• "Expert on intellectual property" is scared people would, indeed, download a car
    110 replies, posted
Can I print a tank?
[QUOTE=IPK;37870476]But now we can "clone" fuel,car prices would go down and nobody would need to download a car.[/QUOTE] fuel is very different from mechanics, and 3d printers would need to merge with some type of nano-chem space-age technology to print fuel.
[QUOTE=lifehole;37870790]fuel is very different from mechanics, and 3d printers would need to merge with some type of nano-chem space-age technology to print fuel.[/QUOTE] print nano-chem space-age technology then
Just like the music industry, the manufacturing industry will have to deal with it (but they won't and they'll bitch like crazy).
I would download a bandit technical from borderlands 2
[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[/QUOTE] This would be true if the textbooks only served as reference material. In any case where the text is used as a source for problems for homework or anything like that your argument is completely null and void. The choice is frequently don't buy a book and forgo education, or fork over ridiculous amounts for a book that you use for homework 6 times in a semester and nothing else. Once again, this is abuse of a monopoly position, and no matter how you twist and spin the argument, it remains as such. [QUOTE=catbarf;37869566]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.[/QUOTE] I've basically said all that I care to on this. I don't see fucking customers as a right of corporations. If the pirates provide a superior alternative, and they frequently do, it is the corporations responsibility to adapt, not the customers responsibility to continue to cling to archaic and esoteric methods of distribution and production. It is not a corporations right to exist. I am not outright endorsing piracy, but I do not believe that anyone has a right to complain about piracy if they fail to provide a service that can compete with it. If that means that an entire business model collapses, then so be it. The past is littered with examples of discarded technology, failed ideas, and entire empires evaporating because the need for their services faded.
[QUOTE=lifehole;37870001]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] I think you're looking at it from a more conceptual point of view. You're right that people won't just become lazy. But they won't innovate [I]if they cannot make any money whatsoever from it[/I]. Sure, there may be the occasional self-made inventor who tinkers because he can, but the bulk of world technological development hinges on the ability to make money from it. No profit, no incentive. No incentive, no reason to invest. No investment, no corporate development, and that's it. And again, this is not just relevant to a hypothetical society that can easily manufacture everything. This is relevant now- copying of intellectual property is already a problem, as seen with Chinese exports, and it will only get worse as the ability to copy becomes cheaper and available domestically, and the final product becomes indistinguishable from the real thing. [QUOTE=TestECull;37870202]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] I have not bought a single textbook for six quarters running now, which at last count makes 27 'required' textbooks not purchased, yet I have a cumulative GPA of 3.8. It's really not hard, you just have to take a bit of time to find the relevant material yourself. Even if you absolutely need a book, for homework and the like, there is always a used market. You're not required to pay full price on every book every quarter/semester. [QUOTE=TestECull;37870202]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.[/QUOTE] That's as much the school's fault as the publisher's. Nobody is ever being forced outright to buy the books, worst case scenario you find a school that doesn't nickel and dime you to death. I'm not saying it's easy, but the school is a business too, and if you don't like the school's business practices (which their book policy is a part of) then you can freely choose to not support it. [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zephyrs;37871810]I've basically said all that I care to on this. I don't see fucking customers as a right of corporations. If the pirates provide a superior alternative, and they frequently do, it is the corporations responsibility to adapt, not the customers responsibility to continue to cling to archaic and esoteric methods of distribution and production.[/QUOTE] I don't see fucking customers as a right of stores. If the guy down the street who steals stuff from the store and sells it to me provides a superior alternative, and he frequently does, it is the store's responsibility to adapt, not the customer's responsibility to continue to cling to archaic and esoteric methods of sales and transaction. Doesn't that seem a bit ridiculous? No, copyright infringement and theft are not the same, but what you're stating is that if an illegal, immoral, and downright unfair act provides you with a better result, that it's somehow the company's fault and they should bend over backwards to encourage you to be a decent human being and pay for what you take. [QUOTE=Zephyrs;37871810]It is not a corporations right to exist. I am not outright endorsing piracy, but I do not believe that anyone has a right to complain about piracy if they fail to provide a service that can compete with it. If that means that an entire business model collapses, then so be it. The past is littered with examples of discarded technology, failed ideas, and entire empires evaporating because the need for their services faded.[/QUOTE] Unsurprisingly, it is somewhere between 'extremely difficult' and 'impossible' to provide a service that can compete with illegal copyright infringement, assuming that there is some reason why the company should have to in the first place. This isn't just a business model you're suggesting should fail, this is the fundamental right to control something you have created. It's the right of an author to sell his book, and not have it be photocopied and sold en masse. It's the right of a biochemist to sell a new drug that he's spent a decade of his life perfecting, not have it be stolen by a corporation. It's the right of an artist to decide what happens with his work, of an inventor to develop and profit from his invention, of a programmer to sell his software. That is not something you can just throw out because some people abuse it.
[QUOTE=catbarf;37871870]I think you're looking at it from a more conceptual point of view. You're right that people won't just become lazy. But they won't innovate [I]if they cannot make any money whatsoever from it[/I]. Sure, there may be the occasional self-made inventor who tinkers because he can, but the bulk of world technological development hinges on the ability to make money from it. No profit, no incentive. No incentive, no reason to invest. No investment, no corporate development, and that's it.[/QUOTE] And you think we will stagnate and fail? Society will adapt to lack of innovation and copyright laziness. Whether it be in a hypothetical utopia society or in the corrupt capitalist world of today, either way shit will not just fall apart because of something as fixable as making sure someone gets money for innovation. And even if people who innovate get thrown under the bus it's not like innovation will stop coming, whether it be through independent entities who get thrown under the bus or the CEO of Apple; the innovation rape train has no breaks in a world where people communicate instantly. And I realize that people/corporations are in a creativity hole; but stagnation will only lead to the flipping of the hypothetical bus/train, and we will suffer a collapse and realize our ways or we will adapt, or we will perish. But becoming lazy fucks who are content with a creativity hole is unlikely.
I know this really isn't the place to put this but, why don't they put something like this into space? They could make any tool they needed at any time.
[QUOTE=slapdown3;37872471]I know this really isn't the place to put this but, why don't they put something like this into space? They could make any tool they needed at any time.[/QUOTE] Why not just carry the tools they need in the first place? It'll take the same space. And besides, you don't just create stuff out of thin air, you need material to build things, and the more stuff you add, the more expensive it is to send you out to space.
[QUOTE=lifehole;37872294]And you think we will stagnate and fail? Society will adapt to lack of innovation and copyright laziness. Whether it be in a hypothetical utopia society or in the corrupt capitalist world of today, either way shit will not just fall apart because of something as fixable as making sure someone gets money for innovation.[/QUOTE] Fail, no, stagnate, absolutely. The same can be seen for the USSR, which suffered during the Cold War due to a slow pace of technological innovation. But even that nation had a government that mandated development. If there's no private incentive and thus no private R&D, there won't be any private technological development, and in a nation where most development is private (such as the US), that's a problem. This seems like little more than a thought experiment until you consider some of the ramifications. Without copyright law, for example, there's nothing stopping vaccines that cost millions of dollars to develop from being copied and sold for pennies. While it might be good for a few months as everyone can afford extraordinarily cheap vaccines, soon new research would drastically slow or even halt as it would be impossible to sustain a pharmaceutical business, and then the problems begin. The same would happen, to a much more limited degree, in other industries. Consider the current issues faced with carbon emissions, recycling, and nuclear power. Lack of progress could, in the long run, be disastrous. [QUOTE=lifehole;37872294]And even if people who innovate get thrown under the bus it's not like innovation will stop coming, whether it be through independent entities who get thrown under the bus or the CEO of Apple; the innovation rape train has no breaks in a world where people communicate instantly.[/QUOTE] Again, almost all innovation is driven by money. It's one thing to tinker in your spare time, but if such tinkering makes no money whatsoever it can't be any more than a hobby at best. And it certainly can't sustain an R&D-focused corporation with hundreds of employees. [QUOTE=lifehole;37872294]And I realize that people/corporations are in a creativity hole; but stagnation will only lead to the flipping of the hypothetical bus/train, and we will suffer a collapse and realize our ways or we will adapt, or we will perish. But becoming lazy fucks who are content with a creativity hole is unlikely.[/QUOTE] It's not about being content with it, it's about the financial realities of the situation. Sure, we might have wealthy people like Buffett or Gates who would choose to contribute their own personal money towards certain projects, but it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the enormous amount of resources currently devoted to private sector R&D. In everything from consumer goods to electronics to motor vehicles, all of it hinges upon the prediction that if this new thing is really good they'll get rich. Once technological development becomes unfeasible as an investment, it becomes unfeasible as a business, and business is the heart and soul of a capitalist society.
[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] If it's 100% identical to a existing model, then it's [I]no problemo[/I]. Just need to add a genuine VIN instead of the one from the original and you're good.
Catch-A-Ride
I actually wouldn't download a car. I have nowhere to put it, it would be a pain in the ass to get it registered, I don't even want to think about insurance and fuel costs a hell of a lot when you're a student. I probably wouldn't download a motorbike either, the license to drive one is pretty expensive last time I checked.
[QUOTE=Novangel;37869099]DRM on cars?[/QUOTE] Air bags and seatbelts are DLC.
[QUOTE=Glorbo;37872500]Why not just carry the tools they need in the first place? It'll take the same space. And besides, you don't just create stuff out of thin air, you need material to build things, and the more stuff you add, the more expensive it is to send you out to space.[/QUOTE] What if you needed a specific tool? or lost one to space? are they going to relaunch an entire shuttle so you can get a monkey wrench? And I did know you have to have the plastics to make it already.
[QUOTE=catbarf;37872627]Fail, no, stagnate, absolutely. The same can be seen for the USSR, which suffered during the Cold War due to a slow pace of technological innovation. But even that nation had a government that mandated development. If there's no private incentive and thus no private R&D, there won't be any private technological development, and in a nation where most development is private (such as the US), that's a problem. This seems like little more than a thought experiment until you consider some of the ramifications. Without copyright law, for example, there's nothing stopping vaccines that cost millions of dollars to develop from being copied and sold for pennies. While it might be good for a few months as everyone can afford extraordinarily cheap vaccines, soon new research would drastically slow or even halt as it would be impossible to sustain a pharmaceutical business, and then the problems begin. The same would happen, to a much more limited degree, in other industries. Consider the current issues faced with carbon emissions, recycling, and nuclear power. Lack of progress could, in the long run, be disastrous. Again, almost all innovation is driven by money. It's one thing to tinker in your spare time, but if such tinkering makes no money whatsoever it can't be any more than a hobby at best. And it certainly can't sustain an R&D-focused corporation with hundreds of employees. It's not about being content with it, it's about the financial realities of the situation. Sure, we might have wealthy people like Buffett or Gates who would choose to contribute their own personal money towards certain projects, but it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the enormous amount of resources currently devoted to private sector R&D. In everything from consumer goods to electronics to motor vehicles, all of it hinges upon the prediction that if this new thing is really good they'll get rich. Once technological development becomes unfeasible as an investment, it becomes unfeasible as a business, and business is the heart and soul of a capitalist society.[/QUOTE] So you're telling me that if copyright is abolished and we are stuck in a creativity hole when this thing comes out society will just die off? Stagnation breeds nothing but trouble; and on a large scale trouble means reform. You're arguing that society will fail? Or what? We're going to adapt to the tech whether we like it or not as you said; and if that puts us in a creativity hole we will try to remove/adapt. Now I know I am using the word "adapt" way too much here but I can't find a better word to put it to. People don't just lay down and die when they can't fix a problem; they fight it. And if that means breaking a hole in the system so be it, if it is for the better. Your mind is a bit constrained to the possibilities right now; the world is run by the system we have now, doesn't mean the system can't change for technology, it does everyday. But I must confess you are right, social change cannot happen overnight and it will be hard to get through but it is impossible for society to not adapt to a change unless it is natural; such as a massive virus or actual physical change that kills off everyone, etc. You should realize the capitalist system/society does not dictate everything, techno-logic advancement is not governed solely by money. It has rapidly increased due to communication technology, higher standards of living (more time to devote to other things besides survival); and of course transportation. A form of society can surely effect technological development drastically; but overall, the thing that effects technological development is technology, and technology moves us as a society forward. Of course there are extreme examples where society is bent over sideways and so focused on survival in a world that seems alien to them that they are significantly slowed (North Korea). I'm not trying to prove that there is a solution to anything; I just know that society will not break apart permanently over something as minuscule as a technological advancement not that far off from mass production or the printing press.
im gonna download 3d printers
Downloading c4. Arrested for terrorism
There is one thing I keep hearing when reading this. Catch-a-ride!
[QUOTE=nikomo;37873159]I actually wouldn't download a car. I have nowhere to put it, it would be a pain in the ass to get it registered, I don't even want to think about insurance and fuel costs a hell of a lot when you're a student. I probably wouldn't download a motorbike either, the license to drive one is pretty expensive last time I checked.[/QUOTE] Download a drivers license for motorcycles :v:
Would you download the keys to someone else's car?
You would need one hell of a large printer to print body panels, and one precise printer to even consider an engine, not to mention printing metals capable of engine environments. It would be pretty cool if someone did something like how kit airplanes are done though. Company sends print designs and all the parts you cannot print, then you build it.
[QUOTE=lifehole;37873401]I'm not trying to prove that there is a solution to anything; I just know that society will not break apart permanently over something as minuscule as a technological advancement not that far off from mass production or the printing press.[/QUOTE] I think we might be arguing past each other, since I agree with what you're saying. I don't mean to suggest that society will fragment because technological development slows or stops, rather that because eliminating intellectual property will kill industry as we know it, it is not a good idea to endorse its abolition, nor this hypothetical piracy of physical objects through 3D replication. It'll probably happen one way or another, but the 'It should be legal, companies can deal with it' attitude ignores the practical, damaging effects such a legal standpoint would have.
[QUOTE=monkey11;37874089]Would you download the keys to someone else's car?[/QUOTE] 3dprinting keys would be hilariously easy. All you gotta do is make sure the solvent is strong enough to withstand the force of being turned.
ITT: Latin_geek makes a bad exaggerating joke that a expert talked about downloading cars, even though it is not mentioned anywhere in the piece. Everyone: WHAT DOWNLOADING CARS THATS RIDICULOUS THIS MAN IS CRAZY 1-MAN RIAA I fucking swear, hell will freeze over the day Facepunch posters read an article before ranting.
[QUOTE=kattolil;37874307]3dprinting keys would be hilariously easy. All you gotta do is make sure the solvent is strong enough to withstand the force of being turned.[/QUOTE] Could even just print a mold so you ran easily cast it yourself. Though there's a couple of plastic compounds today that are just as strong as steel.
[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] If you try to prevent someone from doing something they will find a way to do it anyway, just because you tried to stop them.
[QUOTE=catbarf;37874245]I think we might be arguing past each other, since I agree with what you're saying. I don't mean to suggest that society will fragment because technological development slows or stops, rather that because eliminating intellectual property will kill industry as we know it, it is not a good idea to endorse its abolition, nor this hypothetical piracy of physical objects through 3D replication. It'll probably happen one way or another, but the 'It should be legal, companies can deal with it' attitude ignores the practical, damaging effects such a legal standpoint would have.[/QUOTE] I know. But overall I believe it is probably more efficient to produce at home/self sufficiently when it comes to 3d printers, just like it's more efficient to download onto a computer your own music or games and then burn then to your own disk; but strands of data are much much less important in many ways than actual working objects like guns and cars. It will integrate into society like any other thing; I am just trying to predict the socio-economic effects it will have. And I am trying to point out that the capitalist system may not be ready for a technology that is very important/more efficient but only in the hands of the individual person. [editline]1st October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Leaf Runner;37874349]ITT: Latin_geek makes a bad exaggerating joke that a expert talked about downloading cars, even though it is not mentioned anywhere in the piece. [/QUOTE] Tis not really ranting but more talking about and predicting the importance of a theoretical piece of technology (given sufficient advancement) can have. Anyways yeah I'm going to bed g'night. Was fun talking with you catbarf.
I'd only try DIY kits if I had a 3D printer and surplus "ink"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.