Slashdot Mirror
UK Copyright Extension On Designed Objects Is 'Direct Assault' On 3D Printing (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A recent extension of UK copyright for industrially manufactured artistic works represents "a direct assault on the 3D printing revolution," says Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge. The UK government last month extended copyright for designs from 25 years to the life of the designer plus 70 years. In practice, this is likely to mean a copyright term of over 100 years for furniture and other designed objects. Writing on the Private Internet Access site, Falkvinge says that the copyright extension will have important consequences for makers in the UK and EU: "This change means that people will be prohibited from using 3D printing and other maker technologies to manufacture such objects, and that for a full century." Falkvinge points out a crucial difference between the previous UK protection for designs, which was based on what are called "design rights" plus a short copyright term, and the situation now, which involves design rights and a much-longer copyright term. With design rights, "you're absolutely and one hundred percent free to make copies of it for your own use with your own tools and materials," Falkvinge writes. "When something is under copyright, you are not. Therefore, this move is a direct assault on the 3D printing revolution." "Moving furniture design from a [design right] to copyright law means that people can and will indeed be prosecuted for manufacturing their own furniture using their own tools," Falkvinge claims.
... for producing 3-dimensional objects that look like their copyright protected products?
Imagine you have 30 year old desk of a nice design. A specific plastic piece of the desk (for argument's sake) breaks. That piece cannot be purchased because the desk went out of production 25 years ago and replacement parts are not available. So you go ahead and print the piece you need - either downloading the 3D model or creating a copy of it yourself. You have a fixed desk. A few days later you get a visit from the boys in blue for copyright infringement. Replace the desk with a car, toy, or some other widget. According to your argument - you should spend possibly thousands on getting a new thing, rather than spending $1 and a little time to maintain the thing. According to your argument the rest of the world should shame you into wasting your money. Me, I'd rather not shame anyone for doing anything reasonable like keeping their stuff maintained.
Copyright is an artificial construct that was thought up as a reasonable compromise between "information wants to be free", and monetary incentive for creators to create and publish their work. To extend copyright beyond the life of the creator is ridiculous. You can argue that extending copyright increases its value to whomever hopes to cash in on creative works, and will thus offer a better price to the creators, but there is absolutely no moral justification for creators to be able to levy a tax on the use of their works from beyond the grave, and take an advance on the proceeds. 10 years is a bit short, the author's life should be the absolute maximum. Something in between would be reasonable.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Furniture pretty much does design itself based on its purpose, the rest is adding quirky lines or additional design beyond the basic biomechanical purpose dictating the base concept.
So yes, if a man wants to built a chair from wood, even without designing it on paper they will already have a base picture in the head of what will come out based on the definition of a chair and its purpose, and any form which characterizes the chair will come from the individual's personality/character influencing the end design.
Also, compensating some foreigner not from my nation, for having the gal to know what a chair looks like by its very definition?
You best get your shit together son. Try making me compensate by coming to my nation. I'll give you some nice compensation alright.
That is because their past work is not being replicated/reproduced and on sold.
Think of it this way, can the fireman say "I put out your neighbours house fire yesterday , so I don't need to put out yours today".
Also, the fireman is being paid in-between jobs, a writer can take years of research, writing and revision before the book gets published, yes some writers get an advance to see them through, but most don't. Musicians spend years honing their craft with little or no pay before they can make money from their skills.
I strenuously object to copyright after death, once dead that person can no longer create, so an incentive is worthless.
Corporations can not "create", it is done by people who work for the corporation, so corporations should not be able to hold copyright.
10 years is a reasonable length of time, it can take some years for new artists to build a following and thus create value for their early works, and they should be able to take advantage of that, but after 10 years.... no I don't think so. This is particularly true when we consider patents, they are created by people, give exclusive rights, but they are limited to 7 years.
As the world moves past the current system where by everyone works to "make a living" and we move to where everyone can just have what they "need" (as opposed to want), artists will come into their own as large masses of unemployed people will need to be entertained (at first) until such time as people "work" to add intellectual and cultural value to their lives. Go look at a university where retired professors still research, unpaid, there to satisfy their own intellectual needs and to pass on their knowledge to another generation. Yes some will choose to sit on the couch and vegetate, but the opportunity to explore the world etc etc etc and to add value will drive most people back into productivity.
The current system is geared towards "ownership" of rights, of property, of ideas, and using these rights for their sole benefit to make them "better" than those who have little property. It gives them power and privilege and wrestling that away from them will be the hardest step society will have to take before it can move on to the next level of civilisation.
I have a collection of 1970s and 1980s computers. Many of the plastic parts are broken, I would like to "print" replacement parts because parts are no longer available. This is true for a LOT of things.