Slashdot Mirror
Ebay Shop Scrapes Thingiverse, Sells Designs In Violation of Creative Commons (all3dp.com)
He Who Has No Name writes: A little over a week ago, Thingiverse user Loubie posted Sad Face! to Thingiverse, protesting the use — without permission — of their designs and those of others by JustPrint3D, an Ebay seller marketing physical prints of the designs in question (over 2,000 by some counts). Despite a terse and legally shaky denial of any wrongdoing by JustPrint3D, there are obviously multiple violations of various iterations of the Creative Commons licenses (several forms of the CC license are options for Thingiverse uploaders to assign to their Things when uploading, and one is the default). Now MakerBot itself is wading into the uproar firmly on the side of its users, and has released a statement mentioning potential legal action.
Their Ebay store is empty.
Stop interfering with their freedom, you communist atheist fascists bumblebees!
This is the sort of thing that Disney does with Mickey Mouse! You can't arrange three circles together, not even in a 104.45 degree angle without getting a Disney lawyer in your face. Don't perpetuate the problem!
Just who the hell is writing these headlines lately? What the hell is "scrapes" supposed to mean? I can't make heads or tails of this headline, is it a type for "scraps"?
What's the problem? Did the author pick wrong license by mistake — and will they apologize to the folks now harmed by eBay's overreaction?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Ebay only takes action against illegal things when there is bad press.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It's about scraping clean your 3D printered PLA plastic phalluses.
The conjecture being, once we reach the DONG SINGULARITY (tm)(CC), the universe will be composed of 51% plastic penises, hence the theory is being called "Thingiverse",
This was also covered about a week ago on HackADay: http://hackaday.com/2016/02/22... "Most of the uploaded CAD models on Thingiverse are done under the Creative Commons license, which is pretty clear in its assertion that anyone can profit from the work. This would seem to put the eBay store owner in the clear for selling the work, but it should be noted that he’s not properly attributing the work to the original creator. " The only part that he's violating is that there's no attribution.
Sure the guy is a scumbag, but anyone buying from him deserves to be taken advantage of.
People list things for far more than what they are worth all the time.
I was looking to buy a Model A and look what I came across this
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ford-M...
The rusted out body of a Model A for 18K+ when you can buy a beautiful fully restored working Model As for as little 16,000
If you don't shop around expect to be taken advantage of.
3d printer ...and nothing of value was lost. At all.
Creative Commons
Thingverse
Thing (as a proper noun)
Makerbot
A bunch of whiny children using age-old tactics and falling back on the Luddite legal system? So much for the revolution, huh?
I think she will never stop by...
The link points to a very short description of the license, and even that short description includes the following requirement:
"Attribution â" You must give appropriate credit,
"provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes
were made."
They didn't do those things. Here's the actual license:
http://creativecommons.org/lic...
Information should be free! Open source everything! Pirating media isn't stealing! And so forth...
But don't you dare reproduce and sell my custom designed paper towel holder.
Ebay: free shit we can rebrand and sell. 2016 is comin up ebay!
Creative Commons uses DMCA, its super effective!
Ebay: Fuck...
Good people go to bed earlier.
There's another ebay seller involved in doing similar things with model trains.
Goes by the name "Big Dawg Originals".
As if the "Originals" is fooling anyone. He makes (bad) molds of other manufacturer's models, casts them, and sells them.
OFF with his HEAD!
If that was the case the act of scanning any sculpture would automatically put it into the pubic domain.
"Ha ha! Ur clueless noob! I haz gots ur files for free!"
Dumb-ass.
Instead he could have said, "Oh, I didn't realize there were multiple licenses and that some require attribution. I'll go ahead and fix those now. It will take me a couple of days to get them updated." Would have maintained plausible deniability, this whole thing would have blown over, and he'd still have a shop.
Nope, no sig
You can't kill a corporation, you can only sue them out of existence and take all of their assets. I'm sure statutory damages for willful infringement would have been sufficient. but nobody bothers to register their CC works, so it's merely treble damages. And no lawyer is going to take on an IP case for $10,000 in crappy prints.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Unlike digital data and software, physical hardware has a cost of distribution. He is offering a 3D printing service to people without a 3D printer. The sale price pays for the time his printer is occupied, materials, and his time maintaining the system. In contrast, the designs only have a cost associated with initial production. Once that cost has been paid, the cost to store, maintain, and distribute the design is virtually nil.
This is the same silliness as the court decision which shut down Aereo. A group of people who are giving the software away for free decide that renting out your hardware to use that software is illegal, and that anyone wishing to use the software must do so using their own hardware.
Actual: Ebay Shop Scrapes Thingiverse, Sells Designs In Violation of Creative Commons
Q? who sells in violation? Ebay or Thingiverse...
Correct: Ebay Shop Scrapes Thingiverse, Who Sells Designs In Violation of Creative Commons
The other one yesterday:
Actual: Mercedes-Benz Swaps Robots For People On Assembly Lines
Q? Which way is it going people out or robots out
Correct: Mercedes-Benz Removes Robots For People On Assembly Lines
Or is this a new strategy Huffinghtonpost style - creating questions in headlines to make people look at content - new in the beginning but now sucks overall.
Linked to the post on thingiverse as a suggestion is a Nuka Cola bottlecap design.
Either thingiverse is all about hardcore DMCA rights, or they're not. Personally, I'd prefer not.
But they weren't selling the designs — they were selling items made from the designs.
When people do that with electronics or medicines, this site sides with them and calls owners of the respective intellectual property "patent trolls" — while simultaneously denying the very concept of intellectual property and angrily rejecting any attempts to compare such things to "theft".
Why should not the design-creators be called "license trolls" and otherwise denounced in this case?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That's but a breeze compared to the hurricane that's gonna blow our way once people start printing car parts and car manufacturers get up in arms over not being able to sell some plastic parts worth 5 cents for 50+ bucks.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
>may not apply legal terms or technological measures that LEGALLY restrict
> Is converting a digital CAD file into a Physical Object ...
No, it doesn't create a LEGAL restriction as DRM would (because of anti-circumvention laws).
> Also, is a Print a derivative work of the original design plans ... I think this might be new legal ground
Yes, it's a derivative work with the exact same relationship as sheet music has to the performance of the same, or a script for a play has to the performance thereof. The printer performs the actions scripted in the CAD file. No, nothing new here.
> unless there is an aesthetic element deemed to have purely artistic value
Which is most of them. However, that may not matter. If the object is purely functional, you're allowed to create your own copy, without permission - BUT that doesn't mean you can use their copyrighted cad file to do so. If the CAD file is protectable under copyright, the license applies to the file. It was decided many years ago that downloading a file is copying it, for copyright law. Therefore, one could argue that the the download is lawful only if the recipient agrees to the license, which requires attribution, non-commercial use in some cases, etc. So if the object produced is purely functional, you could draw up your own CAD file, or use a 3D scanner to make a CAD file for an identical object. Their CAD file may still be protectable under copyright.
Lastly, the creator only asks for attribution and a link to the license. It's not that hard. to take their work and not comply with those two conditions means JustPrint is being a total dick - even if it were technically legal, which it's not.