industry and advanced technology and infrastructure to allow us to run all of production cooperatively and democratically under socialism, and after socialism has become efficient enough (through automation etc) that we no longer need to work except for the small amount of work that people do voluntarily for their own enjoyment.
I think the way in which spotify and netflix "resolved" piracy, by creating a service that legally allows you to buy/rent/stream the content that you want for a reasonable price will, ultimately reach the 3D printing world as well.
What I'm curious about is the ability that the end-user of the digital files that can be replicated in the real world will have. Even if a file for a work of art, functional object, whatever else, is protected and "locked" by some sort of system, regardless of whether it's built into the printing process or coded into the actual file, people will break it. And then, the have an editable file.
So that object can now be edited ad infinitum. It's effectively a template. Able to be remixed, remastered and repurposed to such an extent that whatever content ID and/or copyright systems are in place won't even see it as an infringement. I think this will eventually lead to post-scarcity world not only of functional objects but of art.
In this future world, you could literally walk into an art gallery, look at an installation and go "I like it, but I'd do a few thing differently", then download/buy the file of that work, "crack into it" if need be, edit it and release it as your own work for a price or for free.
So I have to ask, how many polygons do you have to take away or add to a file for it to not be infringing copyright?
I'm currently collaborating with a major vehicle manufacturer in a project where they are investigating the use of 3D-printing (specifically Selective Laser Melting of metal powder) in order to manufacture an engine. So if such a scenario becomes reality, and products are serially manufactured on a mass scale, what legal issues could that bring with it? For example might there be an increased risk of intellectual property theft, thus making security issues around safeguarding data and component designs really important?
Everything can break copyright if you try hard enough.
Copyright-wise, this is a hybrid of torrenting and fan art. The companies largely don't go after fan art in onesies and twosies, and If a person makes something for themselves, it's likely not as big a thing. The big parameter is scale. If you make one painting of Major Mighty Muscles for yourself, you're fine. If you sell it to someone, you're probably fine. If you print thousands of them and sell them, that will almost certainly raise an eyebrow.