Slashdot Mirror
Wired On 3-D Printers As Fraud Enablers
An anonymous reader writes Citing a report from the Gartner Group estimating $100 billion in intellectual property losses within five years, Joshua Greenbaum warns of "the threat of a major surge in counterfeiting" as cheap 3-D printers get more sophisticated materials. Writing for Wired, Greenbaum argues that preventing counterfeiting "promises to be a growth market," and suggests that besides updating IP laws, possible solutions include nanomaterials for "watermarking" authentic copies or even the regulation of 3-D printing materials. Major retailers like Amazon are already offering 3-D print-on-demand products — though right now their selection is mostly limited to novelties like customized bobbleheads and Christmas ornaments shaped like cannabis leaves. Apropos: Smithonian Magazine has an article that makes a good companion piece to this one on the long political history of the copy machine, which raised many of the same issues being rediscovered in the context of 3-D printing.
For software, generally speaking the copy is exactly the same as the original. No one collects software (only their medium), and its unlimited.
Even with 3d printers, objects are limited (you can't copy them indefinitely, you'll run out of material), and right now at least, until star trek replicators happen, they're not the same as the original (unless the original was 3d printed too i guess). There can be difference in qualities, and the originals may be collectibles... just like a painting can be replicated, but its the original that's worth something.
So being able to tell the originals from the copies apart kind of matters this time around.
Who cares if somebody rips off somebody else's cellphone case design?
Coming from Gartner that's a bit underwhelming, they should have shot for at least a trillion and worded it more dramatically, like "the intalectual propraty losses could amount to the valu of three Apple corps and a few odd Phizers."
I'm just looking forward to downloading a car.
I have talked to a tourist in London who admitted to me that he is travelling to London to copy art pieces. This person would take pictures of art in multiple directions and send it to manufacturers in China who would use the picture to build a 3d model and use a 3d printer to make a mold. From the mold you could produce cheap replicas for hotels and offices for people who would not mind too much. You do not have to 3d print everything just make molds. Of course this limits the use of such techniques. I was a bit surprised that the person would tell so much to a random stranger.
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
Obviously there will be a political response we'd kind of expect, restrictions of various sorts to limit materials, printers, exchange of designs someone owns the IP to, etc.
I'm more curious what the organic market response will be.
For items that could conceivably be 3D printed, will manufacturers sell 3D plans? Make a better product that can't be 3D printed with the same quality or materials?
Is it still considered "counterfeiting" if the copy is not passed off as being an original?
Since we need an example to work with, let's say that there's a popular brand of buttplugs. Let's call them "Systemd Buttplugs", and the genuine ones contain a very recognizable logo on them.
And let's say that some 3D printing enthusiast examines a genuine one, but then 3D prints his own buttplug made of the same materials, and with the same dimensions, but without the official logo on it. It's identical in every respect, except for the missing logo, and he doesn't otherwise represent it as being an actual "Systemd Buttplug". He only makes one copy, and it's for his own personal use (or maybe for use with a couple of buddies from his local Linux user group).
Would this 3D printed copy be considered a "counterfeit", even though it isn't being passed of as being an original "Systemd Buttplug"? Would it just be considered a "replica"?
...mandatory gun helmets for all citizens.
The part being copied would have to be something that is unavailable otherwise and/or very costly to be worth the time/effort to counterfeit it with a 3D printer. It would have to be something for which the market is very small but very willing to pay, because if the market were large, 3D printing wouldn't make sense- you'd fabricate the counterfeit in a way that's more cost effective for producing large quantities (and would probably give a higher quality result).
Maybe parts for exotic sports cars? But who isn't going to inspect and quickly know they're looking at a fake? What exotic sports car mechanic is going to risk his reputation by buying and installing counterfeit parts?
Jewelry? Too much scrutiny applied there, too.
Nope. Anything that costs a lot is going to be scrutinized. Anything that doesn't cost a lot isn't worth counterfeiting, especially not with a 3D printer.
is supposed to be about rewarding innovators
IP law has been corrupted to reward entrenched economic interests
as such, IP law needs to be ignored and/ or actively sabotaged at every available opportunity
IP law is anticompetitive monopolistic nonsense
it is the largest point of corruption where oligarchs have warped the government to enforce their position rather than enforce fairness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
we must do everything we can to make a mockery of IP law
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You can make whatever you want, for yourself.
I mean ... I've experienced a few times when a $50 - $200 appliance didn't work anymore because a $0.005 piece of plastic broke.
If the appliance is still under warranty, you can take up the cudgels and have it repaired or replaced. If it's out of warranty, you *might* be able to have it repaired, only to find that repairs typically cost between 50% and 150% of the purchase price.
What could be more reasonable to suspend legal restrictions barring you from 3D-printing that widget (if at all possible)?
As far as I know, it's very very rare that such a widget is of such clever design that you freeload on someone's hard work. What I think is the case (on basis of a thoroughly non-scientific survey, sample-size 6, personal observation) is that any ingenuity in the design is spent in making sure the widget in question can't be second-sourced without infringing on some sort of patent. E.g. by adding a special notch, a special hole, or simply making the dimensions so that the widget is unlike any other on the planet (and any other widgets won't fit).
There can be difference in qualities, and the originals may be collectibles...
I don't think people are seriously worried about someone scanning some priceless marble figurine, printing a copy and selling it for $100,000,000 to some very stupid collector who doesn't notice that it is made rather roughly from plastic.
They're more worried about someone scanning a $20 Popular Cartoon Character(R)(C)(TM) doll and printing a copy for their sprog, without the House of Mouse receiving their rightful tithe under the 2016 "lets keep Mickey copyrighted forever" act.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
The copy machines did not drag us into the pit when they became common place. 3D printing is not a hazard at all with one exception. 3D printing will be a huge force in altering society in radical ways. The construction industry will be almost exterminated by 3D printing. Factory work will be vastly limited by this technology. BMW apparently already has a carbon fiber frame arriving on some of its cars and one can well imagine most of a car being created by 3D printing and robotic assembly. I wonder if anyone is having breakthroughs on 3D printing of fabric and clothing and shoes. The unemployment generated by 3d printing, automation, computers and robotics will rapidly replace almost all human labor. Boats are another item that will fall to 3D printing. The fact is that we will have no choice at all in replacing our economic and social systems, moral beliefs and customs as well. 3D printing may well cause the greatest social upheaval of all times. In the past five decades computers have changed our world big time. In the next three decades 3D printing will change our world more than computers ever have although computers did enable 3D printing.
See intellectual property for what it is, a monopoly for big businesses. A 100 billion dollar intellectual property loss is the same as a 100 billion dollar victory for competition.
Enhancing the collective wealth of humanity without giving captains of industry their cut will henceforth be known as "fraud"
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
First in the world, but don't copy.
Every time a new technology come along some people freak out and the end of life as we know it is threatened. Sometimes the naysayers have a point even, but for the most part life is better. Buggy whip and wagon makers are not the viable career they once were, but look at how many people have jobs manufacturing cars. Not to mention how society has advanced due to motorized vehicles.
Computers supplanted type writers, and all kinds of other stuff. When I was younger copy machines were a similar threat. And color copiers were used to counterfeit currency. I think it wasn't until inkjet printers got really good that the US government started adding elaborate anti-counterfeit features to paper money.
3-D printers are no different. As technology advances, what was once considered valuable becomes out dated and losses it's value as something different replaces it. Aluminum was once more valuable than gold as refining it was very difficult. This is no longer the case. Aluminum has become commonplace, and we're all benefiting because of it. Times change, as does what is considered valuable.
Gartner gives the numbers the group contracting the study want.
Trolling is a art,
For software, generally speaking the copy is exactly the same as the original. No one collects software (only their medium), and its unlimited.
I have known people in the warez scene who would beg to differ with you. They seemed to have pride in how many cracked software titles they had, regardless of whether or not they actually had any use for them.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
"...estimating $100 billion in intellectual property losses ..."
There's your problem, right there. There is no such thing.
Hah! I'd love that.
All those idiots who just kept their toys in the box instead of actually doing something with them, just because they might be worth money some day.
And with 3D printing anyone can just replicate those figures.
Actually There is an exotic mechanic just outside of Bangkok whose specialty is making "Fauxrari" and "Lambaux" and any other exotic you want, under the hood they are Toyota and Mazda pumped up ricer motors. Considering his builds run between $65k-$80k they are for the semi-rich in third world countries to look like they have more money than they really do. Rumor has it most of Saddam's later rides were made by this guy, who brags his vehicles are safer while being lighter as he makes his panels out of carbon fiber from casts of the real parts.
Sorry I can't seem to find a link, I read it in a magazine,Wired IIRC. Of course even if I found photos it would look just like the real thing as the Wired article had him posing by some of his builds and his attention to detail was just incredible, I bet if you parked the real 65 Ferrari next to his you wouldn't know which is which by merely looking.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Electronic copying has made music and video copyrights almost meaningless - anybody can download just about anything. 3D printing will make patents on simple mechanical objects equally meaningless. If I need a new kitchen widget or a new plastic doohickey, why not just print one? There ought to be endless online libraries, provided by manufacturers or created by end users.
Of course, industry will fight this tooth and nail. Patenting differently-shaped measuring spoons or the plastic feet on a chair may make no sense at all - but manufacturers will never admit this. They would rather spend millions defending their worthless patents.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
3D printer "fraud":
Things getting cheaper for the end user without some big business being able to profit off of you.
Sounds like a win for the consumer!!!
I'm sorry your little scarcity business model is broken, BOO HOO.
The best thing for society as a whole is that 3D printers get so cheap that the average consumer can print just about anything they want or need for about the same price as a manufacturer. All this "income inequality" political nonsense can be finally put to bed.
"He has 10 Ferraris while I only have 9" doesn't ring as loudly from the whiners in the society as "he has a billion dollars, while I only have free welfare"
ANYthing that reduces costs, enhances productivity, or makes life easier is a "fraud enabler."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If you can make a 1:1 replica of, say, Mona Lisa and be happy with it until someone says it's "wrong", then the "value" must be something else than real value. Similar thing is the "audiophile" industry, driving nothing but false promises of "coolness".
I was a bit surprised that the person would tell so much to a random stranger.
Why? Do you think some random stranger was going to report them to the Imaginary Property Police?
I doubt you'll find one random stranger in a thousand who thinks there's anything wrong with what this guy is doing, and they probably work for the Imaginary Property industry.
In the long run eventually nobody cares which pushes innovation to new levels.
Looks like advancements in technology will bring the brokenness of our patent system to the attention of the everyday man, much like digital copies did for copyright. Similarly to copying tapes, the copies will likely be of lower quality... for now.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Spare parts and specialty tools. I constantly find myself needing some weirdly shaped piece of plastic that's impossible to find anywhere.
You do realize some people wear jewelry as ornamentation, and thus don't care if it has the right density of defects visible only when viewed with an electron microscope?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Go fuck off, bull shit. Utter bull shit. Obviously this article was written to get page views.
... when scarcity is a fiction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2L1fxe2Sk1c
http://www.thebigchilli.com/features/search-for-thailands-elusive-replica-supercars-goes-on
Chris Pongpitaya Schoenes Co.
229/3-4 Soi Akamai 7, Sukhumvit 63
Bangkok 10110 Thailand
Phone +66 2392 4177
...an inspiring piece on NPR I hear a while back, about a little boy or girl who'd lost his or her hand or finger or some other limb, and instead of being forced to spend $20,000 on some traditional prosthesis, was able to 3D-print the prosthesis for something like $20. Even better was that since the kid was growing, the required parts could be reprinted with ease to match his/her development. It was really inspiring and there are probably hundreds of millions of people around the world who could benefit from such tech -- I mean, *actually* benefit, because they can actually *afford* it.
Now, when I read articles like this and statements about "100 billion dollar IP losses" all I can think of is, fuck, are we really going to let intellectual property law squash the awesome potential for advances 3D printing gives us across a wide range of applications? I can only hope that there will be a significant movement of "open-source' designers who allow their product templates to be downloaded and printer for free, but the pessimist in me sees this as another opportunity for patent trolls and megacorporations to fuck everyone over and profit in the process.
Sorry for the slightly "jaded teenager" esque post, but anyway.
You do realize some people wear jewelry as ornamentation, and thus don't care if it has the right density of defects visible only when viewed with an electron microscope?
Shhh! De Beers is listening.
This is what a 'disruptive technology' does. The 'market' changes as it becomes easier and cheaper to produce 'almost as good' stuff. If I'm changing $10 for something, a significant portion of my customers are only paying $10 because they have no other choice. If someone else starts producing what I make for $5...it's simply the market changing and I have to adapt or pretend the market hasn't changed and sue everyone (while spending even more money on not making my product).
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
These guys are all worried about people pirating their appliances and manufactured goods. But really most of what they make isn't that innovative. I mean, an open source refrigerator isn't going to work any worse then theirs really.
This guy is talking like anyone gives a crap if they use THEIR design. But who really does actually care? Imagine all the things you own and imagine they were all things that came out of 3d printers, assembled, and had some motors and electronics glued into them. Who needs to steal the design in the first place?
What is more, their patients only go for 17 years or something. So anything older then that could be copied verbatim.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Perhaps they do. They also aren't a good measure of the entire market.
How many people prided themselves on how many albums or CDs or DVDs they had? How many of them now just use Netflix and Pandora/Spotify/etc.?
We craved having lots of media because there wasn't a way to easily get it otherwise. Now, nobody has to buy (or copy) 1000s of sources to be able to consume those sources.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I have to adapt or pretend the market hasn't changed and sue everyone (while spending even more money on not making my product).
Or you can pay the government to pass a law banning the cheap alternatives because 'public safety!', which is usually much cheaper. This is exactly what's likely to happen with, say, people printing new car parts on a 3D printer. Clearly that's a risk to 'public safety!' because those parts haven't been tested like the real parts. And as for printing complete cars that haven't been crash-tested and may not meet CAFE standards...
So what happens when this appears on the scene?: http://reprap.org/wiki/Metalic... high quality high detail 3d printing of metals and other materials. Good luck trying to enforce IP rights once this tech hits the market.
That profit margin is sure to evaporate. People will scan and print replacement part for a fraction of the price. Sears might actually install a 3D printer in their own store with access to official CAD drawings and sell it. But they will not be able to maintain such high price for such small piece that probably costs 20cents to make for long. So yeah, 3D printing might erode some of these profit margins, and these guys will bitch, moan and yell, "IP fraud, they don't have license from us to replicate these parts". But, if you had not abused your monopoly on the replacement parts and acted nicely, may be I would have been kind. But now, I say, cry me a river Sears.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Cyberspace(the internet, and all virtual space on interactive computers), there is no sarcity of goods. Companies can only profit by created scarcity to drive demand, and to do that, they need to ban people from doing things for themselves.
This is no diffrent than a pimp accusing your girlfriend of "stealing" his business by providing sex for "free"
I guess so, but in this case I was in a fairly high end art gallery. I could have been some kind of pedantic arty dude who would have got her barred from the gallery. I guess I expected people to be a bit ashamed of doing something like this as well. I understand that there is not much risk in this.
Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
...we never should have let them get away with player pianos
For software, generally speaking the copy is exactly the same as the original. No one collects software (only their medium), and its unlimited.
Even with 3d printers, objects are limited (you can't copy them indefinitely, you'll run out of material), and right now at least, until star trek replicators happen, they're not the same as the original (unless the original was 3d printed too i guess). There can be difference in qualities, and the originals may be collectibles... just like a painting can be replicated, but its the original that's worth something.
So being able to tell the originals from the copies apart kind of matters this time around.
No it's not. If I can copy the thing you're selling with a few clicks of a keyboard, you don't really have a product. I fully support inventors getting rewarded for their work, but that's NOT what the patent system does.
If they're selling them as realistic copies, then is there even a problem? Is there copyright on 100 year old paintings?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Will be interesting to see how copyright and patent laws evolve, once people can DIY more and more and more.
Will things evolve to end up like "Venus Equaliteral - Special Delivery" or continue with the status quo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
The article didn't mention a single item that could be counterfeited with a 3D printer. There was only a passing mention to guns, which is clearly not the main issue.
I'm fine with water-marking authentics and passing laws banning you from making money off of 3-D printed designs that are already copyrighted, but banning certain materials? As soon as you try to ban materials, prevent people with good intentions from using them. Just as with [certain] weapon laws and drug laws, trying to ban things because people /can/ be malicious using them doesn't mean banning them is good. Don't even need to explain why, the two reasons have probably come up on every website out there at one point or another.
Winter: I'd laugh at the innuendo, but I'm too sick. *cough*
Who will fear this the most is companies who charge outrageous prices for cheap plastic parts. I.e. exactly those parts that can easily and cheaply be reproduced with 3D printing. Just like with printer ink and coffee maker capsules there are various areas where cross financing the product with insanely pricey spare parts is the norm rather than the exception. It's easy to pull off, too. Invent something where a plastic part is a key element to operation, that plastic part is consumer serviceable (that part is optional), trivial to make and weighed down with enough patents that nobody dares making something even similar. And of course, being plastic, it's subject to wear and tear and has to be replaced now and then. In such a situation, it becomes trivial to sell the appliance cheaply, even under cost, as long as you know that people will have to buy that plastic thingamajig again and again.
That only works as long as there is no cheaper option for the user, of course.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'd guess there are already laws (and liability) for using non-certified parts in critical areas.
There was a contractor who was making highway guard rails who decided to go cheap and changed the design without permission linky and another case linky
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Anything that enables people to do things better and more efficiently, also enables people to commit crimes better and more efficiently.
I for one am completely ok with 3D printed parts needing to meet the same safety standards required for their non-printed equivalents. The last thing I need is to take a tire to the face because some bozo with no relevant engineering background decided to stick it to the man by making a new axle for his car on a jumbo sized RepRap. That said, there could be safety standards for home-printed parts along the lines of "this geometry printed using XYZ materials on a printer meeting these minimum specifications is equivalent to the original part", but actually doing the testing may be prohibitively expensive for certain industries.
Mickey Mouse is 85 and that little shit is still under copyright. Most likely will be for the rest of time, too.
I do get the point though. I see nothing wrong with making a copy of a physical object and selling it, if he value of the object is it's originality. Making copies of physical consumer items and selling them is, and should remain, illegal.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
This Wired article from 2011 http://www.wired.com/2011/01/st_counterfeitcars/
Counterfeit Car Maker Cranks Out Porsches and Fauxraris
You can buy cut-rate bootlegs of Mad Men and Chanel handbags all over the world. But if you want a fake Ferrari, you need to go to a garage on the outskirts of Bangkok. That’s where Chris Pongpitaya and his 10-man crew use scavenged and scratch-built parts to piece together ersatz Porsches, Maseratis, and other dream machines for enthusiasts whose budgets are too small to match their egos. “When you look at the car, there’s nothing different,” Pongpitaya says. “But when you test-drive it, you may notice.” ...
>Christmas ornaments shaped like cannabis leaves.
Of course, because we can't have Christmas or 3D printing without drug addicts forcing their addiction into everything.
I wish weed killed or was at least carcinogenic because it would solve the problem of potheads in the long term.
Requiem for the American Dream
How does this allow *someone* to maintain a monopolistic price advantage? Dude, ur anti-american.
Requiem for the American Dream
Sure, there will always be some leeches who will try to get rich with MAFIAA methods, but if you fall for their cons, don't blame patent law for it.
You know it's time for the next revolution when your rulers' names end with roman numerals.
Maybe IP Lawyers should consider what many of us have had no choice but to consider; go and get training in something else. But from a more personal perspective, go find the ancient burial ground of the Buggy Wip Maker. Travel Agents, and American Engineers are been cheerfully shown the way.
My point wasn't about devices/patents, but pieces of art/copyrights (ie: miniatures). Its pretty damn easy to copy it after the artist did the original design/color/etc and someone made the matching 3d model.
No, but there's a copyright on photos of 100 year old paintings. It's one reason many galleries forbid photography. So long as they have the original and no high-resolution scans exist, they alone can offer the authentic art-viewing experience.
I was a bit surprised that the person would tell so much to a random stranger.
Tell me, how much can you make with an unauthorised 1:1 copy of Saint Pauls Cathedral or Buckingham Palace?
Do you have room for either one in your garden?
I know several bike groups here in the UK who keep old machines running with the help of some friendly light engineering firms. Certain parts are no longer available. Simple parts, like headlamp brackets, or exhaust clips, but with the mounting holes in *just* the right places. So, from time to time, one of the Panther user groups, or MZ user groups will take an intact part to a small manufacturing firm and ask for 25 or 50 of these - enough to make it worth their while setting up the tools to produce them; not so much as to be stuck with tons of them. Then put in the next newsletter that they're ready, and watch as people request one and a couple of spares for the next time it breaks. With 3D printers available, a lot of these will end up getting scanned, and printed out as required.
I also remember reading an article that said 3D printing won't impact big business, because what it'll make the most is Things Only I Want. Scan my hand, then make me a coffee mug that fits it *perfectly*. A set of spectacle frames that match my eye distance and my different height ears, to the millimetre. Ice trays that make ice in the shape of the Buckaroo Banzai logo. Nobody makes these - nobody could, at least not profitably. Some people have the manual dexterity and wood/metalworking skills to do these things for themselves. I'm not among their number. All of a sudden, I can have things custom-made to my specifications without it costing a fortune.
I can see that catching on massively, and when it does, all the legislation in the world won't even slow it down.
The only concern I would have is substituting lower quality materials for a replacement part (helicopter tail rotor blade?). If you have ever had a motorcycle after market brake lever snap off while applying under emergency braking you may understand.
Or course. I've got a 3D printer and the kids love it. You don't have to look far to find models of popular toys, and they can be envy of the other kids at school if they're the only ones with glow-in-the-dark Minecraft Creepers (glow in the dark filament is pretty cool!)
Just another case of technology running ahead of the existing rules.
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
Making copies of physical consumer items and selling them is, and should remain, illegal.
Why?
Maybe there should a be a fee made a that starts at $1 USD a year and doubles each year. At year 10 a patent should be $1024 at year 20, it would be $1,048,576, at year 30 it would be over a billion to keep that patent.
Change the base or the start point, but my point is the longer you own a patent, the more it should cost in a geometric way.
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to the public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute not common law. Neither individuals not corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back.
- Robert A. Heinlein (from the short story Lifeline (pub. 1939) )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-Line
Heaven forbid a person or company that actively uses their own IP tries to protect their IP.
unavailable otherwise and/or very costly to be worth the time/effort to counterfeit it with a 3D printer.
So pretty much every vendor optional extra part ever? I've "pirated" a physical object before. It was a Dremel accessory. It was either pay $50 for it or jump on thingiverse and grab the model and hit print. A few hours later and $2 worth of plastic and I was off with my accessory. Mind you the 3D printer just enabled speed. Given the time I would probably have found a properly priced equivalent from China.
Maybe parts for exotic sports cars? But who isn't going to inspect and quickly know they're looking at a fake? What exotic sports car mechanic is going to risk his reputation by buying and installing counterfeit parts?
I have a funny story here. My father's GM convertible had a latch where where the roof connected which was made out of plastic. GM wanted some $1500 to replace the plastic part and install it. After looking around he found a metalworkers shop which sells clones of those plastic parts in metal for around $50 and the local mechanic charged a whole $250 for labour installation. Likewise the hydraulic hoses for the roof were made of some kind of rubber and they burst. $2500 to replace with the genuine part, or $600 inc labour to replace with an aftermarket metal braided equivalent.
Now the real question is, are these three things counterfeits or are they after market replacements? The answer will depend on who you ask.
When your counterfeit consumer good fails to perform as expected, you blame the manufacturer of the original, not the counterfeit. There is probably some consumer item which you buy in part because of a level of quality you have come to expect from a particular company. Pappy Van Winkle bourbon, a brand of bicycle, Freud power tools, something. How would you feel if you couldn't tell whether or not you were buying the actual item, or a counterfeit that may or may not be an equivalent copy?
This is a BS opinion piece by some corporate schmuck that wants somebody to protect IP against the horde of 3D printer owners. He even uses VHS and p0rn as cases to prove his point. Although that effort is pure show-business distract, deny and deflect hype.
Nothing to see here. His first statement is a lie and it doesn't really get better the further you read. Although you are welcome to, indeed if he wasn't such a pussy he would have published his patent numbers so we could prove they are invalid or reap the benefits of the age of p0rn on VHS.
These piracy claims are ridiculously overblown. You can't 3D print something when there is no 3D model of it.
That's not an argument against selling copies, that's an argument against claiming that they're the originals. So long as the buyer is aware of who actually made the item there is no fraud.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Google 'Chris Pongpitaya' and you will find all the details on his car replica business in Bangkok.
... printing a copy and selling it for $100,000,000 to some very stupid collector who doesn't notice that it is made rather roughly from plastic.
I see your point regarding basic FDM printers, but note that for the right price you can 3-D print in steel, ceramics, wax, and more, or print a mold from which you can cast various other materials, including silver, brass, and bronze.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
look, plenty of those art pieces are out of copyright to begin with.
like big ben or whatshisnames statue?
there's still a material cost. the point is that with 3d printers like all other production the dev cycle of making a pirate copy goes down. like molds for the bottoms of shoes etc.
now - the brand names - they should compete with that too. ever see a pirate copy of a nokia 101? NO? I wonder why! the pirate manufacturer was unable to fight on the price, that's why. there's plenty of note3 counterfeits around though, some of them really good(and with decent socs too running them) - which leads to believe that the note has plenty of air in the price. with the pirate phones of yesteryear you could just look at a picture of it and know that it's not an original samsung/nokia/apple, but with those note and galaxy copies it's pretty hard, basically you would have had to google beforehand what to look for to spot the differences(newest have the pen working properly as well!). these pirate copies have had a significant amount of r&d put into them.
3d printing tech makes it faster and cheaper for the legit manufacturer as well, so I don't really see the pirate problem from the technology so much UNLESS the legit manufacturer is unwilling to pass on the savings to customer..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Bit of a contradictrion here:
For software, generally speaking the copy is exactly the same as the original. No one collects software (only their medium), and its unlimited.
So being able to tell the originals from the copies apart kind of matters this time around.
If you can't tell the originals from the copies, wouldn't we be in the same situation as with software?
If I put up a torrent of your favorite game, but I hacked up the internals so its different in a way that you can't tell them apart to screw you over for my own benefit...it would be pretty bad.
In the same way, if when you come to buy my copy of some miniature, and you can't tell them apart, but an expert can look at it and notice I made it out shittier material or I wasn't quite faithful to the original.... someone would be pissed.
Counterfeit only if they claim to be the original part. A part is not counterfeit if it is different in some way. Different because it is better, because it is lower quality, or just because it doesn't have that manufacturer name molded into it.
If I 3D-print some shoes in garish colors - I could call them crocs and they'll be counterfeit. Or I could call them 3D-printed no-name cheap shoes, and they won't be counterfeit. Now, "chinese counterfeiters" would probably want to call them crocs, because the name sells. When I 3D-print something for myself I wont - not out of respect, but because I couldn't care less about "brand names". As I don't care about brands, why take the risk of faking a brand name . . .
I'm not sure I follow - how is that scenario different from using a checksum to verify you've downloaded the correct piece of software? Some copies will be bad, and some people will be able to tell. Others could be indistinguishable from the original.
Well couple probs I can see with all this. ...
First is the wile insane out of control U.S. Copywriter crap.
Thinking about some random vague thing is not intellectual property. A curve is not property. A natural plant is not as well.
Only things you have actually created should be allowed. But that part is out of control.
As mentioned before. The only people that might be hurt are companies selling cheap plastic parts.
I guess there will be a area of 3d printed art. But if you lose control of the files. Also it's still theft.
The copying famous art is not new. Paintings, prints, posters. Long history on those. A always sometimes some crook will try to pass a fake as real. If you are passing a lot for something and don't check it out.
Making molds, that's not new either, just a new system. And it's not like they can make a big mold. It's only small things. Ok a few sections, but they can't reproduce a 8 foot art work.
And to some degree it's not, well wasn't illegal till the U.S.gov let U.S. companies run wild.
For small stuff, there had long been large and small scale fakes being made. Often easy to tell. And still will be.
Water marks, special restrictions. Hah.
Do you really think that there will ever be a 3s printer that will turn out an exact copy of an 80 year old Mickey mouse?
Like said above not till we get start trek replicators.
The paint, molding, and plastic will never be right. They don't have to make a new water marked plastic.
They know what plastics are used by which printers. And pretty much none of them are the same as in molded stuff. Our how about a copy of something that was metal, out stone, it's still going to come out plastic.
All this is. Is things like the riaa yelling they want to have more control over even more crap they have no right to.
When did that change? In 1999 the supreme court decided that even if the reproduction was 100% accurate and faithful to the original, if the original is public domain, you cannot get a copyright on it. THAT's why museums don't want you taking pictures. If you can't photograph the paintings the museum gets to maintain control of the content and therefore the money involved in selling copies.
A 1958 science fiction short story addressed -- in an idealized way, over an absurdly short timeframe -- the "problem" of 3D printing -- in a much more advanced form -- pretty nicely. The lesson of the story, after normalizing for the differences between that situation and ours, and that we live in reality rather than in an amusing and thought-provoking fiction, could be applied.
Some changes are going to come as 3D printing becomes cheaper and more capable. The legal and political and economic institutions that are slowly adjusting to the reality of easily copied paper documents and audio and video will also provide some lessons, too.
Some interesting/useful/amusing links:
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
About whether something is an authentic copy. If I can print my own what do I need you, your authentic copies, watermarks, or your prices for?
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
So you should be able to copy a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle (I.e., copy the bourbon, bottle, and label), tie a label to the bottle that reads "made by J. McDonald" and sell it?
So you should be able to copy a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle (I.e., copy the bourbon, bottle, and label), tie a label to the bottle that reads "made by J. McDonald" and sell it?
Sure. Why not? Who would be harmed? Certainly not the buyer, who knows exactly what they're getting. Who else would have any standing?
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Similarly, authors and musicians. After all, the new novel by Pepty could just be printed by J. McDonald Press and sold on Amazon right beside the ones printed by a publisher who actually paid me.
The buyer's buyer.
The problem is not the buyer who is informed, it's the buyer who isn't. And face it, you think drug dealers are alone in cutting up superior product to make inferior clones to sell to unsuspecting people?
So a buyer buys a ton of counterfeits, then proceeds to sell them as "discounted originals", perhaps even cutting it with water or other things to turn 100 bottles of fake stuff into 200 bottles of diluted fake stuff to make more profit.
Where have we seen this before? Oh right, melamine in Chinese milk. And that wasn't even passing off yet.
Though, no new laws are needed - it still goes under the laws of passing off or trademark infringement (if you try to pass off something fake as someone else's) and fraud (selling something that it's not).
So you should be able to copy a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle (I.e., copy the bourbon, bottle, and label), tie a label to the bottle that reads "made by J. McDonald" and sell it?
Sure. Why not? Who would be harmed? Certainly not the buyer, who knows exactly what they're getting. Who else would have any standing?
The buyer's buyer.
Either the buyer's buyer was also informed about who the original manufacturer was, or the initial buyer/reseller is obviously committing fraud. But that has nothing to do with the original transaction, which was not fraudulent and harmed no one.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
There's no excuse for works that are almost a hundred years old to be still be copyrighted. It's theft right out of the public domain. They're still entitled to their trademarks, of course.