• "Expert on intellectual property" is scared people would, indeed, download a car
    110 replies, posted
I don't see why the expert should be so concerned. Even if full metal/plastic 3D printers become popular, people are still going to buy cars for the same reason people buy books even when the PDF is available.
It's amazing to think that if we advance 3d printing to high enough levels and streamline it so it's as efficient as say; an assembly line, we can literally make any mechanic object in existence in our own living room/garage/whatever space is needed.
3d printer DRM
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37869285]Yes. Why wouldn't the prices go down to reflect the change in the total cost of creating and manufacturing a product?[/QUOTE] You're right, they should, but if the manufacturing cost is 20% of the final price, then even if the cost of manufacturing is half of what it used to be, that only translates into a 10% discount- a discount which disappears in just five years of inflation. [QUOTE=Zephyrs;37869285]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.[/QUOTE] Inflation is a strong factor, admittedly nowhere near to that degree. But if it's a poor product, as you describe, then the capitalist solution is not to buy it and it'll sort itself out. I mean, I'm not really sure what you're arguing here- some products are overpriced, so we should abolish copyright law, or at least endorse piracy of intellectual property? That seems hideously overreactionary.
[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] I was always under the impression that copyright laws were meant to keep people other than the creator/owner from profiting from a product/idea/whatever. Technically piracy shouldn't even fall under copyright law since it's more comparable to theft, just over a digital medium.
[QUOTE=latin_geek;37869310][B]Is it piracy if you download a game and don't sell it to someone?[/B] Most of this is data transfer and copying rather than selling items, and as such the rules of digital piracy apply.[/QUOTE] People always talk about lost sales and how pirating a game doesn't result in the equivalent of stealing a physical copy, but the issue in modern gaming is that's actually kinda the case. Buying and selling games is rapidly becoming a more and more digital thing (shit, just look at the PC section of your local Gamestop,) that means pirating games in the current age of PC gaming can easily be seen as losing a sale.
People keep forgetting that the economy is there to serve the people, not the other way around. It is there in order to provide goods and services to the general population. If everyone has material replicators, an economy of goods would be completely useless and should therefor be disposed of. The argument- "Everybody will lose their jobs!" is pointless because once you can create anything you want, you don't [b]need[/b] a job.
[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] Downloading the schematics and using them would be piracy.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;37869348]People always talk about lost sales and how pirating a game doesn't result in the equivalent of stealing a physical copy, but the issue in modern gaming is that's actually kinda the case. Buying and selling games is rapidly becoming a more and more digital thing (shit, just look at the PC section of your local Gamestop,) that means pirating games in the current age of PC gaming can easily be seen as losing a sale.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure it matters whether it amounts to a lost sale or not, trying to justify piracy by saying you are just trying out the game is akin to justifying theft by saying you might pay for it eventually.
What glorbo said, if people had the power to instantly transmit and create/download something on that scale, copyright would be useless to try and control because there would be no point because there would be no such thing as production costs or anything because it's all managed by the creator of the object, not the idea of the object. I mean the gaming industry and music industry are already being revolutionized towards a convienence based online economy; and not a production-removing one.
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;37869105]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] Obviously no printer could print out a complete car at once. You would have to assemble it, so not exactly a "Do-It-At-Home" type deal. 3D-printing bigger things is obviously more heavier, industry-style work.
[QUOTE=catbarf;37869346]But if it's a poor product, as you describe, then the capitalist solution is not to buy it and it'll sort itself out.[/QUOTE] Monopoly positions. There are frequently no alternatives. There are also cases of publishers signing deals with schools to exclusively use their textbooks. Actually there was an article in SH about that a few days ago. My point is pretty simple. Adapt or die. There will always be some enthusiasts that want to build their own car, if for no other reason than because they can. Some will do it because it happens to be cheaper. A few people will always do it. Ignore them. You will not stop them. It's wasted energy and resources. We are an exceedingly long distance away from it being cheap to produce your own car. If it gets to the point where it is cheaper for people to build their own cars on a massive scale rather than a few hobbyists doing it because they want to, that indicates that the automotive industry is blind to basic economics, and needs to restructure their business model, or face extinction.
[QUOTE=lifehole;37869400]What glorbo said, if people had the power to instantly transmit and create/download something on that scale, copyright would be useless to try and control because there would be no point because there would be no such thing as production costs or anything because it's all managed by the creator of the object, not the idea of the object.[/QUOTE] The problem is that with no way to control copyright, there is no way to recoup ancillary costs on any designed product, which means there is no financial incentive to innovate. I keep seeing a lot of posts talking about how the concept intellectual property will disappear, but nothing about how innovation can possibly continue in a capitalist economy. In some kind of neo-communist society where innovation is taken as a societal burden, I can see it working, but if there's no profit to be had in designing a new product, capitalism says it won't happen.
[QUOTE=catbarf;37869479]The problem is that with no way to control copyright, there is no way to recoup ancillary costs on any designed product, which means there is no financial incentive to innovate. I keep seeing a lot of posts talking about how the concept intellectual property will disappear, but nothing about how innovation can possibly continue in a capitalist economy. In some kind of neo-communist society where innovation is taken as a societal burden, I can see it working, but if there's no profit to be had in designing a new product, capitalism says it won't happen.[/QUOTE] Innovation will happen because people are curious about the universe. Without any financial burden on their backs (since they can literally create anything they want), people would be much more innovative than today-We might be slower, if the reward is curiosity and development alone, but I think it's a good price to pay for limitless creativity.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;37869442]Monopoly positions. There are frequently no alternatives. There are also cases of publishers signing deals with schools to exclusively use their textbooks. Actually there was an article in SH about that a few days ago.[/QUOTE] Again, if prices are too high, students won't buy them. I personally have bought perhaps three textbooks over the course of my college career, most of the time I can find the necessary material online, legally, for free. It's near-impossible to establish a monopoly on what amounts to a luxury good; textbooks aren't strictly necessary for living. [QUOTE=Zephyrs;37869442]Adapt or die. There will always be some enthusiasts that want to build their own car, if for no other reason than because they can. Some will do it because it happens to be cheaper. A few people will always do it. Ignore them. You will not stop them. It's wasted energy and resources. We are an exceedingly long distance away from it being cheap to produce your own car.[/QUOTE] What I'm not understanding here is how the 'adapt or die' mentality justifies violating intellectual property rights. Adapt or die suggests that the publishers charging exorbitant fees for textbooks are going to drop dead as students increasingly switch to Wikipedia and other resources rather than buy a book, thanks to the nature of capitalism. The fact that piracy is available and possible doesn't justify its use, any more than the ability to conceal an item justifies theft- and in that case, the 'deal with it, adapt or die' argument would be just as out of place. Whether it would be feasible or worthwhile to pursue violators is another matter entirely, but this is more about concept than specific details. If it were as easy as pushing a button and inserting a dollar to print out a car illegally, I think it probably would be a serious issue. [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Glorbo;37869523]Innovation will happen because people are curious about the universe. Without any financial burden on their backs (since they can literally create anything they want), people would be much more innovative than today-We might be slower, if the reward is curiosity and development alone, but I think it's a good price to pay for limitless creativity.[/QUOTE] I agree in principle, but the ability to duplicate designed goods perfectly and with little effort is going to come much sooner than the total abolition of labor necessary for pure curiosity to be sufficient for driving technological development.
Even if you are one day able to download and manufacture a car yourself, I'm pretty sure it'd be illegal to use it as it's not certified or something
[QUOTE=catbarf;37869566]Again, if prices are too high, students won't buy them. I personally have bought perhaps three textbooks over the course of my college career, most of the time I can find the necessary material online, legally, for free. It's near-impossible to establish a monopoly on what amounts to a luxury good; textbooks aren't strictly necessary for living. What I'm not understanding here is how the 'adapt or die' mentality justifies violating intellectual property rights. Adapt or die suggests that the publishers charging exorbitant fees for textbooks are going to drop dead as students increasingly switch to Wikipedia and other resources rather than buy a book, thanks to the nature of capitalism. The fact that piracy is available and possible doesn't justify its use, any more than the ability to conceal an item justifies theft- and in that case, the 'deal with it, adapt or die' argument would be just as out of place. Whether it would be feasible or worthwhile to pursue violators is another matter entirely, but this is more about concept than specific details. If it were as easy as pushing a button and inserting a dollar to print out a car illegally, I think it probably would be a serious issue. [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] I agree in principle, but the ability to duplicate designed goods perfectly and with little effort is going to come much sooner than the total abolition of labor necessary for pure curiosity to be sufficient for driving technological development.[/QUOTE] Understand that less work =/= laziness of creativity and intellectual endeavors. If anything having less worries about cost and having more stuff produced by easier self-means; it will mean that we will develop a society based around other things. The more self sufficient we are the less economy is needed. And I know peoples standards will keep rising for a very; very, long time. It's just that we might be able to satisfy those standards easier and with something other than money. If we have the ability to produce objects very easily, than maybe we will praise the people who generate new ideas that create new working, useful, efficient objects. Tis all theoretical at this point though until the technology reaches the level where it can be applied to more than half of the existing fields of production.
[QUOTE=catbarf;37869566] I agree in principle, but the ability to duplicate designed goods perfectly and with little effort is going to come much sooner than the total abolition of labor necessary for pure curiosity to be sufficient for driving technological development.[/QUOTE] Correct. While you do eliminate the need for providing "goods", you still don't have full control over the second part- "services". Humans are a valuable resource on their own, and unless we become some sort of robotic-hivemind society, we would still need other people to create things for us.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;37869661]Correct. While you do eliminate the need for providing "goods", you still don't have full control over the second part- "services". Humans are a valuable resource on their own, and unless we become some sort of robotic-hivemind society, we would still need other people to create things for us.[/QUOTE] Except 3d printers provide the service of production with the obvious result of goods. Of course knowledge is still service and without proper knowledge you may or may not know how to work the printer or maintain the goods that come out of it; so capitalist/service based economy still applies. In theory though; it should decentralize the economy massively if were to be implemented.
now someone needs to update this for 3D printers [img]http://i.imgur.com/3rpv7.gif[/img]
Why print out a car when you can just wait for the folks at Global Village Construction Set to design one? [url]http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Global_Village_Construction_Set[/url]
I would. You're all lying if you say you wouldn't.
Downloading a car would be cool, but extremely dangerous to the economy. Really bad example, but I remember when there was a duplicator glitch on Runescape and the prices for items were horrible.
[QUOTE=leontodd;37869872]Downloading a car would be cool, but extremely dangerous to the economy. Really bad example, but I remember when there was a duplicator glitch on Runescape and the prices for items were horrible.[/QUOTE] Well the obvious answer to that. [B]PRINT MORE MONEY[/B]
[QUOTE=lifehole;37869630]Understand that less work =/= laziness of creativity and intellectual endeavors. If anything having less worries about cost and having more stuff produced by easier self-means; it will mean that we will develop a society based around other things. The more self sufficient we are the less economy is needed. And I know peoples standards will keep rising for a very; very, long time. It's just that we might be able to satisfy those standards easier and with something other than money. If we have the ability to produce objects very easily, than maybe we will praise the people who generate new ideas that create new working, useful, efficient objects. Tis all theoretical at this point though until the technology reaches the level where it can be applied to more than half of the existing fields of production.[/QUOTE] I don't disagree on any of those points. What I'm getting at and, I admit, may not be conveying especially clearly, is that the free ability to copy any product eliminates the value of design. In our traditional economy, design is valuable since work put into design is secured in the eventual product via copyright, and the investment is recouped through sales. But a clone doesn't need any R&D, and it can be priced accordingly. Here's a very abstract example. Suppose we have company A, which designs product X. They spend ten years and an enormous amount of money designing X, and their solution is innovative and effective but simple in execution. They release their product, and their price is somewhat high, because they need to make back the money originally invested. Then along comes company B. They reverse-engineer X over the course of a month, and start producing an exact clone for half the price. They don't need to recoup any R&D costs, so they can sell cheap and still turn a profit. What happens? Well, in our current society, B gets sued into oblivion by A. A takes all the money they make, and B is probably hit heavily by the government. But in a hypothetical society where copyright has been abolished, there's nothing A can do. B offers the same product for half the price, so makes money hand over fist, while A makes nothing and probably goes under. Now, having seen this, is company C going to try innovating, knowing they'll just get undercut? Or will they reshift their efforts to copying and producing existing items? That's my point. If copyright law is weakened, be it through outright abolishment or just prevalence of home-construction techniques, then the ability of a company to make a profit on proactive research is heavily diminished. This isn't a problem for a society that has solved world hunger and abolished labor, and can devote all its resources to innovation for its own sake. It's also not a problem for some sort of true-communist or fascist society, where the state as a whole allocates resources to research. But in a capitalist society, where motivation has to come from individual profit, altruism won't pay the bills or put food on the table. I'm not talking about long long term, where we can all reach a utopian society based on services rather than goods, but technology always progresses much more rapidly than society. I don't think copyright as an idea will exist forever, but in the near future it has to. We can't abandon copyright and condone piracy just because the technology exists, because society isn't ready for it. [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=leontodd;37869872]Downloading a car would be cool, but extremely dangerous to the economy. Really bad example, but I remember when there was a duplicator glitch on Runescape and the prices for items were horrible.[/QUOTE] The car still needs raw resources to produce, so there isn't a devaluation effect on the economy until the total consumer desire for cars is satisfied. A car can always be broken back down into its constituent components and reclaimed. A better comparison to your example would be printing money. In that case, value is essentially being conjured out of thin air, which causes the devaluation of the currency immediately.
[QUOTE=catbarf;37869924]I don't disagree on any of those points. What I'm getting at and, I admit, may not be conveying especially clearly, is that the free ability to copy any product eliminates the value of design. In our traditional economy, design is valuable since work put into design is secured in the eventual product via copyright, and the investment is recouped through sales. But a clone doesn't need any R&D, and it can be priced accordingly. Here's a very abstract example. Suppose we have company A, which designs product X. They spend ten years and an enormous amount of money designing X, and their solution is innovative and effective but simple in execution. They release their product, and their price is somewhat high, because they need to make back the money originally invested. Then along comes company B. They reverse-engineer X over the course of a month, and start producing an exact clone for half the price. They don't need to recoup any R&D costs, so they can sell cheap and still turn a profit. What happens? Well, in our current society, B gets sued into oblivion by A. A takes all the money they make, and B is probably hit heavily by the government. But in a hypothetical society where copyright has been abolished, there's nothing A can do. B offers the same product for half the price, so makes money hand over fist, while A makes nothing and probably goes under. Now, having seen this, is company C going to try innovating, knowing they'll just get undercut? Or will they reshift their efforts to copying and producing existing items? That's my point. If copyright law is weakened, be it through outright abolishment or just prevalence of home-construction techniques, then the ability of a company to make a profit on proactive research is heavily diminished. This isn't a problem for a society that has solved world hunger and abolished labor, and can devote all its resources to innovation for its own sake. It's also not a problem for some sort of true-communist or fascist society, where the state as a whole allocates resources to research. But in a capitalist society, where motivation has to come from individual profit, altruism won't pay the bills or put food on the table. I'm not talking about long long term, where we can all reach a utopian society based on services rather than goods, but technology always progresses much more rapidly than society. I don't think copyright as an idea will exist forever, but in the near future it has to. We can't abandon copyright and condone piracy just because the technology exists, because society isn't ready for it.[/QUOTE] Again, the only way society has really ever moved on from a system is by technology forcing them to use a more efficient way of life. Society will adapt if the technology is so huge that it breaks a hole in the system. If copyright is broken by unlimited production of a huge variety of goods; then society either adapts by ignoring the problem and being less innovative than before and technology slowing to a crawl; or it adapts and is revolutionized by this sudden dramatic change. The thing is; technology has not slowed down except in times of grave natural and political disaster, like the dark ages. And even then, we have times where politics increases technological advancement; like the cold war. My point is that it's unlikely we will become lazy due to our own flaws; we will adapt to it one way or another. And when I say adapt, I mean something like a capitalist society praising innovation and creativity by giving creators and designers huge grants and even from a social standpoint creators and designers would be praised for bringing new innovation to the market. The complete abolishing of copyright is still very very far from now, but staying the same is not something we do. Technology will push us forwards one way or another; that's how it's been for the past 600 years; and extremely fast the last century.
[QUOTE=leontodd;37869872]Downloading a car would be cool, but extremely dangerous to the economy. Really bad example, but I remember when there was a duplicator glitch on Runescape and the prices for items were horrible.[/QUOTE] who needs money when we can just pirate everything we need
[QUOTE=Untouch;37870014]who needs money when we can just pirate everything we need[/QUOTE] The raw materials to make a car are going to run a few hundred bucks at the least. Maybe a few thousand for really good mats. It isn't exactly 'free'. On top of that you need to buy the tools to build the damned thing in the first place, it isn't coming out of your 3D printer driveable. [QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;37869583]Even if you are one day able to download and manufacture a car yourself, I'm pretty sure it'd be illegal to use it as it's not certified or something[/QUOTE] Nope. You can already build a car from a big-ass box of parts as it is. There is a fair bit more red tape to go through to get it registered versus a factory-made car, sure. But you can buy a car that arrives as a crate of parts, assemble it yourself, and drive it to work every day. As long as it has the necessary lights and emissions equipment the DMV couldn't care less where you got it. [QUOTE=Zephyrs;37869442]We are an exceedingly long distance away from it being cheap to produce your own car. [/QUOTE] Actually, no. It already is cost-effective to build your own. You can build a kit car for ~20,000 dollars that's every bit as safe as anything else on the market in that price range, and performs as well as cars costing twice that. You can build one completely from scratch for just 10,000 if you don't mind using second-hand parts here and there and welding the chassis yourself, though by doing this you spend a few months cutting red tape at the DMV to get the thing registered. Fun fact: 90% of the Shelby Cobras you see at car shows and occasionally on the road aren't actually Shelby Cobras. Shelby produced veeeeery few of those things, and of the ones made, maybe half are thought to still exist. The majority you see were built in someone's shed a few years ago at most, with costs ranging from about $20,000 to $60,000, depending on engine/trans choice and quality of paintwork. [QUOTE=catbarf;37869346] Inflation is a strong factor, admittedly nowhere near to that degree. But if it's a poor product, as you describe, then the capitalist solution is not to buy it and it'll sort itself out. [/QUOTE] You don't have a choice when it comes to college textbooks. You're forced to buy the current edition of X book. You can't simply go "Lolno" and not buy it if you want to pass. [QUOTE=catbarf;37869242]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. 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] You would have a point if there was any incentive for these prices to not be astronomical. However many schools run a racket where you have no choice but to buy the brand new edition of X textbook. Y will not work, last year's edition of X is not permitted. So textbook prices are double what they should be.
just pirate more raw materials
But now we can "clone" fuel,car prices would go down and nobody would need to download a car.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.