Slashdot Mirror
3D Printing May Face Legal Challenges
angry tapir writes "A coming revolution in 3D printing, with average consumers able to copy and create new three-dimensional objects at home, may lead to attempts by patent holders to expand their legal protections, a paper from Public Knowledge says. Patent holders may see 3D printers as threats, and they may try to sue makers of the printers or the distributors of CAD (computer-aided design) blueprints, according to digital rights group Public Knowledge."
Right, because a lumpy plastic copy of an item is just as good as the real thing....
No sig today...
Pretty pathetic. Why not sue the makers of lathes and hand tools - people might make patented things with them too.
Expect cardboard, glue and scissors to become "illegal patent infringement tools" soon, as well as pen and paper to be outlawed as "instruments of the law-breaking paragraph men."
This is surprising how?
Of course manufacturers and IP-holders will not be amused when you can suddenly make your own product or part that you'd otherwise have to buy for lots of cash.
They'll win that battle just as easily and decisively as the content industry has won its battle against filesharing and copying... Oh, wait.
...like it did with religion during the dark ages. Thank Odin you don't get burned alive these days, just sued into bankruptcy. Perhaps we should stop this whole technology thing. Or better yet, innovation in its whole. Or jail smart people. Prohibit brains? There must be a way to stop this copying!
I can imagine in a few years 3D printers will be capable of printing perfectly good weapons.
No doubt governments will try to force the printers to incorporate some sort of DRM that will make them refuse to print out a gun, and this will fail just like every other initiative that involves making equipment refuse to do what it's owner wants to use it for.
Just as designs are copyrighted now, the designs to create product knock offs with your replicator will also be subject to those same rules. Owning a replicator and building stuff for yourself won't be a problem, but if you upload a design that is essentially a copy of a product, you will get in trouble. Likewise, if you start replicating such goods and distributing them, you will be in trouble.
There really isn't anything new here. The best analogy isn't books or music, but rather stained glass lamps. Artists who design such lampshades guard the IP very aggressively. They prosecute frequently when someone is creating knockoffs. They hand number each sold design to reduce copying. And they add customer-specific details that make it easy to track down leaked designs.
Same thing can be expected with these replicators.
... some patent lawyers.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
It boggles my mind the lows the corporate entities will stoop to keep alive the consumerist mindset that has gripped the American economy.
Protip to any and all patent holders considering this: The free market made you rich as fuck, and that same free market can destroy you if you refuse to adapt. Who was it who said "The wise man adapts to the world, the fool attempts to adapt the world to himself. In the end, the fool wins."?
Boredom is bliss.
has anyone noticed that:
* the Mafiaa is after file indexing sites, because the index allows people to "break the law"
* now 3D printers are being classified as "law-breaking" tools.
* nobody goes after weapons manufacturers and suppliers to prevent and prohibit weapons manufacturers and suppliers from putting the means to kill people into the hands of "irresponsible" people.
so... let me get this straight: it's okay to kill people but it's not okay to be creative and innovative?
Just like copying YOUR OWN cds at home, what's wrong with 3D printing and tweaking for personal use?
Just because the technology is advanced and easy to use, doesn't mean you have to instantly start suing people. Right?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
In other news, patent holders are threatening to sue in court and proceed with astronomical financial claims to whoever:
- walks bij violating the copyright of film studios of walking cartoons
- waves a hand, breaking the copyright of NY Yellow Cab co
- goes to the bathroom, an act patented by God where royalties have to be paid
- picks up a phone, a patent by AT/T
- talks in plain English, as in a patent from a known software for voice recognition
- breaths, as in a patent of medical breathing machines
all in order to protect their legal rights under the current Law.
The high-end merchandising business. That is, those ridiculously overpriced ($30-$100) figurines that Japan rips people off on. When they can be printed for $1 in materials, directly from the 3D graphics application used to make them, nobody will be able to get away with charging so much anymore; the Chinese will likely just make cheap copies using 3D printers if they do.
But the other thing it'll destroy is the opposite -- the garage kit business. Fan sell the same type of toys, usually made via labor-intensive resin casting. Eventually, selling such kits will become equivalent to selling time on a 3D printer.
As someone who has seen the price of Warhammer figures, I have no sympathy for their losses.
Wherever innovation threatens to become ubiquitous and improve civilization and everyday life, you can bet the patent system will be ready to strangle it. That's what it's for.
So I will be able to get from some torrent site the design to print my own iPhone?
Anything you can print with a 3D printer you could do with your own hands and plaster; what's the big deal?
If cd burners are not illigal, I don't see how 3D printers could get to be.
People who currently make money are afraid of not making money!
That fact, however, does not preclude the rest of the world from leaving them in the dust.
Of course, the technology is only sufficiently advanced once it can be used to produce complete functional copies of itself from raw materials (some assembly required, of course, though if it can manage that too we'd be golden).
The ability to mill 3-dimensional objects has been around for a while. The advent of cheap table-top scanner systems is the real issue - once it becomes easy to make accurate 3-dimensional reproductions in CAD quickly, then the gates are opened to make all sorts of stuff at the same (or even higher) quality than OEM. The US Navy has been investing in this technology for years since they discovered that they didn't have the blueprints for all sorts of stuff anymore that was supposed to be scrapped by now.
To me, the issue is that the ability to accurately model 3-dimensional objects has come to the average desktop. No longer do forgers have to deal with making investment-cast reproductions, where each successive generation of castings degenerates due to loss of detail (like cassette tapes, I suppose). No, this is the digital generation where these sorts of models can be shared as easily via the internet as digital music is being shared today, and it scares copyright- and trademark-holders to bits since they will more and more easily lose control of their brands. But I don't think that 3D printing is at fault here - other enabling technologies are what make them so potent a tool.
And that's the rub, 3D printing has enormous potential to unleash a torrent of creativity as more and more folk are allowed to let their imagination run its course - delivering prototypes quickly, cheaply, and to a greater and greater proportion of the populace. Eventually, why shouldn't your local hobby shop or CVS not also deliver 3D prints in addition to the 2D stuff they deliver today? I hope that our trademark/copyright/etc. overlords are not allowed to squash this exciting technology in its infancy, especially considering that enforcing this sort of copyright control is not an issue in the developed world.
...for the same reason publishers didn't shut down Xerox. They will have a theoretical contributory infringement case against those who distribute CAD files but will have even less luck than the RIAA due to the lack of statutory damages. For the same reason they won't be able to act against end-users at all unless they start selling large numbers of copies.
The real fun will begin when the cheap 3D scanners come out.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Like a Colt 1911A1 pistol:
http://www.sightm1911.com/blueprint/M1911A1_blue.htm
There's no need for special laws --- existing laws for
- trade dress
- patent infringement (esp. of design patents which govern the appearance of a product)
- trademark
- copyright
already cover these things quite adequately. It's tough that the corporations will have to pay lawyers to keep track of plan distribution sites and initiate suits on an infringing item-by-item basis, but they've no more grounds for interfering w/ 3D printing technology than they have to try to prevent people from purchasing a metal lathe, block steel, strips of spring steel and a set of good quality files (which one could use to make the afore-mentioned Colt 1911A1).
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
What's next? Making plumbing a licensed profession which requires a a security clearance and supplies being available only from a licensed shop?
The console makers have already done this to video game programming. GNU project founder Richard Stallman has written a short story predicting a worst-case scenario in which other kinds of programming meet the same fate, all in the name of DRM.
You wouldn't download a car...
Somehow I doubt that the manufacturers of these new manufacturing devices will be the targets. Companies that produce blank CDs or mp3 players weren't really the center of attention. The riaa's primary focus from then up until now has been the mp3 files used to make the discs. Once desktop manufacturing is sophisticated enough to produce desirable gadgets the focus will probably be *solely* on the CAD files. Hopefully open source designs will see a boom once that happens. I always thought popular music would shift away from record labels after digital music and cheap, widespread distribution methods became available.
check out the Mp3 Garbler I built!
Remember how this really works - whatever the current laws, there will be pressure from commercial entities to pass protective laws solely for the preservation of the commercial potential of their products. Just as copyright is expanded as needed to protect commercial interests, so will the laws be expanded (if needed) to protect commercial interests related to 3D printing. The only "safe" items will be things that clearly are not a consequence of current "protected" products and are explicitly released under open licenses.
Of course, the article is quite correct that the statistical likelihood of companies going after any one individual for printing small numbers of parts is remote - even the music industry's campaign against file sharing has not made it all THAT probable that any given individual will be sued, it's just not cost effective to sue vast numbers of people who have no money and pay all the court costs. However, it DOES pose a problem for people who want designs that are fully legal in all senses of the word - i.e. those who want to use truly free models - and statistically unlikely doesn't mean some people won't get in trouble.
The patent/copyright issues surrounding this issue, while fascinating, are not the only potential problems. If someone prints a design for a car part they downloaded off the web and installs it in their car, and something goes wrong, would they try and go after the source of that model? More to the point, would they have a case if they didn't pay anything and no warranties were made as to the serviceability of the design? Some jurisdictions limit the ability to disclaim things like implied warranty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty Would the fact that the model in question was a free download and no money changed hands come into play? This is a point that comes up occasionally even in software - some people think they should have a right to have the tool work "for a particular purpose" even if they paid nothing to compensate the author for their work, although in practice this has seldom played out. Physical products based on designs are a more subtle problem - even if something goes wrong and money was paid, was it the design at fault or something else? How does one prove if the problem was the design, the printer, the plastic/resin used, the operation of the machine, improper use of the part, etc. etc. etc. IIRC, the Smithsonian makes people sign a waiver before they can get plans for the wright brothers airplane: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/arch/collections/techdraw/wrights.cfm (Unfortunately these plans are quite restricted - no commercial use or redistribution, so what might have been an excellent source of high quality model plans is out of the question. I don't know if the dimensions in them are subject to copyright restriction - it seems unlikely but it would take a lawyer to figure out - but the agreement would seem to preclude anything interesting in that regard.)
That said, all human activity carries such risks. Authors of books (or for that matter authors of web pages!) run the risk of being sued for what their book motivated someone to do. People try to sue gun makers for what people do when they misuse guns. Anyone holding public office with significant power has painted a legal bullseye on themselves. Hopefully a free model community will eventually appear, the issues will be worked out, and we'll see a surge of scanning of historical artifacts outside of all possible copyright/patent concerns and new designs under open licenses. Not just for the fun and creativity, but because those are excellent ways to preserve and build on old designs from past masters.
The existing open CAD models are somewhat scarce, but some of those that do exist have gravitated toward the Creative Commons licensing schemes. I am aware of:
OpenMoko:
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I always thought Herbert's Butlerian jihad with its ban of intellectual machinery was too far-fetched for a concept, but in a few years it can easily turn into nice forecast.
Those are actually pretty cool. I don't see any documentation of where they came from, but they look to be copies of the original Ordnance drawings? If so, and if the intent is to document them as a public domain, free-to-copy source the website author might want to make that a bit clearer, but neat stuff!
these morons have missed the point that enshrined in patent law is the right to create a single copy of an invention, for the purposes of allowing the copyer to "further improve upon the invention".
Because copyright is basically amoral, and will extend its shitty mitts to everything.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
the patent system will be ready to strangle it. That's what it's for.
Instead of speculating on other people's motives from your own subjective viewpoint, why not simply observe the reality of the situation?
Fact: the patent system increases the net worth of those with the resources to exploit the system. Patent law is a weapon used to eliminate competitors. Those who have the money to exploit this weapon are rewarded with large returns on the investment.
Fact: the patent system increases the net worth of the business of government, both in revenue and power over the people. It costs billions per year to run this system. Each lawsuit rakes more money through the business of government. From the bottom looking up, it's a waste. From the top looking down, it's an opportunity.
Conclusion: the patent system is a tool for the elite -- both in the "private" and "public" sectors -- used to guarantee and increase their profits. The strangling of innovation isn't a goal here, but merely "collateral damage".
It's going to be quite a while before 3-d printers become ubiquitous. Heck, even if the price plummets (last I looked a decent quality "small" printer was still in the $10k range) you still have to have a space for the rather large device. Not to mention the technical know-how on it's use and the generation of CAD files.
And besides, what's to stop the garage kit business from buying one? These are the people that stand to gain the most. They likely have the room (by replacing their resin molding area), they have the drive and incentive to learn how to use the device, they have the creative spirit to generate their models (after learning a tool like Blender), and once they do so, their labor intensive work become simple, and perfectly replicable. No more mold release and dental cement. No more flawed and damaged models to replace. They can churn out perfect model after perfect model.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The AC I'm replying to does make some interesting observations of the patent system. If you have some mod points, please toss him one, I'd like to see some discussion on his view, but not many people read at 0+.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
What universal 3D printers will do: make patents on hardware as crippling to innovation and society as patents on software.
So. What happens to the patent system when everyone has a 3D printer and is swapping designs amongst themselves? Is there a future for it? Can it be taken out before it strangles society?
http://rocknerd.co.uk
"last I looked a decent quality "small" printer was still in the $10k range"
My first IBM AT was in that price range. That was not even 25 years ago.
Good luck trying to create a 1911 from those prints - not only are most dimensions illegible, but the originals are riddled with errors as well.
Even more fun than blueprints: http://www.cncguns.com/projects/1911a1frame.html
That's right, complete CNC files. No need to translate the blueprints and drawings into instruction lists. And light-duty CNC mills can be had for under $10k new. Sure, that sounds like a lot of money, but how many people have two or three times that in a bass boat? If machinework is your hobby, you can have your "3D printer" right now, and it'll make real metal objects, not plastic toys.
God, I love living in the future!
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
You're not paying for the price of production alone. You're paying for:
-the designers that made them look like something other than misshapen blobs
-the designers and developers who make rules that allow you to play a balanced game with them
-the writers who have lovingly crafted a vast, detailed, and epic galaxy of war, darkness, and SPACE MARINES
-lawyers to defend IP, since pirated codices and miniatures actually reduces Game Workshop's ability and willingness to create more army lists/figure lines
-marketers to make little kids want to play as SPACE MARINES, so people actually have others to play with
-support staff, so when developers like THQ want to make a WH40k game, we get amazing games like Dawn of War instead of terrible spinoffs
and last but not least:
-the Inquisition, who nobody in WH40k sees coming, because they're everywhere!
More seriously, I know we all like to rip on price tags that put a product out of our budget range, but can we please remember that if we don't want to buy a product because of price, we can choose not to?
Almost everything we see on shelves uses the product price to cross subsidize administrative, legal, and marketing costs. Seeing the price tag and holding it up to the cost of production is silly.
Signatures are the new names.
A knife can be used to maim/kill or for slicing cheese. The purpose/intent behind the use of said technology lies with the end user. Will 3D printers, of the future, be used for illegal/Evil purposes? No doubt but they will also be used for many noble deeds. This shouldn't give us pause. Most any good technology cuts both ways. That's why so many of our modern advancements can be attributed to war time R&D.
And even though a knife can be used to slice cheese they still sell a lot of sliced cheese. I think we will be alright!
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
Don't order them from the LEGO website, use the BrickLink site to buy them used and far cheaper that using a reprap to make them.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
And you thought it was about the music.
I imagine TPB got a think tank together, figured out this was coming, and started planning what to do about it. Stitching up the rights now ensures no debate in the future because it will be "just the way things are".
I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned this yet. A lot of keys who's primary copy protection is specialized blanks would suddenly become as easy to copy as a standard house key. Sure integrating an electronic component would deter that, but that's many billions of locks that would need to be upgraded. I wouldn't be surprised if this is killed on some shaky legal grounds as it is an opportunity for an easy-out from this problem.
All the parts of 3D printers are made in China.
I've priced 3-d printers and supplies.
I don't see materials cost EVER allowing your suggested pricepoint to be reasonable or likely
think ink jet ink prices in 3d solid form for example
10$ per cubic inch easy today...
for your part to be made for the low amount you suggest, the machine and materials cost would have to fall many powers of 10 below current cost.
to run this 'convenient shop'
the machine amortization, shop location,
wage for the employee, and materials
all have to be included.
Just not realistic
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
This is ridiculous. A 3D printer is like a good CNC machining center, just cheaper. A modern multiaxis machining center is just like a 3D printer, but with better resolution, and with limits as to how weird the shapes it can make -- a 3D printer can make a bunch of concentric spherical shells (each with a hole in it to drain the unfused material), a CNC can't. So whatever court verdict outlaws 3D printers, it will automatically make all of U.S. manufacturing grind to a halt (whatever is left of it). Do the U.S. patent holders really want to rid us of whatever manufacturing capability remains?
For those who haven't experienced a CNC machining center: those are nothing like a hobbyist CNC lathe or mill. They are huge (room+ sized) multiaxis machines, sometimes with dozens axes when you combine the stock positioning, stock clamping, tool positioning, tool exchange, etc. The typical process to make a keepsake figurine on a CNC machining center goes like:
- convert 3D model to whatever format your CAM software digs,
- select a couple of tools (usually with progressively smaller radii),
- have the CAM software generate tool paths from the model, check for interferences, etc.
- install stock & tools in the machining center, upload the file, hit the RUN button on the control panel
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Another computer type who thinks "3D printing" is magic. It's not.
The technology is over 20 years old now. It has become better, and you can now get plastics with some structural strength. But it's very slow. It takes hours to make simple parts. You can make plastic parts for about 100x the cost of making them in quantity by injection molding. Making simple brackets this way isn't cost-effective. When you look at the design of the "Mendel" RepRap machine, the few parts that are actually made with RepRap could be made by injection molding, probably for about $5 a set in quantities of a few thousand. Most of the machine is electronics, motors, steel shafts, and belts, none of which RepRap can make.
The big advances in making stuff are for flat stock. Laser cutting cuts flat parts fast, and there are no cutting tools to wear out. Plasma cutters do a similar job for metal and thicker materials. The newer models cut an edge clean enough that bicycle sprockets can be made on them. Water jet cutters cut cleaner, but the abrasive they use is expensive and the resulting slurry has to be disposed of.
I have a TechShop membership, and access to all these tools. They have a good stereolithography machine and a 3D scanner. Those are used mostly by design firm people making prototypes. They also have three laser cutters, which are busy about twelve hours a day, rapidly cutting flat parts from wood and plastic. The laser cutter is really easy to use, and very popular for artwork. The plasma cutter isn't used as much; it was built from a kit, and has some problems which are being slowly fixed. No water jet cutter yet. Maybe soon.
Because making one-off flat parts is now fast and easy, there's a tendency to design things to be made out of flat sections that can be laser-cut. That seems to be the way work really gets done today.
TechShop also has both manual and CNC milling machines. Those are used regularly to cut meal, but design, planning, programming, work-holding, setup, and use are much more complex than with the laser cutter.
it is one thing if it is a company that went to a lot of effort to develop a technology, but people and businesses who horde patents to patent troll as a business are killing the economy.
for the black market parts economy. A 3D printed copy of a complex part to go along with their now near-flawless factory packaging skills? Massive profits - and massive failures.
Video / music copyright enforcement efforts will probably pale in comparison to those attempted for the duplication and sharing of physical objects / designs.
A replicator would change the world economy as we know it. People essentially wouldn't need to work. All there needs food, clothing, shelter, entertainment could simply be replicated. Larger replicator could make you a car, boat, etc. Other than power (which essentially seems to not be a real problem in the Star Trek world) you have no needs.
A 3D printer is not nearly as advanced of course, but it's definitely a big enough leap that that it may change certain parts of our lives drastically.
Assuming the price to "print" in 3D drops cheaply enough and the technology advances enough we may find our selves replicating our own items and killing 1000s of industries.
Look at just the kitchen: Forks, Spoons, chopsticks, plates, cups, Spatulas, Colendars, ladles, tongs, whisks, etc. I saw a TV show with Jay Leno and he has a 3D printer in his shop which he uses to make car parts for his rare cars that are basically impossible to get other than fabricating your own.
I imagine there will be much resistance to this type of thing by large corporations that stand to become obsolete.
Years from now historians will lament over the fall of a nation. The Americas have finally reached a manufacturing technology zenith, and instead of realizing the potential for all if us, "vested" interests will hold all of us back for the sake of "we've always done it this way".
Does anyone here honestly think that China will not use this technology to empower citizens who are more nationally unified than Americans to outright cut imports from the US?
think about the potential plummet in the national debt alone if cheap plastic parts and products were domestic again.
if these things take off. This adds a whole new dimension to the concept of burning a coaster.
Do Games Workshop operate out of a garage? Not since you were born.
If you don't like the prices then learn how to scratchbuild your own.
Oh, you don't have any talent? Well fuck you then.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Prices aren't directly based on expenses, they are based on what price will yield the highest return. Since expenses such as designers are not a per-item expense, those expenses are irrelevant for the price the product will be sold at. All that matters is how many people are willing to pay what price, compared to how much it costs to produce the thing. Well, maybe designer expenses are not completely irrelevant in that they act as a barrier to competition, in that a competitor will have to pay those expenses to enter the market and so there will be less competitors and hence higher prices. Still, when you pay some price, you are not being offered that price because it is reasonable in any way except that it maximizes profit for the seller.
Patent lawyers?
So is your phrase intended as a noun, or as a verb? I would very much like to patent lawyers, and then sit on my patent to make sure we have fewer of them floating about.
So riddle me this -- how many new lawyers fit into a 20-year patent term?
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
It's only become an issue because some people are still in denial about whether they manufacture hardware or software. The main culprit is the RIAA and MPAA, but the publishing industry is complicit too. For decades their software (songs, movies) was tied to hardware (records, videotapes, CDs, DVDs). They mistakenly thought they were selling hardware when in fact they were selling software, and so built their business model and protections around hardware.
When tools for cheap or even free software replication were developed, suddenly they were hit with the full realization that they were in fact purveyors of software, not hardware. They've responded with all sorts of inane laws trying to put the genie back in the bottle and once again tie software to hardware, so they can continue with the hallucination that their business model is built upon - that they are selling hardware.
3D printing is the same thing. The stuff you print is hardware, but the designs for what you can print are software. The people holding those designs don't want to become software sellers, they want to remain hardware sellers. They want their designs to only be manufactured using less efficient and more costly methods, but methods which allow them to retain full control of their designs. A 3D printer is thus a threat to their outdated business model, and they will do whatever they can to stop it.
Meanwhile, the real software industry chugs along just fine (all software, not just computer software). Sure there's piracy, but there are plenty of honest people and workable business models in the new paradigm (wedding photographers used to shoot weddings for free and charge for the prints, now they charge for the shoot and give prints for free) to allow plenty of profit to be made. Thus providing ample counterargument to their claims that they need more protection or their industry will die.
You and I know where this is all headed. The only question is how much aimless and futile legal wandering the content industry will engage in before they accept the inevitability of it all. Are they going to hold back mankind for 10 years? 25 years? 100 years? Are we going to have Star Trek type replicators in the future which could fulfill everyone's wants and needs for almost free, but be unable to use them because the content industry insists they need to be paid for the designs of everything which is replicated?
Paid as much is if it were manufactured with a hammer and anvil? I mean if CDs were cheaper than tapes, and MP3s were cheaper yet, I could at least buy the argument that they were using these intermediate platforms to transition their business to an all-software model, and thus still needed protection during this transition. But no, they insist on trying to charge more when their costs have decreased. They themselves are walking further and further out on a limb you, I, and probably they know is destined to break.
If your sale cost is less than (fixed cost)/(#of units sold)+marginal cost, you're making a loss. Fixed costs are pretty damn relevant for the price the product is sold at; look at the drug companies.
Signatures are the new names.
It is not creativity and the unleashing of it that is going to cause problems. It is the uncreative copying of things others have created (in physical or digital form) that causes problems.
If you have a 3D printer that you use to make original things that you design, nobody is going to care and you will likely be able to be compensated for your creativity and real costs.
On the other hand, if you have a 3D printer and use it for duplicating what others have done - mostly to their detriment - you will have problems.
I don't see where the problem is what that at all. Creativity should be rewarded. Collecting/hoarding copies of works, destroying someone else's revenue, just generally being a jerk should not be rewarded at all. Sure, if you want to have a collection of every movie ever made that is fine with me. If you then want to make sure that you can give these to everyone on the planet I don't see that as fine.
Personally, I would like to see what happens if a 3D printer or other device came along that was suitable only for making small coins. No other usable function, just making coins. Now that would be interesting. I think you could shut down a significant portion of a country if you could make US quarters for less than 1 cent each.
If you are selling at the optimal price, then you'd just be making even more of a loss selling at any other price, by definition, and fixed costs do not affect the optimal price directly. If you can predict that the optimal price is going to put you in the red, then you won't offer the product at all. Fixed costs are not relevant to price other than in reducing competition, though it's role in reducing competition can be significant and so the indirect effect can be significant. The drug companies sell at a high price because that makes them the most money. Think of it this way: do you believe that drug companies would reduce prices if they had no fixed costs, in cases where they have no competition due to a patent? Why would they do that?
3D printing has matured more than most people think, if they've even heard of it... Complex structures that can't be built by any other manufacturing process are quickly, easily (and, most importantly, cheaply) fabricated from CAD files out of metal powder (like titanium).
If you don't have the money for your own 3D printer, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) wants to help you out with that! We've just launched the DARPA DMACE Challenge. DMACE (pronounced "dee-mace") stands for 'Digital Manufacturing Analysis, Correlation and Estimation'.
DARPA is offering $50,000 to the individual or team who can most closely predict the structural properties of 3D printed structures.
Join the competition at www.DMACE.net!
Good luck and hope to see you join up!
DARPA DMACE Webmaster
Forget $10K, you can build your own CNC for only a few hundred dollars of parts. Admittedly, this requires a much higher skill level, but realistically geeks are going to be the early adopters for this sort of technology anyway.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.