"Expert on intellectual property" is scared people would, indeed, download a car
110 replies, posted
[h2]Difference Engine: The PC all over again?[/h2]
[IMG]http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2012/09/blogs/babbage/20120908_stp504.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]WHAT could well be the next great technological disruption is fermenting away, out of sight, in small workshops, college labs, garages and basements. Tinkerers with machines that turn binary digits into molecules are pioneering a whole new way of making things—one that could well rewrite the rules of manufacturing in much the same way as the PC trashed the traditional world of computing.
The machines, called 3D printers, have existed in industry for years. But at a cost of $100,000 to $1m, few individuals could ever afford one. Fortunately, like everything digital, their price has fallen. So much so, industrial 3D printers can now be had for $15,000, and home versions for little more than $1,000 (or half that in kit form). “In many ways, today’s 3D printing community resembles the personal computing community of the early 1990s,” says Michael Weinberg, a staff lawyer at Public Knowledge, an advocacy group in Washington, DC.
[B]As an expert on intellectual property, Mr Weinberg has produced a white paper that documents the likely course of 3D-printing's development—and how the technology could be affected by patent and copyright law. He is far from sanguine about its prospects. His main fear is that the fledgling technology could have its wings clipped by traditional manufacturers, who will doubtless view it as a threat to their livelihoods, and do all in their powers to nobble it. Because of a 3D printer's ability to make perfect replicas, they will probably try to brand it a piracy machine.[/B]
Manufacturers of famous brands have had to contend with ripoffs since time immemorial. Whole neighborhoods exist in Hongkong, Bangkok and even Tokyo that turn out imitation designer handbags, shoes and watches. China has flooded the world with cheap replacement parts based on designs pirated from the original equipment manufacturers.
But while the pirates' labour rates and material costs may be far lower, the tools they use to make fakes are essentially the same as those used by the original manufacturers. Equipment costs alone have therefore limited the spread of the counterfeiting industry. But give every sweatshop around the world a cheap 3D printer coupled to a laser scanner, and pirated goods could well proliferate.
The first thing to know about 3D printing is that it is an “additive”, rather than a “subtractive”, form of processing. The tools are effectively modified ink-jet printers that deposit successive layers of material until a three-dimensional object is built up. In doing so, they typically use a tenth of the material needed when machining a part from bulk. The goop used for printing can be a thermoplastic such as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polylactic acid or polycarbonate, or metallic powders, clays and even living cells depending on the application (see “Making it”, November 25th 2011).
As far as intellectual property is concerned, the 3D printer itself is not the problem. But before it can start making anything, it needs a CAD (computer-aided design) file of the object to be produced, along with specialised software to tell the printer how to lay down the successive layers of material. The object can be designed on a computer using CAD software, or files of standard objects can be downloaded from open-source archives such as Thingiverse and Fab@Home. Most likely, though, the object to be produced is copied from an existing one, using a scanner that records the three-dimensional measurements from various angles and turns the data into a CAD file.
This is where claims of infringement start—especially if the item being scanned by the machine’s laser beam is a proprietary design belonging to someone else. And unless the object is in the public domain, copyright law could well apply. This has caught out a number of unwitting users of 3D printers who have blithely made reproductions of popular merchandise.
Earlier this year, for instance, one hobbyist worked out how to print the popular “Penrose Triangle”, an optical illusion that cannot exist in normal three-dimensional Euclidean space, and released a video challenging others to say how it was done. Another 3D modeler not only figured it out but uploaded the CAD file of his own solution to Thingiverse. Whereupon the initial designer threatened Thingiverse with legal action under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998.
The issue was only resolved when it was pointed out that someone else actually invented the Penrose Triangle (a Swedish artist in the 1930s), and the optical illusion itself could be considered a useful object—and therefore did not qualify for copyright protection (which covers only non-functioning intangibles such as art, music and literature). The designer subsequently dropped the case and dedicated the rights to the community. There are now five versions of the Penrose Triangle on Thingiverse.
In another instance, a couple of engineers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh created the CAD files for printing a kit of plug-in parts that allow toy construction sets from different makers to be interconnected. The patents on the various toys involved had long since expired, but any copyright involved still had decades to run. The object was to send “a shot across the bow” of any company that might try to control how their physical designs were copied, remixed or improved upon in future. “We don’t want to see what happened in music and film play out in the area of shapes,” one of the engineers told Forbes magazine.
What they were referring to, of course, were the DMCA “takedown” notices used by record companies and film studios to force file-sharing websites to remove pirated content. While no one can object to a law that penalises those who wilfully infringe the copyright of others, Mr Weinberg is concerned that the ability to copy and replicate can also be used to create, expand upon and innovate. Inhibit that and society gets short-changed. Certainly, DMCA notices can stifle free expression, jeopardise fair use, and impede competition (by, say, blocking designs for aftermarket replacement parts like brake pads or toner cartridges). Similarly, DMCA notices have been used to enforce “walled gardens” surrounding products like the iPod. Such actions limit choice for consumers.
As with any disruptive technology—from the printing press to the photocopier and the personal computer—3D printing is going to upset existing manufacturers, who are bound to see it as a threat to their traditional way of doing business. And as 3D printing proliferates, the incumbents will almost certainly demand protection from upstarts with low cost of entry to their markets.
Manufacturers are likely to behave much like the record industry did when its own business model—based on selling pricey CD albums that few music fans wanted instead of cheap single tracks they craved—came under attack from file-swapping technology and MP3 software. The manufacturers' most likely recourse will be to embrace copyright, rather than patent, law, because many of their patents will have expired. Patents apply for only 20 years while copyright continues for 70 years after the creator's death.
So expect manufacturers to lobby for their own form of DMCA, with copyright protection expanded to cover functional objects that contain elements of design. “This would create a type of quasi-patent system, without the requirement for novelty or the strictly limited period of protection,” says Mr Weinberg.
The biggest lesson the record industry learned from its copyright battles with file-swappers was that going after individual infringers was prohibitively expensive and time consuming. So instead, the record companies lobbied to get copyright liability extended to cover not only individuals who infringe, but also those who facilitate infringement—namely, the internet service providers (ISPs) and file-swapping websites.
In that, the record industry was remarkably successful. Today, websites and ISPs have to block or remove infringing material whenever they receive a DMCA takedown notice from a copyright holder—something that happens more often than actually justified. Google reckons that more than a third of the DMCA notices it has received over the years have turned out to be bogus copyright claims. Over a half were from companies trying to restrict competing businesses rather than law-breakers.
Rallying under the banner of piracy and theft, established manufacturers could likewise seek to get the doctrine of "contributory infringement” included in some expanded object-copyright law as a way of crippling the personal-manufacturing movement before it eats their lunch. Being free to sue websites that host 3D design files as “havens of piracy” would save them the time and money of having to prosecute thousands of individuals with a 3D printer churning out copies at home.
Some also expect incumbent manufacturers to try to stigmatise CAD file-types, in the same way the record companies hounded the bit-torrent and MP3 formats as piracy tools. That could slow the mainstream adoption of 3D printing and imply that anyone uploading CAD files to a public site was somehow infringing on rights, notes Cory Doctorow, a Canadian science writer who blogs for Boing Boing.
Today’s 3D printing crowd—tucked away in garages, basements, small workshops and university labs—needs to keep a keen eye on such policy debates as they grow. “There will be a time when impacted legacy industries [will] demand some sort of DMCA for 3D printing,” says Mr Weinberg. If the tinkerers wait until that day, it will be too late.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/09/3d-printing?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/difference_engine_the_pc_all_over_again_"]Source[/URL]
Been getting a lot of news on 3D printing lately.
Easy, set it up so that the thing you want to make is downloaded to your printer (from the person selling it) in a one-time way that can't be stolen.
...To be honest I probably would download a car. I can't think of a better way to get one's hands on a field beater.
[QUOTE=Ereunity;37869047]Easy, set it up so that the thing you want to make is downloaded to your printer (from the person selling it) in a one-time way that can't be stolen.[/QUOTE]
Impossible. If you can transmit the data to a printer you can transmit it to a fake printer in a virtual machine that, instead of printing it, saves it in a format your actual printer can accept. The source likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Result: Free stuff.
You could also hack the printer's memory and retrieve the instructions that way, but it requires a bit of hardware tinkering and is thus a bit trickier to do.
Because we all know how well printing a functional engine block out of molded plastic would go. They can start worrying once we figure out how to print metal. Oh wait, what are CNC machines again?
If it becomes economically viable to download a car, all that means is that the motor industry needs to restructure and take advantage of new technology to become efficient. At that point they merely provide a convenience, in addition to any odd parts that you are unable to print.
Welcome to capitalism. Adapt or get the fuck out.
Hopefully they will understand this better than the recording industry.
[QUOTE=and;37869080]Because we all know how well printing a functional engine block out of molded plastic would go. They can start worrying once we figure out how to print metal.[/quote] They sort of already do know how to print metal. But the metal isn't really suitable for use in an engine quite yet.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37869082]If it becomes economically viable to download a car, all that means is that the motor industry needs to restructure and take advantage of new technology to become efficient. At that point they merely provide a convenience, in addition to any odd parts that you are unable to print.
Welcome to capitalism. Adapt or get the fuck out.
Hopefully they will understand this better than the recording industry.[/QUOTE]
DRM on cars?
How on Earth could you download a car, I can understand downloading a single car part so you don't have to fix a certain aspect but an entire car? You'd have to actually make the entire car so the whole process is a bit... well, useless.
[QUOTE=TestECull;37869070]Impossible. If you can transmit the data to a printer you can transmit it to a fake printer in a virtual machine that, instead of printing it, saves it in a format your actual printer can accept. The source likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Result: Free stuff.
You could also hack the printer's memory and retrieve the instructions that way, but it requires a bit of hardware tinkering and is thus a bit trickier to do.[/QUOTE]
Encryption, do you know it?
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37869082]Welcome to capitalism. Adapt or get the fuck out.[/QUOTE]
Try using this as an excuse to photocopy books being sold in a bookstore. There is no reason why a company should need to adapt and cater to people illegally using their property.
Jesus Christ, it's like a really shitty but almost adorable attempt at a one-man RIAA :v:
Fuck downloading cars. I want to download guns!
[QUOTE=TestECull;37869058]...To be honest I probably would download a car. I can't think of a better way to get one's hands on a field beater.[/QUOTE]
it'd probably take way more effort than for what its worth.
im not gonna download a car
i am going to download a helicopter
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37869082]If it becomes economically viable to download a car, all that means is that the motor industry needs to restructure and take advantage of new technology to become efficient. At that point they merely provide a convenience, in addition to any odd parts that you are unable to print.
Welcome to capitalism. Adapt or get the fuck out.
Hopefully they will understand this better than the recording industry.[/QUOTE]
It's sort of a double-edged sword though. You are correct, but in turn you could be like "I want to receive a product in a much more timely manner without the needs for a middle-man company to provide me with what I need" and then the companies could be like "Oh, you don't like it? Welcome to Capitalism, get the fuck out". See what I mean?
I like how you're all going by the title in which I try to be funny
just so you understand without reading the scary long paragraphs the article is going for the "printing toys and other various chinese ripoff plastic crap will be ten times cheaper" approach.
[QUOTE=Sparkwire;37869122]it'd probably take way more effort than for what its worth.[/QUOTE]
How else am I going to run a Ferrari up sky hill? :v:
Think about it. Field beaters typically cost between 100 and 1,000 dollars. Fezzas run 95-350K. But a printed Fezza falls within field beater prices, meaning it would be possible to print off an Enzo and trash the living fuck out of it, then just shrug and print off another when it snaps in half. It doesn't matter, they're cheap as shit in this scenario, as easy to replace as a Geo Metro.
[QUOTE=DrLuckyLuke;37869106]Encryption, do you know it?[/QUOTE]
The fake printer in the VM nullifies that. It's really that simple, the type of people who crack software are the type of people who could set something like this up in a matter of weeks. A new model would be up on pirate bay before the first shipment hit brick-and-mortar dealerships.
I'm gonna download a death star.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;37869138]I like how you're all going by the title in which I try to be funny
just so you understand without reading the scary long paragraphs the article is going for the "printing toys and other various chinese ripoff plastic crap will be ten times cheaper" approach.[/QUOTE]
The same principle applies, though. A lot of small consumer items have a ton of design work that goes into them, which necessitates high R&D costs. Chinese copies are already damaging enough to these industries, but people having the ability to produce copies themselves (and, apparently, justify it as capitalism somehow) could hurt them a lot more.
And it's not like this is going to stop with small, plastic items. The technology is going to continue to develop. I can see some people calling for an end to intellectual property since everything is so easily copied, but with research, design, and other overhead costs being what they are, the ability to control a product's sale and distribution is one of the major incentives towards industrial development. Either way it's going to be a train wreck- imagine all the hooplah from the RIAA, but backed by product manufacturers, design firms, and other organizations with massive financial clout and a strong stake in the issue.
Mr Weinberg... Stopped reading right there...
[QUOTE=Novangel;37869099]DRM on cars?[/QUOTE]
When have pirates ever given a shit about DRM that wasn't the permanently online type? Even then, weaker implementations of it have merely delayed releases.
[QUOTE=catbarf;37869107]Try using this as an excuse to photocopy books being sold in a bookstore. There is no reason why a company should need to adapt and cater to people illegally using their property.[/QUOTE]
Laws change. Sometimes slowly, but they do change. They are reworked to adapt to the current situation. You are equating legality with morality, and that is some very thin ice.
Textbooks are actually a perfect example of something that has reached bullshit levels of insanity. 30 years ago when printing a book with more than pure text required special hardware, and often required manually adjusting huge amounts of equipment, the 300 dollar price next to an engineering book stuffed with math equations and pictures made sense. Now it's pretty ridiculous to charge that price, but textbook companies are trying to increase prices through DRM locked down single semester books, online passes for everything, shitty quality paperback printings, and releasing a new version every single year to further hinder the used market. In short they are abusing a monopoly position to screw customers as hard as they can.
I'm sorry, but if you want to say that publishers are on some moral high ground, you are are a dammed loon.
[QUOTE=sparky28000;37869118]Fuck downloading cars. I want to download guns![/QUOTE]
That's actually completely possible
And by possible I mean it's already been done, the files for the parts you need to print are up on TPB and the parts you can't print you can get at a hardware store.
I don't foresee this being a big problem. No matter how cheap it becomes to print a car, it will still be cheaper to buy a car that was manufactured and assembled on a factory line producing a thousand cars a day, due to economies of scale. Not to mention the fact that after you print a car, it will likely be in thousands of individual parts. Do you really want to assemble all of these on your own? Can you even do so? I highly doubt it.
Besides, even if mass-market cars go this way, sports and ultra-luxury brands like Lamborghini and Pagani, Bentley and Rolls-Royce will never choose this path. Part of the beauty of those cars is the story behind them: the engine that was precisely assembled and tuned by a team of highly-trained engineers, then bolted into place in your car; the leather that was tenderly tanned and stretched, then sewn onto those seats, the wood so lovingly matched and polished, then fitted carefully onto the fascia.
[QUOTE=DrLuckyLuke;37869106]Encryption, do you know it?[/QUOTE]
Encryption isn't infallible.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37869189]Textbooks are actually a perfect example of something that has reached bullshit levels of insanity. 30 years ago when printing a book with more than pure text required special hardware, and often required manually adjusting huge amounts of equipment, the 300 dollar price next to an engineering book stuffed with math equations and pictures made sense. Now it's pretty ridiculous to charge that price, but textbook companies are trying to increase prices through DRM locked down single semester books, online passes for everything, shitty quality paperback printings, and releasing a new version every single year to further hinder the used market. In short they are abusing a monopoly position to screw customers as hard as they can.[/QUOTE]
Are you implying that textbooks should be cheaper just because printing costs have gone down? I'm sorry, but that's the perfect example of why companies need to retain control of their products. I think I can safely say that there is not a single product you have used or will use today where the raw manufacturing expense comprises the majority of the retail price. Research, design, distribution, transportation, corporate costs, advertising- there are a million and one factors that go into creating a product, and the actual cost of making it is minor by comparison.
Meanwhile, a hypothetical 'textbook pirate' selling copied books to fellow students has only his manufacturing cost and whatever cut he takes for himself. He doesn't have to pay the experts who wrote the book, nor the graphic designers who compiled it, nor does he have to pay tax accountants or lawyers. His operation can severely undercut the publisher, and there's very little the publisher can do about it besides appeal to copyright law.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37869189]I'm sorry, but if you want to say that publishers are on some moral high ground, you are are a dammed loon.[/QUOTE]
Moral high ground? Being a college student myself, hell no. But they have the right to control what they created, and if their prices are truly outrageous and unsustainable, cheaper alternatives will emerge- that's capitalism.
For example, look at websites like Wikipedia that offer a similar breadth of knowledge for free. There's where the real competition lies, and I'll bet the publishers are already feeling the squeeze. They'll either adapt or they'll die and either way we'll benefit, but it won't require abolishing intellectual property laws to do so.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;37869215]I don't foresee this being a big problem. No matter how cheap it becomes to print a car, it will still be cheaper to buy a car that was manufactured and assembled on a factory line producing a thousand cars a day, due to economies of scale. Not to mention the fact that after you print a car, it will likely be in thousands of individual parts. Do you really want to assemble all of these on your own? Can you even do so? I highly doubt it.
Besides, even if mass-market cars go this way, sports and ultra-luxury brands like Lamborghini and Pagani, Bentley and Rolls-Royce will never choose this path. Part of the beauty of those cars is the story behind them: the engine that was precisely assembled and tuned by a team of highly-trained engineers, then bolted into place in your car; the leather that was tenderly tanned and stretched, then sewn onto those seats, the wood so lovingly matched and polished, then fitted carefully onto the fascia.[/QUOTE]
This is quite true, although there will be a market. Motor enthusiasts will be doing this this on a limited scale, of that I have no doubt.
We've actually got a perfect example of this right here on FP. PC building. It's cheaper, but it takes a fair amount of time on the builder's part, especially if they aren't someone who does it constantly.
Is it even piracy if you're making it, as long as you aren't selling it?
By this logic, drawing fan art and making costumes is illegal.
[QUOTE=catbarf;37869242]Are you implying that textbooks should be cheaper just because printing costs have gone down?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Why wouldn't the prices go down to reflect the change in the total cost of creating and manufacturing a product?
I fully realize that there are fixed costs involved. Editors, writers, graphic designers and the like are not free, but mass producing a book is a far more trivial affair than it was 30 years ago. I'm not saying a book should be 30 dollars, but 430 dollars for a 180 page paperback is ridiculous when the same book 15 years ago was 120, hardcover, and came with a secondary pocket appendix. Prices have little reason to be going up, and have dozens of reasons to be going down.
EDIT:
Cars are actually one of the very few industries that I could even justify increasing costs in. The rapid advancements in safety technology require unbelievable amounts of testing, modeling, and highly trained engineers across an ever increasing plethora of disciplines. That requires real research, whereas flipping the orders of chapters in books is just an excuse to milk people for money.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;37869278]Is it even piracy if you're making it, as long as you aren't selling it?
By this logic, drawing fan art and making costumes is illegal.[/QUOTE]
Is it piracy if you download a game and don't sell it to someone?
Most of this is data transfer and copying rather than selling items, and as such the rules of digital piracy apply.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.