Copyright (and patent) is already broken. The idea behind them was originally to protect and promote creativity by giving LIMITED protection to creators in order to allow them to profit from their creations before introducing competition from derivative works. Originally they lasted 14 years, which was long enough to turn a profit, while still leaving time for others to build on it while it is still relevant. These days, these laws have been bastardized by corporations to serve them. Companies like Disney have paid government to provide them perpetual monopolies on these properties. This does nothing but stifle creativity, which is the exact opposite of the original intent. Creativity is an iterative process, building on what came before.
This is a very poor video. It doesn't aboard the moral en ethical implications of the Copyright system. If we could print food, we would end starvation. We can now print houses, but some greedy fuckers are not happy with that.
@@OjoRojo40 Of course they are not. The biggest obstacle in the 3 - D printing community was to find a way to help customers 3 - D print their own products. The manufacturers never allowed them to do that because they never sold the CDs required to make these home 3 - D printers work. They forgot to do it.
@10:30 I think he makes the most important point. DRM of any kind does not interfere with those who are determined to go around it, but constantly interferes with legitimate users just trying to get by.
It sounds to me like with the popularization of 3D printing all objects are becoming more like knitted objects. What I mean is that if you have or see something that's knitted, with enough time, experience, and knowledge, you can reverse engineer the recipe(pattern) that was used to make it, as well as identify the materials, and if you have equivalent materials and the necessary skill you can recreate it in a very similar copy. Not everyone is going to know how to knit or have access to the time, materials, or skill, just like not everyone will know about or have access to the proper 3D printer and materials for replicating something. Some people sell the actual knitted thing, but some also sell patterns for people to create the thing on their own. For manufactured items, it's like they suddenly became knittable but there weren't any official patterns to buy so the knitters just made their own. But replace "knit" with "3D print".
After all the experiences I've seen on UA-cam involving copyright I no longer care about copyright. I'll buy my own 3D printer and print whatever the heck I want.
+Prof. Luigi As Michael Weinberg already pointed out, if you were listening, it's a lot more effective to find a way to provide some incentive for people to print only genuine Ferrari cars (i.e. Print Files made by Ferrari themselves), than it is to try and stop people from printing Ferraris.
One way I feel that 3D printing opens up the world is analogous to how a software developer sees computers; if something is not right, we write software to better it, to tweak it. In recent years, physical tinkers/makers have been making a similar transition with 3D printers.
I've been thinking about this exact problem and I have some ideas on how to protect IP and make consumer 3D printing profitable but I don't have a clue where to start.
The company with the biggest issue I've heard with 3D printing is Citadel miniatures (the makers of Warhammer and Warhammer 40K games). Their first step was banning any 3D printed miniatures from being used in their stores, which is pretty reasonable since it's THEIR stores. The next step, and I'm not 100% sure this was intentional, but lately their models have been getting more and more intricate and using more angles that are harder for most 3D printers to make. So in the end, the threat of 3D printers has kinda helped the table top gaming community - Citadel still sells plenty of models, the players get better, more dynamic, more challenging models to paint. This I think has been a pretty good way of dealing with the threat to that industry by 3D printers =)
I'd like to add some detail to the issue touched on at 13:44. The problem was that just3Dprintit ignored the terms of the Creative Commons license on the models. I made a video about it because *my* models were among those used. In the video my angle being that they were just generally being dumb about it from a business perspective, but the comment section of that video has surprisingly found a bunch of people who think that just because the models were free, as in beer (gratas) that they're free as in speech (libre). Those who, even after having the explained to them, insist that it's a legal gray, so they're going to keep doing what they do. I guess they really really want to be able to profit off the hard work of others without compensating them. Well, it's the American dream, isn't it? So far the CC license hasn't been challenged in court, mostly because of the sorts of things that CC covers. The flagrant violators are so small time that no lawyer will take the case, as the chance of payout is infinitesimal. So the violators keep on violating thinking that they're safe. This shouldn't have to wait until it has a martyr to settle it, but often that is the case.
Awesome job hosting. I recently saw a Netflix movie called, "Print the Legend". And one of the dudes 3D printed a gun. And the company who sold him the 3D printer came and took his 3D printer from him. That's an extreme example I guess, but whats to keep companies from taking away peoples 3D printers. I'm ignorant to the law side and how all that really works. Maybe someone can clear it up with some facts.
Ok after all of this I have a question: what should I, a casual 3d printer owner, look out for? I mean I design myself, but I mainly download from thingiverse and myminifactory. I do not aim to make a profit from what I print or say that I made it. Should I be worried? Because after all if this I think I should be. Are the objects I download from thingiverse ok or should I verify that the uploaded is also the creator? And finally, what about the physibles category on thepiratebay?
I am absolutely fascinated by what 3D printing could eventually do to change the economy. If everyone can print almost every object (or at least an insane amount), the world would be radically different. Consumer society would be radically changed, because you no longer consume products. You just buy some raw materials and print yourself. It would also radically change globalisation, because on the one hand trade becomes much less important (why important from China if you can print it in your home?), but it also makes global trade much larger. If I design a product that can be printed, I could sell the design globally. I can even imagine something like a 'spotify for phyisical products' or something.
+wiet111 To the question if it would radically change consumer culture, I think yes and no. Just because you can 3D print a spatula does not mean you can make anything you need. We still need advances on making culinarily safe 3D printed items, and it will be difficult to make them heat resistant enough to cook with. The process of 3D printing makes it very porous and generally uses heat or UV sensitive plastics. Toys for kids will be available but the span of what kind of materials you will be able to create will still be very limited. If McDonalds is making toys they know they will be making thousands, and so they can do it at a far higher quality and lower cost than someone in their garage. This still opens up a lot of room for engineering and creative exploration, but when the quality of items becomes increasingly apparently biased to the mass producers then I doubt the market will swing too far. That being said many niche stuff will be covered by the 3D printer. Need a new clasp for your bag? You might be able to 3D print it. Need something to hold a knife? 3D print it. Lost a piece for a board game? Why not 3D print it? I think the biggest effects will be in the niche and replacement markets and the artistic community.
Great episode - really enjoyed it. also, I'm really enjoying these new format of interview style episodes (like the mixed drinks/glassware one). nice to see you guys experimenting with your style of production. i do still think the tried and true Mike-Monologing-against-wall-of-records-with-lots-of-visuals is pretty killer =)
Aw, super interesting talk but I was hoping to hear some thoughts on real world examples, like Claudia Ng's Bulbasaur planter that got a cease & desist (is a functional hinge that looks like a Pokémon infringing?) or the more recent legal battle between the estate of Marcel Duchamp and Scott Kildall and Bryan Cera's Readymade: Duchamp Chess set. The latter is especially interesting to me since so much of Duchamp's work was recreating and fabricating his own work in editions. The versions you see of his urinal and readymades in museums are artisanal Italian reproductions commissioned in the 60s replicating the original found object urinal (which may never have even existed in the first place). So if Duchamp was alive today, couldn't he 3D print a urinal, which wouldn't be protected since it's a functional object that we then could not 3d print his 3d printed version since once Duchamp made it, it became art, and was therefore no longer functional?
I think I prefer the standard idea channel format to this. You did this chat format well and your guest was articulate but I feel that without the narrative momentum usually present in the scripted episodes of idea channel that there wasn't the same hook to keep me watching through parts I wasn't interested in. Keep experimenting with formats though, you've done some good stuff recently.
9:54 I dont think we are anywhere near a 99% accuracy (hence something that scales) classifying object from verticies with only patent papers as input. For example, People can simply print a part of the patent and print other parts somewhere else. People can print extra parts and remove them from the product.
I believe that it should be the MISSION of anyone who believes in a post-scarcity economy to destroy copyright. Copyright in its current form is an egregious use of skeuomorphism that attempts to apply a zero-sum scarcity model to a digital medium. With 3D printing, copyright is still an issue, but now we're faced with patents as well. Patents make no sense in a world where objects can be physically rendered by a computer. The fact of the matter is: artificially creating scarcity only benefits those who control the production of an item. I believe we should set the precedent with 3D printing that patents do not apply in said space so that when replicators become a thing (and you know they will) we can create what we need without fear of legal conflict. I also believe that Intellectual Property in all its forms is a First Amendment issue and that, if copyright continues to exist, it should exist only to protect the little guy from having their work unfairly poached (until we move past money, anyway.)
+The Linux Gamer " Patents make no sense in a world where objects can be physically rendered by a computer." Could you explain why? Patents are designed to protect novel ideas from people who want to exploit them (at least in theory). If the computer copies your hinge design or someone creates it in the old metal working way really is not different.
But what if I come up with a good idea, shouldn't that be protected from Disney making it into a movie franchise without me making any money? "Patents make no sense in a world where objects can be physically rendered by a computer." That's like saying that copyright makes no sense from the dawn of the age of Gutenberg's first movable-type printing press. Or the VCR. "I can just copy it, regardless of the laws protecting it, so what?" Patents are in place not to protect the Edisons of the world, but the Teslas. The Edisons will always make money; the Teslas will dream up a better way to make the world than money altogether. As far as the First Amendment issue, I'd say that's a pretty big stretch. Making something is an action, not speech; but the Supreme Court _has_ upheld that money _is_ speech, so crazier things have happened.
I think there will definitely be an impact in the future when it comes to collectibles. Why pay $300 for a fancy limited-edition statue when you can just download a 3D scanned version of the original statue and print a copy for cheap?
+Frank Blackcrow So silly. I already have a book that tells me how to build a working SMG out of plumbing parts from Home Depot, written by a guy who was actually arrested for it in the UK ("Expedient Homemade Firearms" ...def. not right-wing or a gun nut, but I do LOVE Paladin Press😆). Would a 3D printed gun be significantly easier? I think probably not significantly.
You mention a clear distinction between functional objects and non-functional, design, objects - What about stuff that's both functional and has a very specific non-functional aspect to the design, like an ornate door knob? Protected by copyright or not?
+Richárd Hriech copy right does not protect the artist's it protects the company's, studios, and other commercial art industries, such as Disney. Disney makes million do they really need mickey mouse copyrighted for forever (keep in mind that copy right is 75 years+ the authors life. In the case of 3D printing once you print something you have put money into that object for the filament for the 3d printer. copyright kills small artists and only protects studios and big company's who don’t need it
Jacob Daniels You're wrong. Our poor implementation of laws *can* give an unjust and illogical advantage to big companies. But to say that it's all bad is wildly inaccurate. It protects artists, inventors, scientists and businesses. Invent something new? Get it patented. Write a book? Take plagiarisers to court. Release a new product? COPYRIGHT.
As I think about this, I wonder if there might be something to take from the ideas about reproduction and use that are established in the hand crafting community. When dealing with something like a knitting or crochet pattern, the pattern is considered more of a licencing for the person to make the finished object, but they are not allowed to then sell the item (at least commercially).
I wonder whether it will become the case that you can make things for your own personal use but not sell them, I can see it that Dyson would never be able to stop you printing spare parts for your own cleaner but would come after you with patent lawyers should you ever try and sell them on. I can see this always voiding your warranty (providing they can tell...) as you have designed this part yourself by measuring the broken pieces and making something functionally the same in 3ds Max rather than using their own production method. I think it would be cool to see companies selling single use print files that you could take to a local licensed printers who would be able to vouch for correct materials, calibration etc to maintain your warranty, providing a certificate of some sort kind of like the service history of a car. It would be ace to see spare parts being made to order like that, with a trade catalogue in the store from which you could find your vacuum cleaner model and part code with a price to have it that day, it would no longer be a question of keeping that part in stock but of having the right kind of fillings or plastic. I dread to think how many spare parts there were made for minidisk players etc that went straight to landfill because they became obsolete before they started breaking. I also think it was pretty cool what Nokia did with the Lumia 820 in that they released the basic model for the case so that you could customise it and print yourself a new one without having to spend ages making sure it fit properly in the important places. I would be nice to see this kind of open source online library of things opening up, I wonder whether there would be a flip side of illegal torrents where you can get all of the necessary parts to make that new Karcher pressure washer in one batch and spend the weekend making one for yourself. My question here would be how this works with patent laws, I imagine that you would be in hot water using the genuine files that someone has stolen but would this be the case if you could prove that you bought a washer, meticulously studied all of its parts, recreated them yourself on 3ds Max and then printed and assembled a second washer for yourself. You aren't selling it, could it be similar to a physical equivalent of studying the chords to cover someone's song?
I feel like Idea Channel has become more laid back and chill. Back when it started it was all frenetic and constantly moving. Not saying it always has to be the same, but I always enjoyed watching the GIFs and picking out where they were from. It feels more like a real PBS show now. Still interesting, but more like something you'd see on TV.
+Stephen Leotti I think it's only for the special episodes where he meets with people, like the pizza episode. Other episodes still have that personal vibe where he's close to the camera and talking to us fast, kind of like Vsauce's style. Still, I agree, there have been a lot of these more 'TV' episodes lately, and although they've been a little slower I've still enjoyed them so far.
I still can't get used to the new camera! This new one has all the colours washed out and I figured they'd change the settings, but it still looks the same haha
Excellent primer! I've witnessed this tech completely TRANSFORM parts of the toy industry in just a few years. 3d-printing has empowered fans & entrepreneurs to rapidly prototype new action-figure molds easily; going from add-on kits for existing Hasbro / Takara Transformer toys to now beating the IP holders to market w/ often better, competing products. So far, these are expensive, unlicensed 'premium' versions (much more $, smaller batches) though demand has made them ubiquitous. This competition has forced 'Has/Tak' to improve their IP & products, increase productions on some items, while improving sales on a few lines but has also helped kill aftermarket value for some 'Legit' made toys. The Transformers brand relied on stories, Lore to build the brand; now these grey-market Decepticlones are assimilating that brand w/ support of 'fans' eager for more plastic idols. Have to wonder if the net effect will allow the medium to survive.
Well, it's unsurprising that issues crop up. It's an entirely new concept. Then again, copyright has so many problematic elements to it in general when faced with the modern reality, that one can easily question if it's fit for purpose, and isn't just handing undue legal power to groups who don't deserve it at the expense of everyone else.
We can print copyright infringing 2D posters, but how many people do? The same applies to screen printing our own T-shirts. No one does it. It's not worth prosecuting unless it's being done for profit. 3D printing is the same thing. Most people simply won't bother.
One big difference is that 2D posters are purely for looks. 3D printed objects can be almost anything you currently need/want so people would be more likely to do it with 3D printing.
This kind of question really shows the frontiers that are being overrun and whole new spheres of influence that are being forged. For the system we are in, just like how Music and Movies ran the gauntlet and became digital and online friendly, manufacturing, open source, and garage industry will have to make the same transition as previous protected industries. And its going to be even stickier because you will be dealing, in many cases, with items that are not ephemeral or ethereal, they are real, physical, material constructs. And then on top of IP you have a new question mark for many people who never had to deal with manufacturing or real objects having to see the dichotomy of having violent limits placed on what you can do with your own private property, even for personal use. It would be like saying you cannot play any Stevie Wonder on your own keyboard in your own home. Or that the cake you baked was too similar to something from Martha Stewart. People will not like being limited on what they can do with their own property and the ramifications will be all the more severe and aggravating for those who run afoul of them. Stephan Kinsella has a TON of videos and papers on these kinds of subjects. He is an IP lawyer, but unlike most any lawyer in the world he actively campaigns AGAINST the specialty of law he practices. Historically, functionally, and morally, IP is a shaky institution. Voluntarily through contract is about the only way to validly restrict anyone in their use of their own property. And that is still less suffocating as there is no presumption of coercion in its practice, only what the contract specifies or the loss of market confidence.
+Hal Gailey I dont see a functional way they can stop anyone from producing what ever they want in their own home with a 3d printer. the issues you bring up would only apply to services like shapeways who are the middleman and would have to identify what was being printed and disallow it. sure it can be argued that new consumer 3d printers could have copy protection of some type, but it'll be just like DRM standards on CD and DVD, cracked within days. And better yet, NO way to stop reverse engineering, since all a person would need is a physical version of the item, and a set of calipers to take measurements, to create a functionally almost identical copy in 3d, which would then be DRM free as their own file. while laborious, its not impossible. as i have already done this for a few broken parts on items i own with my 3d printer at home. The only way it could be stopped would be to outlaw private ownership of 3d printers. And i don't see that happening for a long time, if ever, and it would be functionally impossible to do as well, since most DIY 3d printers are made by the user from parts purchased separately. no need to purchase a complete unit. plus there are people like me, who would form a sneakernet to traffic files around to people that wanted to build one. besides, IP lawyers in the movie and music industry already tried a scumball move like that when VCRs and cassette recorders became common, the same legal precedents that kept them from outlawing consumer media copying will apply to consumer 3d printing.
fakiirification That's the point. You cannot stop anyone, and the only legitimate way to do so in the first place would be voluntarily through contract. Stephan Kinsella does a pretty good job of illustrating a lot of the gotchas and inanities of IP. The future is going to be a constant conflict between centralized and decentralized modes of operations and the attempts of the people involved to remain unencumbered or force their way into other peoples' affairs.
You might dig this older story about Games Workshop protecting the intellectual property of their Warhammer miniatures from 3D printing. It reminds me a lot of the music industry's initial reaction to MP3, just as Michael had described. www.tested.com/art/makers/452866-how-home-3d-printers-are-disrupting-miniature-gaming/ It's a curious case for those of us in the tabletop industry because so much of the value of our products and our infrastructure comes from physicality, materiality, and scarcity.
+Daniel Solis this is where the quality of the material is judged not just by material and stability but also means of manufacturing. it is harder to replicate a precise mold of a figure than it is to generate a precise computer model. following that it is also having the means to produce. alot of game figurines that are sold on the mass market are molded and often there is a tell tail seam to show it. this may be an aspect of an authenticity check similar to playing cards which are possible to reproduce with the right materials.
Great video! The inverse of this argument is interesting as well, I work with high end 3D scanning equipment, and the act of scanning a work of art with high enough precision creates can create a digital copyrighted work. I often face question similar to the following: Is a scan a copyrighted object? By re-printing, it becomes identical to a casting of the object. If we scan a sculpture, does the artist then own our copyright on our scan data? What is different from a highly accurate scan and artist creation? IP control can be an issue as well, we have some companies wanting a reverse engineer of a competitor's part, and we quickly end up in a grey area, Is this scan any different than taking detailed measurements of a part and reverse engineering it? Or is a digital 1-1 representation need to be treated as something more?
@PBS Idea Channel - Question - What would happen so far in the cases regarding ill-intent and 3d prints. What I mean is if a person were to create an object with the intent of using it for something for something now considered to be a crime, who would be held responsible, also would the punishments be held the same as in non 3d print versions (stabbing with print gets a similar sentence to regular stabbing). - Another Question - So far, are there any new types of crime that have appeared as a result of 3d printing? One possibility I can think of would be if a company claims the ability to print a specific part they designed, where not everyone has the tech to do so, and then a person gets their hands on the tech and prints and sells the objects. Would they effectively be stealing the object in question? Or just ignoring the patent/copyright? Great episode, and if you guys are interested in some copyright discussion about youtube, The podcast "Hello Internet" featuring CPG Grey and Brady from numberphile has a couple episodes discussing it.
I think a valid point is the fact that the physical world and the digital works differently. How will oversight work? In the digital realm there are ways to coordinate millions of users but that's not the case for D3 printers. Someone making a chair out of wood for home use won't flag any system of copyright. Making copyright law virtually unenforceable in practice.
+Serah Wint There's this pattern of five dots on the 10 Euro note called the EURion constellation. When a printer or a photocopier detects this patter it refuses to print it. maybe this kind of thing could be used to prevent copyright infringement. When the design file is purchased it doesn't have this design but any copies made of the file will have it and once the product has been printed the file deletes itself. I know some people will say that someone will come up with the technology to stop this but it will still minimise infringement.
Neil Botelho You are overlooking the fact that people with 3D printers will be able to print 3D printers. There isn't going to be a controlled commercial industry for this.
This video should have drawn the distinction between personal and commercial use and open source and commercial 3D models. Also, is a 3D scanned object copyrighted if it's slightly modified or does that count as transformative?
I think that 3D printers are just one half of the IP question. What about 3D scanners? That is surely the next step. Just as 2D printing led 2D scanning, 3D scanning must be following in the wake of all the 3D printing technology, and I can't imagine it is far behind. As scanning improves, it is feasible that we will be able to incorporate spectral analysis, x-ray, electromagnetic imaging, etc. to create perfect scans of, well, everything, and print anything. At that point, what happens to intellectual property? Can you copyright a steak or your grandmother's recipe for egg noodles? When we can perfectly duplicate anything down to a microscopic level, what happens to invention and how is it protected? We do indeed live in interesting times.
+Taggard Andrews What do you mean "how is it protected?"??? This is something I've never understood. How on Earth does an idea need "protection"? Protection from what?
You first need to recognize the very concept of property, which is an entirely subjective and arbitrary concept that is not actually held by all humans (and very few other animals). Once you accept that people can own things, you can then understand the societal concept of protecting that property. Not a big leap to go to intellectual thoughts and creative product being owned by those who created them, and then extending that protection to those intellectual pursuits. If you understand how you own your house, you should be able to understand how a songwriter owns his song.
Taggard Andrews No, it IS a huge leap. Information is not a physical thing that physically exists. You can't own it. It wouldn't even make sense to "own it". Just what on Earth would that even mean?
This is like Gabe Newell said about piracy "Think of them as your competitors, build a better service and the customers will come to you", this is why I play steam and not any consoles.
I do think it worth mention that copyright when it was first created had a really short life span because it was only meant to keep people from immediately copying something that became popular and not keep people from using it ever, and I do think all these system need to be revised with that mentality in mind to some degree at least, because locking something for ever not only slows the original creator creativity but also prevents other people for fear of breaking someones elses content.
+Left4Cake How does it slow their creativity? Or, rather, how is a "slow" creativity a bad thing? Wouldn't you rather have them make a piece with time and effort than just churn out shallow piece after shallow piece just to keep something on the market? There is no damage to having a lifetime copyright. A shorter copyright wouldn't prevent a simple noun-swap. Heck, a longer copyright would allow more creativity because people would have to come up with something unabashedly new instead of just doing something with someone else's work, even if that "something new" is just a sort of noun-swap.
Ok. Well in theory what if Bransotcker had sole copyright of anything involving vampires for example. How many vampire movies wouldn't we have. What if Aliens got StarCraft shut down because the race design were based of it, or Sonic the Hedghog wasn't allowed to include Super Sonic, or if Hunger Games was to similar to Running Man (Arnold Schwarzenegger).
***** But that's not how copyright works. He doesn't get control over the concept, and concept control has never been the point. It's always been about implementation. You would have a point if that were how copyright worked, but it's not. Copyright works in a way custom tailored to encourage competition and creativity and has had more than 200 years to make sure it did encourage competition and creativity. Besides, copyright doesn't last forever. It never has and never will. As it stands, it is bounded primarily by the life of the author plus some amount of time. That lifetime bound is important because it gives artists a nice safe area in which they can create. They can make something to the best of their ability instead of having to make sure they complete it within a certain amount of time so that they have a certain number of items on the market. It allows the author to maintain authorship and integrity of his works.
***** I'm not sure what you mean by this. The whole thing with the happy birthday song is just royalties for that particular song. There is nothing preventing the creation and use of a different song about birthdays carrying a jolly tune. Sony's (is it Sony that holds the rights? I didn't think so, but I'll take your word for this since I don't know otherwise) ownership lies exclusively in use of that tune with those lyrics within a commercial product without the consent of the rights holders. You can sing it at a birthday freely. You can make a new birthday sing freely.
I cant help but notice that you've transitioned from the record wall to a professional looking set. This got me thinking that a lot of other UA-cam channels seem to have made a move from user created content to small production company created content. Small production companies like the green brothers( vlogbrothers/crashcourse etc.) and your PBS digital friends seem to be slowly raising the production quality bar. This strikes me as similar to the ecology of a forest where trees shade the forest floor making it hard for new growth to form. As more professional filming and production techniques proliferate through the UA-cam market newer content creators may have a hard time competing for resources (viewers and ad revenue) this becomes even harder as ad blocking software becomes more prevalent and ads that are "built in" the videos become a bigger share of revenue. Established creators have a large advantage attracting these resources and reasons to try to squeeze competition out. I believe that this isn't your goal or the goal of most of the current generation of creators especially for those of the educational vein, but I wonder if its been talked about. Anyway food for though.....or as you might say: "here's an idea"
What does Michael think about translation of already existing 3D objects into printable files? Such as printing replicas of movie memorabilia. Also what would the case be for translating a 2D drawing into a 3D print, for example Brett Ryder's Third Industrial Revolution 3D print. Which is a accurate representation of the original 2D media and if this would infringe on the copyright of the piece.
I have ordered a 3D printer (just a desktop sized one), and I am very excited for it! When I get it, I don't feel any copyright should be an issue if I am making the item for my own personal use. If I download a 3D model of Mario to print off and have on my desk, why should I have to pay for that? The machine is mine, the 3D model was made by someone else (who is giving away their work for free) or myself, and the materials to make it are mine. Other than the "intellectual" property of the design, NONE of that belongs to the company (Nintendo in this case). If companies wanted to earn some money off of their characters or whatever, they should setup an online store that provides already made 3D models to be printed for a fee. If I went on Nintendo's site, and was able to purchase a 3D model of Mario for say, $2. I would do that. They don't need any more than that, since the only thing they had to pay for was the person to make the 3D model and the bandwidth for me to download it.
I think it's awesome how 3D printing has given more people access to less expensive prosthesis. Furthermore, through the ability to customize and integrate other sensors and microprocessors, a prosthetic can evolve and become a greater part of the individual's identity, as evidenced by Viktoria Modesta who incorporates her customized prosthetic into her art. She was recently featured in Make magazine (makezine.com/2016/05/09/evolution-first-bionic-pop-artist/) as well as Interactions (interactions.acm.org/archive/view/march-april-2015/welcome-recognition-and-empowerment)
Additive printing has two huge advantages over music (and e-books, which I think are a better analog) not discussed here. First, norms around 3D printing can *start* in the modern age, rather than being dragged there in a decades-long legal process. The rules and norms around music and books were formed at a time when the only technologies available imprinted information onto immutable objects like books and records. You can see this in the legal battles around them. The original laws treated the information in books as physical object with location and some marginal cost of reproduction, and those laws have been awkwardly ammended to deal with the de-physicalization of artistic information. But the distinction between file and object is natural to 3D printers, and communities and businesses build that into the practice. This plays into the more important distinction, which is that 3D printing isn't a zero-marginal-cost technology. The .mp3 was so troublesome to musicians precisely because the information could be converted into its valuable form (sound) at essentially zero cost, which is what made fighting music theft feel like bailing out a boat with a fork. Copying and owning a physical 3D model of Mike's face, on the other hand, has a non-trivial cost and can't be done ad infinitum. Maybe there will still be *cheaper* pirated versions of these objects, but it will always cost something, so artists and industry in this area will never have to contend with the peculiar economics of zero-price competitors. The comparison with .mp3's seems especially tricky when you're talking to someone from Shapeways, which specializes in quality materials and passes through a central point rather than being peer-to-peer. When there's such a non-trivial cost of production, it looks a lot like a traditional market for physical things. On-demand book printers like Lightning Source have been doing this with books for years (which is why I think books are the closer comparison). And while it's a big deal for the book industry, Lightning Source and Shapeways are hardly the next Napster.
+Elliott Collins Yeah, this tech is taking birth in the modern age itself, but do you really think that'll stop lawyers from applying decades or centuries old laws to it? :( Secondly, yes there is a cost attached to it. But there will still be problems. Assume that the tech is advanced enough to print complicated objects like phones(instead of just plastic stuff). If you design something looking like an iPhone 12s, don't you think Apple will have a problem with it? You brought up the case of artists. Suppose there's a 'sculptor' who designs awesome stuff and 3D prints them and sells them at a high price. What's stopping me from creating a 3D model of the sculpture using some imaging technique, then selling my own versions, which will be exactly the same, but at a much lower cost?
+Bhupinder Saini There's not much stopping you. Except.... Michael talked about the importance of what a community sets as it's values, didn't he? In the Art-buying community, buying a more expensive "real" artwork is often more desirable than buying a less expensive "fake" one. And yes, this is different from most other commodities, where something that is virtually the same but costs a lot less is often more desirable to consumers. There are exceptions, of course, which most often have to do with branding. In other words, you could try and sell fakes. But if it's easy to see which are the real ones and which are the fake ones (for example, with the kind of authentication talked about in the video), you may find that your sales numbers are far less than you had hoped they were.
Ahsim Nreiziev What you say applies well to an ideal world...maybe even to first world countries...but not everywhere... Case in point: you know what happened in china
I do imagine in the future being able to buy files that you can print at home, like with DVDs it is a one time buy that you can use as many times as you want!
+MrSkyTown It is less 'more laws' and more 'existing laws one is accustomed to ignoring'. 3D printing has gotten a new community excited about fabrication, and lowered the barrier to entry somewhat, but has not really changed the landscape or truly created any new capabilities. 3rd parties who manufacture for clients have always had to worry about being handed designs that are owned by someone else, and the trade of other people's designs has always had IP issues. The problem is newbies, people (including companies) who have no experience in this space discovering these limitations for the first time. It can be shocking, but the shock will wear off.
My school has a small 3D printer and I already made a Han Solo in carbonite figure. And I am working on a cup holder. I use 123D website. Never had i thought about the copyright I just made things I like.
+John Werner designs and art for private use cannot be effectively policed. if you were to try to start to sell the file access or the finished products is where the IP laws start to take effect in a meaningful way.
+Jimmy Hough Fair argument. However it may become hard to enforce copyright, due to the ease of break copyright anonymously and potential volume of infringement. Then the fact that there is a law prohibiting copyright infringement becomes null and void in practical terms. As with the entertainment industry, there is a sea change in process. The outcomes of which are hard to predict. I run a small company that that designs model tanks in CAD, have them 3D printed, cast them in resin, and sell them. I would not have been able to start my business without 3D printing, but I do fear that my business is too small to deal with copyright infringement. I spend days, even weeks, working on each of my designs. If they got leaked online I might be able to get them taken off the more above-board websites, but there is no way I could counter the distributed net of people printing stuff in their own basements.
+Jimmy Hough if youre using someone elses idea claiming it as your own to make money, then sure. But if youre taking someones idea and improving upon it, i think its fair.(you have to give credit to the person who made the base which youre improving upon). but in the end nothing is 100% original, and its disingenuous to claim an idea is 100% yours because you were influenced by the outside environment, people and things to arrive at your original idea. can you imagine science without calculus, newton invented it by himself and by sharing that original idea he indirectly improved and continues to improve the lives of billions of people. another example is Half-Life/Counter Strike(1998/2000) a huge reason why these games still survive today (meaning millions still play it daily) is because of the fans who modded and continue to improve and find new ways to play the game. The people using someone else's original are the ones who made it successful and are the ones who keep it alive.
Our production team is working on a set of 3D Printing courses on Coursera! IP and Copyright also touched on via John Hornick along with software, hardware, research and more. Coursers are freely available on Coursera from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
3D printing is a great tool for certain applications, absolutely! I just wish the media would stop saying they're "replicators" via Star Trek. It's not the same thing. It doesn't actually have the same function. It doesn't work in the same way. It's Not a replicator. It's a 3D printer. They're two different things. And if you think otherwise, please, go do some research, get some science. Layered material is not atomic restructuring. 3D printing is Not replication the way it's referenced in Star Trek.
The underlying process may be different, but the concept of building something on demand from data is an obvious analog. I think the main difference is that a Star Trek replicator can create different substances, whereas a 3D printer currently needs all of the right kinds of raw materials, so you can't 3D print a cup of Earl Grey unless you already have a container of it, but it's easy to imagine adding voice recognition and some common designs to a 3D printer so somebody in their garage can print a specific tool or machine part on demand with a simple voice command. "Muffler bearing, 1993 Toyota Camry", "left-handed crescent wrench", "8-inch pipe stretcher", etc.
+John Harvey The material and range is more what I was getting at. I totally get how it's an analogue. The media actually *equating the two is really my gripe. (ie talking about 3D printing like it's literally Star Trek in real life.)
I guess the root of the problem is that if hypothetically everyone purchases a 3D printer and uses it to print out what they need instead of buying it(eg. hinges, figurines etc.) then it poses an obstacle to the money making capabilities of the people and corporations that hold copyrights and patents for the things being printed which is at the moment against the law. One possible solution to this is selling different kinds of 3D printers to people to use in their homes and different 3D printers to companies. If a person wishes to print an object under copyright they can pay the company for a copy of the design of that object and print it out in their homes. If a person wishes to print out an object of their making then they can design it and send that design to a company who will search through a database of copyrighted objects and if they don't find a match they will print it out and send it to you. This prevents breaches of copyright to a large extent. Please tell me if i am wrong I am speaking only with the knowledge I have gained from a few episodes of crash course
+Neil Botelho The problem, I think, would be that a design is simply a digital file. With the level of success the Music and Movie Industries have had in shutting down The Pirate Bay (i.e. none at all), what happens if a similar site, with a similar dedication to staying "live", so to speak, arises for Print Design Files?
The fact that a design is simply a digital file isn't a bad thing. I agree that 3D printing puts the so called "object-based" industries in the same position as the music industry when digitisation was introduced but it also provides an opportunity. When the music industry faced the internet they evolved and now they thrive off of websites like UA-cam and discover talented artists from here too. The object-based industry must do the same thing, they need to minimise the copyright infringement to whatever degree they can and then they can begin selling designs instead of finished products. Doing this would open the doors to people in their homes to design things and sell copies of hat thing to other people to print out. They wouldn't need any money to set up production or to set up distribution. Even the already existing companies could do the same.
For a lot of this, I'm still in a wait and see kind of mode, but I definitely find the pilot example used in the video to be something I can get behind and actually I was thinking about that like a minute before it was even brought up in the video. Like for a little plastic item I probably wouldn't care that much about where it came from and I would have to look at it on a case by case basis, but in the realm of being able to conveniently 3D print a part so I don't have to go to the store or even in the realm of 3D printing food, I damn sure want to make sure that crap is safe.
Question for Michael: If I sell a file online for a functional object, and it works fine on my printer. However, the user's printer isn't calibrated correctly, is calibrated differently, or uses a different material, and the part fails, injuring someone in the process. Where does liability fall?
I can see a system like Steam or Netflix for licensed and verified 3D-files for when it's absolutely crucial that the parts you're printing are up to specs, as in the example with the aeroplane. Stocking items is expensive as hell, but a 3D-printing shop with access to high end SLS machines can make things on demand. I might take a couple of days instead of waiting up to a few weeks for said parts to get shipped halfway across the world. It would also be better for the environment to manufacture things within a short distance from where they are to be used.
How does the law work regarding this example?I buy a plastic fork, legit, with money from a store. I 3D scan it, and print copies so I don't have to buy more if they break. Also, does that differ from taking the same functional object I bought, and recreating it by hand with design software and printing that?I don't know if the 'design' of the fork would fall under copyright with it being functional.
In a similar vein to this, I think that the issue of whether or not its possible to "own" a language would make an interesting video. If you want a pop culture connection, there's the ongoing legal action by CBS/Paramount against the fan-owned Axanar Studios, which is a current case that addresses (partly) whether or not CBS/Paramount own the Klingon language. There are some cool philosophical, legal, and linguistic viewpoints on the issue. Thanks for all y'all do at Idea Channel, and for the great content y'all create.
I think something important to discuss is not just copyright and patent law but on items that are simply illegal to own at all. Such as weapons of various types in various nations. There needs to be some legal basis on where the burden falls. Is the person that made the design at fault? The one that manufactures it? What about cases such as a minor getting access to these things? Admittedly the United States has less to worry about since its usually the use of an item that is illegal not ownership but lots of nations where it would be a major issue.
I'm currently collaborating with a major vehicle manufacturer in a project where they are investigating the use of 3D-printing (specifically Selective Laser Melting of metal powder) in order to manufacture an engine. So if such a scenario becomes reality, and products are serially manufactured on a mass scale, what legal issues could that bring with it? For example might there be an increased risk of intellectual property theft, thus making security issues around safeguarding data and component designs really important?
Hey I have a really important question. Now I wanted to 3d print to sell items. items such as day to day items like, certain kitchen tools, cell phone cases, drones, certain toys, and accessories like go pro holders. we won't display any trademark names of any product. since I know I can not simply take a persons 3d print file and start commercially selling it. Now, what if I had someone else look at the designers work. be able to build on it and improve it and possibly change some of the layout of the design of the product, colors and some materials will also be different also. would that still be infringing any copyright?
I got two questions. I am a 3d model/zbrush artist. If i create a character that belong to another company, ex. Iron Man or Gambit etc and include it in my portfolio. Am i infringing on copyright? What if i don't claim the copyright to the character and make it clear that the property is owned by whichever company owns the copyright?
+TeenTitanosaurus2000 This is actually a misconception about copyright law! It doesn't matter if you are selling it or not -- you can still violate copyright law if you make a copy of protected work! I could literally doodle Mickey Mouse on a post-it note and then throw my drawing into a bonfire one minute later... and I still would have infringed on Disney's copyright. Obviously the likelihood of me getting into trouble over a Mickey Mouse doodle that existed for one minute is basically zero. But in theory, I still infringed on the copyright.
If I have a 3D Printer and I want to print "A Thing" and it is Copyrighted and/or Patented... will I get in trouble if I use it for Personal Use. I.E. Using it for a functional purpose around the home or office, or as an art piece on my desk or fireplace mantle. If so, Why? P.S. Can I 3D Print a Bacon Bowl? Very Important that both are answered!
One of the most appealing aspects of 3D printing for me is the capacity for artists to be able to offer a physical object to their viewers. With that comes an interesting question in regards to how art mediums are translated. If you go to deviantart and download an image of fanart from a popular media franchise, it's not illegal, at least as long as the artist isn't directly profiting off the selling of that fanart. However if you downloaded a 3D rendering of a character or object from popular media and 3D printed a figure of it, is it still considered fanart or is the nature of it being a physical object now classifying it as a bootleg?
I have a question about where functional meets design, for example if I wanted to say 3d print a mug well that character is clearly design but the mug makes it functional, is that an infringement or am I ok under fair use if I am not selling it and its just for personal use, but then what about the file can I distribute the file. its would be my file that I would have had to make from scratch but it just happens to resemble
Copyright has been bent and broken before 3D Printing anyway. From weird knock-offs, to hand-made stuffed toys, to paintings, customs, sculpts and drawings.
Nice to see Michael as something more than a name in my news feed. :) I'm a librarian, and the legal issues involved in makerspaces in libraries present their own interesting questions. The general feeling seems to be that we (libraries) can deal with a lot of the copyright issues via a 17 U.S.C. § 108(f)(1) notice, though. If you're interested in learning the legal issues there, I would recommend this book: www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=11548
If I make a scratch model that imitates copyrighted material and send it to Shapeways to make a personal use print, am I infringing? Does the situation change if I print on my 3D printer at home? To what extent can I say I am trying to improve my modeling skills or learn about 3D prints?
so here's my question: if i were to own my own personal printer, and print small figures that are clearly based off of an existing ip, or are actual characters from an existing ip, even if I had no intentions of monetizing or sharing tem (with the possible exception of close friends and such) is it still infringing on someone's copyright?
+Earl Grey In general, for personal use, no. Things mostly get dicey when you try to sell things. Some company being a jerk might try to give someone a hard time about something like that, but that is just harassment and is not really grounded in law.
It was very interesting that Michael Weinberg mentioned the incorporation of norms and standards into the law, because it strikes me that that's more a feature of common law than our current legal system. But I would assume he knows more about law than I do, and perhaps this only occurs with novel situations like 3D printing.
There needs to be a change in law to take the money away out of copyright trolling to eliminate lawsuits against 3-D printing. As long as copyright trolling remains a legitimate business model, 3-D printing will remain a tempting challenge for all copyright trolls. Since the trolls have no interest in going to court, they will file lawsuits against the customers of 3-D printing and not the 3-D printing companies. Always sue the small guy without the money or legal counsel to afford a lawsuit and pay off the trolls with a $3,000 offering to settle the lawsuit out-of-court.
I'm more bothered that the 3D Print animations (like the "Who 3D Prints") could not actually be printed the way it is shown. Look at those overhangs! There is no support material, that would just end up a big mess of spaghetti!
Copyright (and patent) is already broken. The idea behind them was originally to protect and promote creativity by giving LIMITED protection to creators in order to allow them to profit from their creations before introducing competition from derivative works. Originally they lasted 14 years, which was long enough to turn a profit, while still leaving time for others to build on it while it is still relevant.
These days, these laws have been bastardized by corporations to serve them. Companies like Disney have paid government to provide them perpetual monopolies on these properties. This does nothing but stifle creativity, which is the exact opposite of the original intent. Creativity is an iterative process, building on what came before.
This is a very poor video. It doesn't aboard the moral en ethical implications of the Copyright system. If we could print food, we would end starvation. We can now print houses, but some greedy fuckers are not happy with that.
Well that's informative copyright hardly promoting any creàtivity it's all about money, but money limited to owner of company.
@@OjoRojo40 Of course they are not. The biggest obstacle in the 3 - D printing community was to find a way to help customers 3 - D print their own products. The manufacturers never allowed them to do that because they never sold the CDs required to make these home 3 - D printers work. They forgot to do it.
That dramatic zoom after saying it's not sponsored was everything.
@10:30 I think he makes the most important point. DRM of any kind does not interfere with those who are determined to go around it, but constantly interferes with legitimate users just trying to get by.
It sounds to me like with the popularization of 3D printing all objects are becoming more like knitted objects. What I mean is that if you have or see something that's knitted, with enough time, experience, and knowledge, you can reverse engineer the recipe(pattern) that was used to make it, as well as identify the materials, and if you have equivalent materials and the necessary skill you can recreate it in a very similar copy. Not everyone is going to know how to knit or have access to the time, materials, or skill, just like not everyone will know about or have access to the proper 3D printer and materials for replicating something. Some people sell the actual knitted thing, but some also sell patterns for people to create the thing on their own.
For manufactured items, it's like they suddenly became knittable but there weren't any official patterns to buy so the knitters just made their own. But replace "knit" with "3D print".
After all the experiences I've seen on UA-cam involving copyright I no longer care about copyright. I'll buy my own 3D printer and print whatever the heck I want.
+Wolfee a butt plug?
-"Would you download a car?"
-"Oh hell yes! Print me a Ferrari computer!"
One of my reactions to those old piracy commercials.
+jorgenhb I wouldn't be able to sleep knowing that the company might need to shut down a factory or two due to loss in sales.
+jorgenhb Idiots should just download a better helipad.
+Prof. Luigi It's going to happen anyway. There are a million reasons why automation will eventually put everyone out of business.
+Prof. Luigi
As Michael Weinberg already pointed out, if you were listening, it's a lot more effective to find a way to provide some incentive for people to print only genuine Ferrari cars (i.e. Print Files made by Ferrari themselves), than it is to try and stop people from printing Ferraris.
People has already printed Ferrari that's the beautiful part.
it's so weird hearing "description" instead of "dooblydo".
+FinalDragoon He was probably embarassed to say Dooblydo in front of a lawyer.
+Ularg 14:40
is saying "dooblydoo" infringing on copyright?? 😂
Reminds me of John Green. :)
Kara Garrett yes it is, AvE will get you strapped on to his clapped out Bridgeport milling machine and run a few passes on you.
One way I feel that 3D printing opens up the world is analogous to how a software developer sees computers; if something is not right, we write software to better it, to tweak it. In recent years, physical tinkers/makers have been making a similar transition with 3D printers.
I've been thinking about this exact problem and I have some ideas on how to protect IP and make consumer 3D printing profitable but I don't have a clue where to start.
The company with the biggest issue I've heard with 3D printing is Citadel miniatures (the makers of Warhammer and Warhammer 40K games). Their first step was banning any 3D printed miniatures from being used in their stores, which is pretty reasonable since it's THEIR stores. The next step, and I'm not 100% sure this was intentional, but lately their models have been getting more and more intricate and using more angles that are harder for most 3D printers to make. So in the end, the threat of 3D printers has kinda helped the table top gaming community - Citadel still sells plenty of models, the players get better, more dynamic, more challenging models to paint. This I think has been a pretty good way of dealing with the threat to that industry by 3D printers =)
9:20 first thing I notice is that the phone has only 7% battery left
An iTunes of 3D printing is what's needed, like Shapeways is. That's my understanding of what they are. Loved this interview.
Manufacturing started in the home and moved out into factories. Now it's moving back into the home!
I'd like to add some detail to the issue touched on at 13:44. The problem was that just3Dprintit ignored the terms of the Creative Commons license on the models. I made a video about it because *my* models were among those used. In the video my angle being that they were just generally being dumb about it from a business perspective, but the comment section of that video has surprisingly found a bunch of people who think that just because the models were free, as in beer (gratas) that they're free as in speech (libre). Those who, even after having the explained to them, insist that it's a legal gray, so they're going to keep doing what they do. I guess they really really want to be able to profit off the hard work of others without compensating them. Well, it's the American dream, isn't it?
So far the CC license hasn't been challenged in court, mostly because of the sorts of things that CC covers. The flagrant violators are so small time that no lawyer will take the case, as the chance of payout is infinitesimal. So the violators keep on violating thinking that they're safe. This shouldn't have to wait until it has a martyr to settle it, but often that is the case.
Awesome job hosting.
I recently saw a Netflix movie called, "Print the Legend". And one of the dudes 3D printed a gun. And the company who sold him the 3D printer came and took his 3D printer from him. That's an extreme example I guess, but whats to keep companies from taking away peoples 3D printers. I'm ignorant to the law side and how all that really works. Maybe someone can clear it up with some facts.
You said you hadn't paid shapeways anything, but it was a lie! You paid them a visit! J'accuse!
We're onto you, Mike!
PBS Idea Channel: EXPOSED!
Good example of the concerns is to look at games workshop, who does nothing but miniatures, all of which can be 3D printed.
Ok after all of this I have a question: what should I, a casual 3d printer owner, look out for? I mean I design myself, but I mainly download from thingiverse and myminifactory. I do not aim to make a profit from what I print or say that I made it. Should I be worried? Because after all if this I think I should be. Are the objects I download from thingiverse ok or should I verify that the uploaded is also the creator? And finally, what about the physibles category on thepiratebay?
I love the image of building a car while driving it. Kind of sums up the whole of experience!
9:31 Wait... What's a 'description'? All I've got here is a Doobly-doo.
I am absolutely fascinated by what 3D printing could eventually do to change the economy. If everyone can print almost every object (or at least an insane amount), the world would be radically different. Consumer society would be radically changed, because you no longer consume products. You just buy some raw materials and print yourself. It would also radically change globalisation, because on the one hand trade becomes much less important (why important from China if you can print it in your home?), but it also makes global trade much larger. If I design a product that can be printed, I could sell the design globally.
I can even imagine something like a 'spotify for phyisical products' or something.
+wiet111 To the question if it would radically change consumer culture, I think yes and no. Just because you can 3D print a spatula does not mean you can make anything you need. We still need advances on making culinarily safe 3D printed items, and it will be difficult to make them heat resistant enough to cook with. The process of 3D printing makes it very porous and generally uses heat or UV sensitive plastics.
Toys for kids will be available but the span of what kind of materials you will be able to create will still be very limited. If McDonalds is making toys they know they will be making thousands, and so they can do it at a far higher quality and lower cost than someone in their garage.
This still opens up a lot of room for engineering and creative exploration, but when the quality of items becomes increasingly apparently biased to the mass producers then I doubt the market will swing too far.
That being said many niche stuff will be covered by the 3D printer. Need a new clasp for your bag? You might be able to 3D print it. Need something to hold a knife? 3D print it. Lost a piece for a board game? Why not 3D print it? I think the biggest effects will be in the niche and replacement markets and the artistic community.
+wiet111 But do we still have enough oil to make the plastic?
+Zongineer bioplastics from recent organic oils. oil as a fossil fuel maybe not but there are many naturally generated oils that we can draw from.
Great episode - really enjoyed it.
also, I'm really enjoying these new format of interview style episodes (like the mixed drinks/glassware one). nice to see you guys experimenting with your style of production. i do still think the tried and true Mike-Monologing-against-wall-of-records-with-lots-of-visuals is pretty killer =)
Aw, super interesting talk but I was hoping to hear some thoughts on real world examples, like Claudia Ng's Bulbasaur planter that got a cease & desist (is a functional hinge that looks like a Pokémon infringing?) or the more recent legal battle between the estate of Marcel Duchamp and Scott Kildall and Bryan Cera's Readymade: Duchamp Chess set.
The latter is especially interesting to me since so much of Duchamp's work was recreating and fabricating his own work in editions. The versions you see of his urinal and readymades in museums are artisanal Italian reproductions commissioned in the 60s replicating the original found object urinal (which may never have even existed in the first place). So if Duchamp was alive today, couldn't he 3D print a urinal, which wouldn't be protected since it's a functional object that we then could not 3d print his 3d printed version since once Duchamp made it, it became art, and was therefore no longer functional?
I think I prefer the standard idea channel format to this. You did this chat format well and your guest was articulate but I feel that without the narrative momentum usually present in the scripted episodes of idea channel that there wasn't the same hook to keep me watching through parts I wasn't interested in. Keep experimenting with formats though, you've done some good stuff recently.
9:54 I dont think we are anywhere near a 99% accuracy (hence something that scales) classifying object from verticies with only patent papers as input. For example, People can simply print a part of the patent and print other parts somewhere else. People can print extra parts and remove them from the product.
I believe that it should be the MISSION of anyone who believes in a post-scarcity economy to destroy copyright. Copyright in its current form is an egregious use of skeuomorphism that attempts to apply a zero-sum scarcity model to a digital medium.
With 3D printing, copyright is still an issue, but now we're faced with patents as well. Patents make no sense in a world where objects can be physically rendered by a computer. The fact of the matter is: artificially creating scarcity only benefits those who control the production of an item.
I believe we should set the precedent with 3D printing that patents do not apply in said space so that when replicators become a thing (and you know they will) we can create what we need without fear of legal conflict.
I also believe that Intellectual Property in all its forms is a First Amendment issue and that, if copyright continues to exist, it should exist only to protect the little guy from having their work unfairly poached (until we move past money, anyway.)
+The Linux Gamer " Patents make no sense in a world where objects can be physically rendered by a computer."
Could you explain why? Patents are designed to protect novel ideas from people who want to exploit them (at least in theory). If the computer copies your hinge design or someone creates it in the old metal working way really is not different.
But what if I come up with a good idea, shouldn't that be protected from Disney making it into a movie franchise without me making any money? "Patents make no sense in a world where objects can be physically rendered by a computer." That's like saying that copyright makes no sense from the dawn of the age of Gutenberg's first movable-type printing press. Or the VCR. "I can just copy it, regardless of the laws protecting it, so what?" Patents are in place not to protect the Edisons of the world, but the Teslas. The Edisons will always make money; the Teslas will dream up a better way to make the world than money altogether. As far as the First Amendment issue, I'd say that's a pretty big stretch. Making something is an action, not speech; but the Supreme Court _has_ upheld that money _is_ speech, so crazier things have happened.
I love the downloading a file for a part and printing it out. Maybe this will make our household appliances and other fixable items less disposable.
I think there will definitely be an impact in the future when it comes to collectibles. Why pay $300 for a fancy limited-edition statue when you can just download a 3D scanned version of the original statue and print a copy for cheap?
That's crazy, the idea of software restricting what you can 3D print, haha. Cool video!
+Frank Blackcrow So silly. I already have a book that tells me how to build a working SMG out of plumbing parts from Home Depot, written by a guy who was actually arrested for it in the UK ("Expedient Homemade Firearms" ...def. not
right-wing or a gun nut, but I do LOVE Paladin Press😆). Would a 3D printed gun be significantly easier? I think probably not significantly.
You mention a clear distinction between functional objects and non-functional, design, objects - What about stuff that's both functional and has a very specific non-functional aspect to the design, like an ornate door knob? Protected by copyright or not?
This makes me want to print an accurate depiction of every Disney character, ever.
Ah, you didn't PAY each other anything, but what about the transfer of non-fungible assets!? I'm on to you Idea Channel.
+SparrowFae "Transfer of non-fungible assets" is a really depressing way of saying "collab video"
It won't break it, but it will make it easier to move into a post-copyright world :)
+Richárd Hriech Cross your fingers for a post-money world
+iluan Hernandez Think about how stupid your comment is.
+Richárd Hriech Solution; post-money world.
+Richárd Hriech copy right does not protect the artist's it protects the company's, studios, and other commercial art industries, such as Disney. Disney makes million do they really need mickey mouse copyrighted for forever (keep in mind that copy right is 75 years+ the authors life. In the case of 3D printing once you print something you have put money into that object for the filament for the 3d printer. copyright kills small artists and only protects studios and big company's who don’t need it
Jacob Daniels You're wrong.
Our poor implementation of laws *can* give an unjust and illogical advantage to big companies. But to say that it's all bad is wildly inaccurate. It protects artists, inventors, scientists and businesses.
Invent something new? Get it patented.
Write a book? Take plagiarisers to court.
Release a new product? COPYRIGHT.
As I think about this, I wonder if there might be something to take from the ideas about reproduction and use that are established in the hand crafting community. When dealing with something like a knitting or crochet pattern, the pattern is considered more of a licencing for the person to make the finished object, but they are not allowed to then sell the item (at least commercially).
For the first 20 seconds of the video, I thought that your guest was a 3d printed model of Michael Weinburg
Whoa those transitions - brings me back to my '90s childhood watching PBS.
I wonder whether it will become the case that you can make things for your own personal use but not sell them, I can see it that Dyson would never be able to stop you printing spare parts for your own cleaner but would come after you with patent lawyers should you ever try and sell them on. I can see this always voiding your warranty (providing they can tell...) as you have designed this part yourself by measuring the broken pieces and making something functionally the same in 3ds Max rather than using their own production method. I think it would be cool to see companies selling single use print files that you could take to a local licensed printers who would be able to vouch for correct materials, calibration etc to maintain your warranty, providing a certificate of some sort kind of like the service history of a car.
It would be ace to see spare parts being made to order like that, with a trade catalogue in the store from which you could find your vacuum cleaner model and part code with a price to have it that day, it would no longer be a question of keeping that part in stock but of having the right kind of fillings or plastic. I dread to think how many spare parts there were made for minidisk players etc that went straight to landfill because they became obsolete before they started breaking.
I also think it was pretty cool what Nokia did with the Lumia 820 in that they released the basic model for the case so that you could customise it and print yourself a new one without having to spend ages making sure it fit properly in the important places. I would be nice to see this kind of open source online library of things opening up, I wonder whether there would be a flip side of illegal torrents where you can get all of the necessary parts to make that new Karcher pressure washer in one batch and spend the weekend making one for yourself. My question here would be how this works with patent laws, I imagine that you would be in hot water using the genuine files that someone has stolen but would this be the case if you could prove that you bought a washer, meticulously studied all of its parts, recreated them yourself on 3ds Max and then printed and assembled a second washer for yourself. You aren't selling it, could it be similar to a physical equivalent of studying the chords to cover someone's song?
I feel like Idea Channel has become more laid back and chill. Back when it started it was all frenetic and constantly moving. Not saying it always has to be the same, but I always enjoyed watching the GIFs and picking out where they were from. It feels more like a real PBS show now. Still interesting, but more like something you'd see on TV.
+Stephen Leotti I think it's only for the special episodes where he meets with people, like the pizza episode. Other episodes still have that personal vibe where he's close to the camera and talking to us fast, kind of like Vsauce's style. Still, I agree, there have been a lot of these more 'TV' episodes lately, and although they've been a little slower I've still enjoyed them so far.
cheesypoohalo Exactly. I mean, I watched the Discovery channel all the time, so I'm used to this kind of stuff. It just feels weird seeing Mike do it.
I still can't get used to the new camera! This new one has all the colours washed out and I figured they'd change the settings, but it still looks the same haha
cheesypoohalo It's definitely less vibrant than before. I guess they're allowed to experiment. Still miss the old days a little though.
I'm staying optimistic and blaming it on nostalgia, but yeah I hope things don't change too much :)
Excellent primer! I've witnessed this tech completely TRANSFORM parts of the toy industry in just a few years. 3d-printing has empowered fans & entrepreneurs to rapidly prototype new action-figure molds easily; going from add-on kits for existing Hasbro / Takara Transformer toys to now beating the IP holders to market w/ often better, competing products. So far, these are expensive, unlicensed 'premium' versions (much more $, smaller batches) though demand has made them ubiquitous. This competition has forced 'Has/Tak' to improve their IP & products, increase productions on some items, while improving sales on a few lines but has also helped kill aftermarket value for some 'Legit' made toys. The Transformers brand relied on stories, Lore to build the brand; now these grey-market Decepticlones are assimilating that brand w/ support of 'fans' eager for more plastic idols. Have to wonder if the net effect will allow the medium to survive.
Well, it's unsurprising that issues crop up. It's an entirely new concept. Then again, copyright has so many problematic elements to it in general when faced with the modern reality, that one can easily question if it's fit for purpose, and isn't just handing undue legal power to groups who don't deserve it at the expense of everyone else.
Disney already broke copyright, fam.
+Sen Flores hahaha, agreed
We can print copyright infringing 2D posters, but how many people do? The same applies to screen printing our own T-shirts. No one does it. It's not worth prosecuting unless it's being done for profit. 3D printing is the same thing. Most people simply won't bother.
One big difference is that 2D posters are purely for looks. 3D printed objects can be almost anything you currently need/want so people would be more likely to do it with 3D printing.
This kind of question really shows the frontiers that are being overrun and whole new spheres of influence that are being forged. For the system we are in, just like how Music and Movies ran the gauntlet and became digital and online friendly, manufacturing, open source, and garage industry will have to make the same transition as previous protected industries. And its going to be even stickier because you will be dealing, in many cases, with items that are not ephemeral or ethereal, they are real, physical, material constructs. And then on top of IP you have a new question mark for many people who never had to deal with manufacturing or real objects having to see the dichotomy of having violent limits placed on what you can do with your own private property, even for personal use. It would be like saying you cannot play any Stevie Wonder on your own keyboard in your own home. Or that the cake you baked was too similar to something from Martha Stewart. People will not like being limited on what they can do with their own property and the ramifications will be all the more severe and aggravating for those who run afoul of them.
Stephan Kinsella has a TON of videos and papers on these kinds of subjects. He is an IP lawyer, but unlike most any lawyer in the world he actively campaigns AGAINST the specialty of law he practices. Historically, functionally, and morally, IP is a shaky institution. Voluntarily through contract is about the only way to validly restrict anyone in their use of their own property. And that is still less suffocating as there is no presumption of coercion in its practice, only what the contract specifies or the loss of market confidence.
+Hal Gailey I dont see a functional way they can stop anyone from producing what ever they want in their own home with a 3d printer. the issues you bring up would only apply to services like shapeways who are the middleman and would have to identify what was being printed and disallow it.
sure it can be argued that new consumer 3d printers could have copy protection of some type, but it'll be just like DRM standards on CD and DVD, cracked within days. And better yet, NO way to stop reverse engineering, since all a person would need is a physical version of the item, and a set of calipers to take measurements, to create a functionally almost identical copy in 3d, which would then be DRM free as their own file. while laborious, its not impossible. as i have already done this for a few broken parts on items i own with my 3d printer at home. The only way it could be stopped would be to outlaw private ownership of 3d printers. And i don't see that happening for a long time, if ever, and it would be functionally impossible to do as well, since most DIY 3d printers are made by the user from parts purchased separately. no need to purchase a complete unit. plus there are people like me, who would form a sneakernet to traffic files around to people that wanted to build one.
besides, IP lawyers in the movie and music industry already tried a scumball move like that when VCRs and cassette recorders became common, the same legal precedents that kept them from outlawing consumer media copying will apply to consumer 3d printing.
fakiirification That's the point. You cannot stop anyone, and the only legitimate way to do so in the first place would be voluntarily through contract. Stephan Kinsella does a pretty good job of illustrating a lot of the gotchas and inanities of IP.
The future is going to be a constant conflict between centralized and decentralized modes of operations and the attempts of the people involved to remain unencumbered or force their way into other peoples' affairs.
You might dig this older story about Games Workshop protecting the intellectual property of their Warhammer miniatures from 3D printing. It reminds me a lot of the music industry's initial reaction to MP3, just as Michael had described. www.tested.com/art/makers/452866-how-home-3d-printers-are-disrupting-miniature-gaming/ It's a curious case for those of us in the tabletop industry because so much of the value of our products and our infrastructure comes from physicality, materiality, and scarcity.
+Daniel Solis this is where the quality of the material is judged not just by material and stability but also means of manufacturing. it is harder to replicate a precise mold of a figure than it is to generate a precise computer model. following that it is also having the means to produce. alot of game figurines that are sold on the mass market are molded and often there is a tell tail seam to show it. this may be an aspect of an authenticity check similar to playing cards which are possible to reproduce with the right materials.
Great video! The inverse of this argument is interesting as well, I work with high end 3D scanning equipment, and the act of scanning a work of art with high enough precision creates can create a digital copyrighted work. I often face question similar to the following: Is a scan a copyrighted object? By re-printing, it becomes identical to a casting of the object. If we scan a sculpture, does the artist then own our copyright on our scan data? What is different from a highly accurate scan and artist creation?
IP control can be an issue as well, we have some companies wanting a reverse engineer of a competitor's part, and we quickly end up in a grey area, Is this scan any different than taking detailed measurements of a part and reverse engineering it? Or is a digital 1-1 representation need to be treated as something more?
@PBS Idea Channel
- Question -
What would happen so far in the cases regarding ill-intent and 3d prints. What I mean is if a person were to create an object with the intent of using it for something for something now considered to be a crime, who would be held responsible, also would the punishments be held the same as in non 3d print versions (stabbing with print gets a similar sentence to regular stabbing).
- Another Question -
So far, are there any new types of crime that have appeared as a result of 3d printing?
One possibility I can think of would be if a company claims the ability to print a specific part they designed, where not everyone has the tech to do so, and then a person gets their hands on the tech and prints and sells the objects. Would they effectively be stealing the object in question? Or just ignoring the patent/copyright?
Great episode, and if you guys are interested in some copyright discussion about youtube, The podcast "Hello Internet" featuring CPG Grey and Brady from numberphile has a couple episodes discussing it.
I think a valid point is the fact that the physical world and the digital works differently.
How will oversight work? In the digital realm there are ways to coordinate millions of users but that's not the case for D3 printers.
Someone making a chair out of wood for home use won't flag any system of copyright. Making copyright law virtually unenforceable in practice.
+Serah Wint
There's this pattern of five dots on the 10 Euro note called the EURion constellation. When a printer or a photocopier detects this patter it refuses to print it. maybe this kind of thing could be used to prevent copyright infringement. When the design file is purchased it doesn't have this design but any copies made of the file will have it and once the product has been printed the file deletes itself. I know some people will say that someone will come up with the technology to stop this but it will still minimise infringement.
Neil Botelho
You are overlooking the fact that people with 3D printers will be able to print 3D printers.
There isn't going to be a controlled commercial industry for this.
This video should have drawn the distinction between personal and commercial use and open source and commercial 3D models. Also, is a 3D scanned object copyrighted if it's slightly modified or does that count as transformative?
I think that 3D printers are just one half of the IP question. What about 3D scanners? That is surely the next step. Just as 2D printing led 2D scanning, 3D scanning must be following in the wake of all the 3D printing technology, and I can't imagine it is far behind. As scanning improves, it is feasible that we will be able to incorporate spectral analysis, x-ray, electromagnetic imaging, etc. to create perfect scans of, well, everything, and print anything.
At that point, what happens to intellectual property? Can you copyright a steak or your grandmother's recipe for egg noodles? When we can perfectly duplicate anything down to a microscopic level, what happens to invention and how is it protected?
We do indeed live in interesting times.
+Taggard Andrews What do you mean "how is it protected?"???
This is something I've never understood. How on Earth does an idea need "protection"? Protection from what?
You first need to recognize the very concept of property, which is an entirely subjective and arbitrary concept that is not actually held by all humans (and very few other animals). Once you accept that people can own things, you can then understand the societal concept of protecting that property. Not a big leap to go to intellectual thoughts and creative product being owned by those who created them, and then extending that protection to those intellectual pursuits.
If you understand how you own your house, you should be able to understand how a songwriter owns his song.
Taggard Andrews
No, it IS a huge leap.
Information is not a physical thing that physically exists. You can't own it.
It wouldn't even make sense to "own it". Just what on Earth would that even mean?
Do you not get how IP works today? Google "Intellectual Property" and it will all become clear.
***** I don't disagree.
This is like Gabe Newell said about piracy "Think of them as your competitors, build a better service and the customers will come to you", this is why I play steam and not any consoles.
I do think it worth mention that copyright when it was first created had a really short life span because it was only meant to keep people from immediately copying something that became popular and not keep people from using it ever, and I do think all these system need to be revised with that mentality in mind to some degree at least, because locking something for ever not only slows the original creator creativity but also prevents other people for fear of breaking someones elses content.
+Left4Cake How does it slow their creativity? Or, rather, how is a "slow" creativity a bad thing? Wouldn't you rather have them make a piece with time and effort than just churn out shallow piece after shallow piece just to keep something on the market? There is no damage to having a lifetime copyright. A shorter copyright wouldn't prevent a simple noun-swap. Heck, a longer copyright would allow more creativity because people would have to come up with something unabashedly new instead of just doing something with someone else's work, even if that "something new" is just a sort of noun-swap.
Ok. Well in theory what if Bransotcker had sole copyright of anything involving vampires for example. How many vampire movies wouldn't we have. What if Aliens got StarCraft shut down because the race design were based of it, or Sonic the Hedghog wasn't allowed to include Super Sonic, or if Hunger Games was to similar to Running Man (Arnold Schwarzenegger).
***** But that's not how copyright works. He doesn't get control over the concept, and concept control has never been the point. It's always been about implementation. You would have a point if that were how copyright worked, but it's not. Copyright works in a way custom tailored to encourage competition and creativity and has had more than 200 years to make sure it did encourage competition and creativity. Besides, copyright doesn't last forever. It never has and never will. As it stands, it is bounded primarily by the life of the author plus some amount of time. That lifetime bound is important because it gives artists a nice safe area in which they can create. They can make something to the best of their ability instead of having to make sure they complete it within a certain amount of time so that they have a certain number of items on the market. It allows the author to maintain authorship and integrity of his works.
+phoxxentswrath Right... Except when sony uses to own the Happy Birthday song... With is onr this that Did actually happen.
***** I'm not sure what you mean by this. The whole thing with the happy birthday song is just royalties for that particular song. There is nothing preventing the creation and use of a different song about birthdays carrying a jolly tune. Sony's (is it Sony that holds the rights? I didn't think so, but I'll take your word for this since I don't know otherwise) ownership lies exclusively in use of that tune with those lyrics within a commercial product without the consent of the rights holders. You can sing it at a birthday freely. You can make a new birthday sing freely.
I cant help but notice that you've transitioned from the record wall to a professional looking set. This got me thinking that a lot of other UA-cam channels seem to have made a move from user created content to small production company created content. Small production companies like the green brothers( vlogbrothers/crashcourse etc.) and your PBS digital friends seem to be slowly raising the production quality bar. This strikes me as similar to the ecology of a forest where trees shade the forest floor making it hard for new growth to form. As more professional filming and production techniques proliferate through the UA-cam market newer content creators may have a hard time competing for resources (viewers and ad revenue) this becomes even harder as ad blocking software becomes more prevalent and ads that are "built in" the videos become a bigger share of revenue. Established creators have a large advantage attracting these resources and reasons to try to squeeze competition out. I believe that this isn't your goal or the goal of most of the current generation of creators especially for those of the educational vein, but I wonder if its been talked about. Anyway food for though.....or as you might say: "here's an idea"
When a lawyer working at a 3D printing company understands DRM's effects better than the companies who implement it...
What does Michael think about translation of already existing 3D objects into printable files? Such as printing replicas of movie memorabilia. Also what would the case be for translating a 2D drawing into a 3D print, for example Brett Ryder's Third Industrial Revolution 3D print. Which is a accurate representation of the original 2D media and if this would infringe on the copyright of the piece.
3D printing is so fascinating :3 it's literally magic as far as I'm concerned.
I-is that... a Biting Pear of Salamanca plushie?!
GOD, I WANT IT SO BAD!!
I have ordered a 3D printer (just a desktop sized one), and I am very excited for it!
When I get it, I don't feel any copyright should be an issue if I am making the item for my own personal use. If I download a 3D model of Mario to print off and have on my desk, why should I have to pay for that? The machine is mine, the 3D model was made by someone else (who is giving away their work for free) or myself, and the materials to make it are mine. Other than the "intellectual" property of the design, NONE of that belongs to the company (Nintendo in this case).
If companies wanted to earn some money off of their characters or whatever, they should setup an online store that provides already made 3D models to be printed for a fee. If I went on Nintendo's site, and was able to purchase a 3D model of Mario for say, $2. I would do that. They don't need any more than that, since the only thing they had to pay for was the person to make the 3D model and the bandwidth for me to download it.
I would never pay $2 for a model of mario to a print
I think it's awesome how 3D printing has given more people access to less expensive prosthesis. Furthermore, through the ability to customize and integrate other sensors and microprocessors, a prosthetic can evolve and become a greater part of the individual's identity, as evidenced by Viktoria Modesta who incorporates her customized prosthetic into her art. She was recently featured in Make magazine (makezine.com/2016/05/09/evolution-first-bionic-pop-artist/) as well as Interactions (interactions.acm.org/archive/view/march-april-2015/welcome-recognition-and-empowerment)
Additive printing has two huge advantages over music (and e-books, which I think are a better analog) not discussed here.
First, norms around 3D printing can *start* in the modern age, rather than being dragged there in a decades-long legal process. The rules and norms around music and books were formed at a time when the only technologies available imprinted information onto immutable objects like books and records. You can see this in the legal battles around them. The original laws treated the information in books as physical object with location and some marginal cost of reproduction, and those laws have been awkwardly ammended to deal with the de-physicalization of artistic information. But the distinction between file and object is natural to 3D printers, and communities and businesses build that into the practice.
This plays into the more important distinction, which is that 3D printing isn't a zero-marginal-cost technology. The .mp3 was so troublesome to musicians precisely because the information could be converted into its valuable form (sound) at essentially zero cost, which is what made fighting music theft feel like bailing out a boat with a fork. Copying and owning a physical 3D model of Mike's face, on the other hand, has a non-trivial cost and can't be done ad infinitum. Maybe there will still be *cheaper* pirated versions of these objects, but it will always cost something, so artists and industry in this area will never have to contend with the peculiar economics of zero-price competitors.
The comparison with .mp3's seems especially tricky when you're talking to someone from Shapeways, which specializes in quality materials and passes through a central point rather than being peer-to-peer. When there's such a non-trivial cost of production, it looks a lot like a traditional market for physical things. On-demand book printers like Lightning Source have been doing this with books for years (which is why I think books are the closer comparison). And while it's a big deal for the book industry, Lightning Source and Shapeways are hardly the next Napster.
+Elliott Collins Yeah, this tech is taking birth in the modern age itself, but do you really think that'll stop lawyers from applying decades or centuries old laws to it? :(
Secondly, yes there is a cost attached to it. But there will still be problems. Assume that the tech is advanced enough to print complicated objects like phones(instead of just plastic stuff). If you design something looking like an iPhone 12s, don't you think Apple will have a problem with it?
You brought up the case of artists. Suppose there's a 'sculptor' who designs awesome stuff and 3D prints them and sells them at a high price. What's stopping me from creating a 3D model of the sculpture using some imaging technique, then selling my own versions, which will be exactly the same, but at a much lower cost?
+Bhupinder Saini
There's not much stopping you. Except.... Michael talked about the importance of what a community sets as it's values, didn't he? In the Art-buying community, buying a more expensive "real" artwork is often more desirable than buying a less expensive "fake" one. And yes, this is different from most other commodities, where something that is virtually the same but costs a lot less is often more desirable to consumers. There are exceptions, of course, which most often have to do with branding.
In other words, you could try and sell fakes. But if it's easy to see which are the real ones and which are the fake ones (for example, with the kind of authentication talked about in the video), you may find that your sales numbers are far less than you had hoped they were.
Ahsim Nreiziev What you say applies well to an ideal world...maybe even to first world countries...but not everywhere... Case in point: you know what happened in china
+Bhupinder Saini ... What happened in China?
I do imagine in the future being able to buy files that you can print at home, like with DVDs it is a one time buy that you can use as many times as you want!
I wish I had a 3D printer.
It sounds awesome.
+Paradox Acres Hey huniepop guy. Fancy seeing you hear.
+Paradox Acres I wish I had the skills to create things to be 3D printed.
+Paradox Acres You can get one for aroundt $400, so they are actually pretty affordable. printrbot.com/shop/assembled-printrbot-play/
It's hardly 1000 dollars unless want to print a life size car
It's a headache, can't create anything anymore without fear of laws,
+MrSkyTown anymore? where have you come form that this hasn't been an issue your whole life?
+MrSkyTown It is less 'more laws' and more 'existing laws one is accustomed to ignoring'.
3D printing has gotten a new community excited about fabrication, and lowered the barrier to entry somewhat, but has not really changed the landscape or truly created any new capabilities. 3rd parties who manufacture for clients have always had to worry about being handed designs that are owned by someone else, and the trade of other people's designs has always had IP issues.
The problem is newbies, people (including companies) who have no experience in this space discovering these limitations for the first time. It can be shocking, but the shock will wear off.
+neeneko I understand
My school has a small 3D printer and I already made a Han Solo in carbonite figure. And I am working on a cup holder. I use 123D website. Never had i thought about the copyright I just made things I like.
+John Werner designs and art for private use cannot be effectively policed. if you were to try to start to sell the file access or the finished products is where the IP laws start to take effect in a meaningful way.
Well it's like fanart. If you're not selling it I guess there's no problem. And my school has one too, but sadly I don't think we're aloud to use it.
+Amaz1ngWhale why not?
+John Werner I assume it's because the "ink" is too expensive. They only use it for certain technology classes :/
+Amaz1ngWhale at my School we just pay for how much we used
Why would it? Just because I can rob someone doesn't mean property rights are dead.
+Jimmy Hough Fair argument. However it may become hard to enforce copyright, due to the ease of break copyright anonymously and potential volume of infringement. Then the fact that there is a law prohibiting copyright infringement becomes null and void in practical terms.
As with the entertainment industry, there is a sea change in process. The outcomes of which are hard to predict. I run a small company that that designs model tanks in CAD, have them 3D printed, cast them in resin, and sell them. I would not have been able to start my business without 3D printing, but I do fear that my business is too small to deal with copyright infringement.
I spend days, even weeks, working on each of my designs. If they got leaked online I might be able to get them taken off the more above-board websites, but there is no way I could counter the distributed net of people printing stuff in their own basements.
+Jimmy Hough if youre using someone elses idea claiming it as your own to make money, then sure. But if youre taking someones idea and improving upon it, i think its fair.(you have to give credit to the person who made the base which youre improving upon).
but in the end nothing is 100% original, and its disingenuous to claim an idea is 100% yours because you were influenced by the outside environment, people and things to arrive at your original idea.
can you imagine science without calculus, newton invented it by himself and by sharing that original idea he indirectly improved and continues to improve the lives of billions of people.
another example is Half-Life/Counter Strike(1998/2000) a huge reason why these games still survive today (meaning millions still play it daily) is because of the fans who modded and continue to improve and find new ways to play the game. The people using someone else's original are the ones who made it successful and are the ones who keep it alive.
+Jimmy Hough If everyone could rob anyone, property rights would be dead.
Then what if you put on the market a key that can open any lock?
+eg0zb they are called lock smith guns I believe and are regulated.
Our production team is working on a set of 3D Printing courses on Coursera! IP and Copyright also touched on via John Hornick along with software, hardware, research and more. Coursers are freely available on Coursera from University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
3D printing is a great tool for certain applications, absolutely! I just wish the media would stop saying they're "replicators" via Star Trek. It's not the same thing. It doesn't actually have the same function. It doesn't work in the same way. It's Not a replicator. It's a 3D printer. They're two different things.
And if you think otherwise, please, go do some research, get some science. Layered material is not atomic restructuring. 3D printing is Not replication the way it's referenced in Star Trek.
The underlying process may be different, but the concept of building something on demand from data is an obvious analog. I think the main difference is that a Star Trek replicator can create different substances, whereas a 3D printer currently needs all of the right kinds of raw materials, so you can't 3D print a cup of Earl Grey unless you already have a container of it, but it's easy to imagine adding voice recognition and some common designs to a 3D printer so somebody in their garage can print a specific tool or machine part on demand with a simple voice command. "Muffler bearing, 1993 Toyota Camry", "left-handed crescent wrench", "8-inch pipe stretcher", etc.
+John Harvey The material and range is more what I was getting at. I totally get how it's an analogue. The media actually *equating the two is really my gripe. (ie talking about 3D printing like it's literally Star Trek in real life.)
I guess the root of the problem is that if hypothetically everyone purchases a 3D printer and uses it to print out what they need instead of buying it(eg. hinges, figurines etc.) then it poses an obstacle to the money making capabilities of the people and corporations that hold copyrights and patents for the things being printed which is at the moment against the law. One possible solution to this is selling different kinds of 3D printers to people to use in their homes and different 3D printers to companies. If a person wishes to print an object under copyright they can pay the company for a copy of the design of that object and print it out in their homes. If a person wishes to print out an object of their making then they can design it and send that design to a company who will search through a database of copyrighted objects and if they don't find a match they will print it out and send it to you. This prevents breaches of copyright to a large extent. Please tell me if i am wrong I am speaking only with the knowledge I have gained from a few episodes of crash course
+Neil Botelho
The problem, I think, would be that a design is simply a digital file.
With the level of success the Music and Movie Industries have had in shutting down The Pirate Bay (i.e. none at all), what happens if a similar site, with a similar dedication to staying "live", so to speak, arises for Print Design Files?
The fact that a design is simply a digital file isn't a bad thing. I agree that 3D printing puts the so called "object-based" industries in the same position as the music industry when digitisation was introduced but it also provides an opportunity. When the music industry faced the internet they evolved and now they thrive off of websites like UA-cam and discover talented artists from here too. The object-based industry must do the same thing, they need to minimise the copyright infringement to whatever degree they can and then they can begin selling designs instead of finished products. Doing this would open the doors to people in their homes to design things and sell copies of hat thing to other people to print out. They wouldn't need any money to set up production or to set up distribution. Even the already existing companies could do the same.
For a lot of this, I'm still in a wait and see kind of mode, but I definitely find the pilot example used in the video to be something I can get behind and actually I was thinking about that like a minute before it was even brought up in the video. Like for a little plastic item I probably wouldn't care that much about where it came from and I would have to look at it on a case by case basis, but in the realm of being able to conveniently 3D print a part so I don't have to go to the store or even in the realm of 3D printing food, I damn sure want to make sure that crap is safe.
Question for Michael:
If I sell a file online for a functional object, and it works fine on my printer. However, the user's printer isn't calibrated correctly, is calibrated differently, or uses a different material, and the part fails, injuring someone in the process. Where does liability fall?
The person who printed it. If you license someone to use a patent you designed but they mess up manufacturing it is their fault if it breaks.
I can see a system like Steam or Netflix for licensed and verified 3D-files for when it's absolutely crucial that the parts you're printing are up to specs, as in the example with the aeroplane. Stocking items is expensive as hell, but a 3D-printing shop with access to high end SLS machines can make things on demand. I might take a couple of days instead of waiting up to a few weeks for said parts to get shipped halfway across the world. It would also be better for the environment to manufacture things within a short distance from where they are to be used.
How does the law work regarding this example?I buy a plastic fork, legit, with money from a store. I 3D scan it, and print copies so I don't have to buy more if they break. Also, does that differ from taking the same functional object I bought, and recreating it by hand with design software and printing that?I don't know if the 'design' of the fork would fall under copyright with it being functional.
In a similar vein to this, I think that the issue of whether or not its possible to "own" a language would make an interesting video. If you want a pop culture connection, there's the ongoing legal action by CBS/Paramount against the fan-owned Axanar Studios, which is a current case that addresses (partly) whether or not CBS/Paramount own the Klingon language. There are some cool philosophical, legal, and linguistic viewpoints on the issue. Thanks for all y'all do at Idea Channel, and for the great content y'all create.
Really interesting episode. Unfortunately I don't have anything compelling to write a comment about hahaha.
I think something important to discuss is not just copyright and patent law but on items that are simply illegal to own at all. Such as weapons of various types in various nations. There needs to be some legal basis on where the burden falls. Is the person that made the design at fault? The one that manufactures it? What about cases such as a minor getting access to these things?
Admittedly the United States has less to worry about since its usually the use of an item that is illegal not ownership but lots of nations where it would be a major issue.
What is the chip tune song that plays at 4:26? It's been driving me crazy ever since the pizza episode.
I'm currently collaborating with a major vehicle manufacturer in a project where they are investigating the use of 3D-printing (specifically Selective Laser Melting of metal powder) in order to manufacture an engine. So if such a scenario becomes reality, and products are serially manufactured on a mass scale, what legal issues could that bring with it? For example might there be an increased risk of intellectual property theft, thus making security issues around safeguarding data and component designs really important?
Hey I have a really important question. Now I wanted to 3d print to sell items. items such as day to day items like, certain kitchen tools, cell phone cases, drones, certain toys, and accessories like go pro holders. we won't display any trademark names of any product. since I know I can not simply take a persons 3d print file and start commercially selling it. Now, what if I had someone else look at the designers work. be able to build on it and improve it and possibly change some of the layout of the design of the product, colors and some materials will also be different also. would that still be infringing any copyright?
I got two questions.
I am a 3d model/zbrush artist. If i create a character that belong to another company, ex. Iron Man or Gambit etc and include it in my portfolio. Am i infringing on copyright? What if i don't claim the copyright to the character and make it clear that the property is owned by whichever company owns the copyright?
So does the copyright for decorative objects apply to things you print at home for personal use?
No, I believe that it's only if you get money off of it.
+TeenTitanosaurus2000 This is actually a misconception about copyright law! It doesn't matter if you are selling it or not -- you can still violate copyright law if you make a copy of protected work!
I could literally doodle Mickey Mouse on a post-it note and then throw my drawing into a bonfire one minute later... and I still would have infringed on Disney's copyright. Obviously the likelihood of me getting into trouble over a Mickey Mouse doodle that existed for one minute is basically zero. But in theory, I still infringed on the copyright.
Question If I created the item via tinkercad and own the stl but did take some inspiration from another designer if that hurting anything ?
If I have a 3D Printer and I want to print "A Thing" and it is Copyrighted and/or Patented... will I get in trouble if I use it for Personal Use. I.E. Using it for a functional purpose around the home or office, or as an art piece on my desk or fireplace mantle.
If so, Why?
P.S. Can I 3D Print a Bacon Bowl? Very Important that both are answered!
One of the most appealing aspects of 3D printing for me is the capacity for artists to be able to offer a physical object to their viewers. With that comes an interesting question in regards to how art mediums are translated. If you go to deviantart and download an image of fanart from a popular media franchise, it's not illegal, at least as long as the artist isn't directly profiting off the selling of that fanart. However if you downloaded a 3D rendering of a character or object from popular media and 3D printed a figure of it, is it still considered fanart or is the nature of it being a physical object now classifying it as a bootleg?
I have a question about where functional meets design, for example if I wanted to say 3d print a mug well that character is clearly design but the mug makes it functional, is that an infringement or am I ok under fair use if I am not selling it and its just for personal use, but then what about the file can I distribute the file. its would be my file that I would have had to make from scratch but it just happens to resemble
Copyright has been bent and broken before 3D Printing anyway. From weird knock-offs, to hand-made stuffed toys, to paintings, customs, sculpts and drawings.
What if you pay to be allowed to print something and then the print gets messed up? Do you have to buy it again? What stops you from printing 2?
AS some one working on a 3d model, hopefully to sell through shapeways, in the background, listening to this, this was very informative.
how do you get into the 3d printing business I wanna possibly go for it just not sure where to start and where company's are that do 3d prints.
Nice to see Michael as something more than a name in my news feed. :) I'm a librarian, and the legal issues involved in makerspaces in libraries present their own interesting questions. The general feeling seems to be that we (libraries) can deal with a lot of the copyright issues via a 17 U.S.C. § 108(f)(1) notice, though. If you're interested in learning the legal issues there, I would recommend this book: www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=11548
This is very interesting, putting forth a point I had never considered before. Cool beans!
Everything can break copyright if you try hard enough.
I liked your shirt. It looks like a cross between plaid and a circuit board.
I wanna know if I download a knife from a game and then modified it in CAD, what's stopping me from selling a few on ebay after 3d printing them?
If I make a scratch model that imitates copyrighted material and send it to Shapeways to make a personal use print, am I infringing? Does the situation change if I print on my 3D printer at home? To what extent can I say I am trying to improve my modeling skills or learn about 3D prints?
The opportunity and the platform is payment alone in today's day of social media. Fun conversation to have for another episode lol.
That sweet, sweet disclosure. Love it.
so here's my question: if i were to own my own personal printer, and print small figures that are clearly based off of an existing ip, or are actual characters from an existing ip, even if I had no intentions of monetizing or sharing tem (with the possible exception of close friends and such) is it still infringing on someone's copyright?
+Earl Grey In general, for personal use, no. Things mostly get dicey when you try to sell things. Some company being a jerk might try to give someone a hard time about something like that, but that is just harassment and is not really grounded in law.
It was very interesting that Michael Weinberg mentioned the incorporation of norms and standards into the law, because it strikes me that that's more a feature of common law than our current legal system. But I would assume he knows more about law than I do, and perhaps this only occurs with novel situations like 3D printing.
There needs to be a change in law to take the money away out of copyright trolling to eliminate lawsuits against 3-D printing. As long as copyright trolling remains a legitimate business model, 3-D printing will remain a tempting challenge for all copyright trolls. Since the trolls have no interest in going to court, they will file lawsuits against the customers of 3-D printing and not the 3-D printing companies. Always sue the small guy without the money or legal counsel to afford a lawsuit and pay off the trolls with a $3,000 offering to settle the lawsuit out-of-court.
What about items for personal use?
I'm more bothered that the 3D Print animations (like the "Who 3D Prints") could not actually be printed the way it is shown. Look at those overhangs! There is no support material, that would just end up a big mess of spaghetti!