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!
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.
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
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.
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.
You can make a single shot throw away device (and a pretty powerful one) out of plumbing supplies available from B&Q, Praktiker or any other DIY shop in about 10 minutes. Even easier if you live on the continent and have access to stainless steel pipes. Why bother with printing even if the printer could produce a functional one?
Same goes for prohibiting printing on these grounds. What's next? Making plumbing a licensed profession which requires a a security clearance and supplies being available only from a licensed shop?
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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.
I think it will be more than a few years. RP as it is now is pretty much limited to low melting point plastics and some niche applications with metals/ceramics where you have to machine the finished parts afterwards: basically the surface finish is terrible and the precision is middling.
If you're talking about edged weapons then it's far easier to just make them by hand. If you mean guns, lots of guns, you'll probably need a CNC milling machine. The trouble is if you can afford one of those you can a) just use it to machine the parts from blanks, or b) just use the big wad of cash you have to go and buy a gun on the black market - assuming you can't buy one legally.
As for your point on DRM I agree: even if people are incapable of designing the simplest of guns (probably generally true), someone may release a design without DRM just for lulz or simply strip the DRM from an existing design for even more lulz.
To throw in my two penneth, 3D scanners go hand-in-hand with RP machines (they're a lot better though) and unlike copying a bank note there would be nothing to stop one filing off any marks that would prevent digitising. Given an adequate 3D printer, a decent 3D scanner and a gun you could probably roll off as many as you want, assuming no-one came knocking to ask what you needed all those bags of metal powder for.
As an aside, when I looked at RP machines I realised that precision would improve with time as a matter of course, I was more interested in finding a machine that didn't require proprietary feedstock. That and being able to get around the problem of casting ceramics - I was quite enamoured of the Toyota(?) adiabatic-ish diesel engine at the time.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Maybe not additive 3D printers (FMD, SLS and the like*), but a CNC converted mini-mill can already easily make most of the parts needed for a pretty advanced firearm, and the few parts it can't (e.g. springs, rifled barrel) can either be bought as generic parts or created by simple hand-tooling. This has been the case with hand-operated mills for a good few decades, so the ability to create a gun from raw materials in your own home is nothing new.
* Though you could use these to form wax parts for rough casting in order to cut down on milling time.
I think it's this you were after:
But then I've seen other variants even attributed to other people, so who knows...
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.
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
What's next? Making plumbing a licensed profession which requires a a security clearance and supplies being available only from a licensed shop?
Don't give them any ideas. They just did a bunch of full scale SWAT style raids on barbershops in Florida (I believe the count was 19) where they handcuffed the barbers while they searched the premises for violations of the barber license and for illegal items (drugs, weapons, etc). All without a warrant, since a barbershop is subject to such searches by the Department of Licenses (who just happened to bring along local cops and the DEA). It was a great success, they found three instances of mimor amounts of illegal drugs and arrested several barbers for license violations (unlicensed barber, expired license, and other violations of that sort).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
All this implies is that there is still going to be a need for a good mechanic and the need perhaps for resources outside of the realm of what can be directly made by a 3D printer.
There was a toy manufacturer in America (back when such things still were made in America) who made a nearly perfect replica of a Colt .45 handgun out of plastic, complete with plastic bullets. They made hundreds of thousands of these things, and kids who were hooked on Cowboy movies & television shows during the era bought them up and acted like some super-charged John Wayne, sort of like you see in the movie Toy Story.
Anyway, some people with less than honorable intentions discovered that bullets for a real Colt .45 would fit into the chambers of this gun, and the firing mechanism (hammer & trigger) would even work to make it a real gun. It had numerous problems if you wanted to use it for target practice, and there was a tendency for the gun to even blow up in your hand (sending you to the hospital) if you fired the gun, but about 8 times out of 10 times the bullet would leave the gun just like the real thing. It was "good enough" that it was used in a number of bank robberies, and ended up killing a couple of security guards.
If you want to know where the regulations on toy guns come from, it was this incident that started the whole thing. I think something from a 3D printer could easily reproduce this particular toy gun, and getting ammunition for guns isn't all that particularly hard. You could even print out the bullets too, where the trick would be to create the primer & gunpowder with home-made recipes. Obtaining the raw ingredients: sulfer, carbon, and potassium nitrate; aren't all that hard to find, and one of the early sources of KNO3 was manure. In other words, anybody who builds an out-house and has access to some wood could also make a bomb. For awhile in London during the 19th Century, people were actually paid to have their septic system cleaned out for nitrate production, or at least not charged for the service.
I agree it would be a complex process and take somebody with some real initiative, but a basic knowledge of chemistry is all it would really take if you cared. Many 3D printers are also capable of producing metal parts too, or you could print out a machine lathe and some other machining tools to make the stuff if you were so inclined. It isn't that complicated, and what it would take to stop this is to simply outlaw the ability to be human. Somehow I think that violates some civil rights and some other basic principles there too.
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
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
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...
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.
Not sure where you're buying the stuff from, but $25 of plastic that feeds a RepRap or MakerBot goes a long way - it's far more than a cubic inch. I just checked on the MakerBot store, and they charge $15 for 1lb of plastic or $65 for 5lbs.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
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.