

Copyright vs. 3D printing - moshezadka
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/3d-fabbers-dont-let-the-dmca-stifle-an-innovative-future.ars

======
kiba
I think we're finding out the absurdity of copyright and patents by forcing
these kind of concepts to face the _redutio ad absurdum_ of the day, which are
technologies like 3D printing.

On the other hand, the past is full of interesting example of _PATENT FAIL_
like Whitney's failure to enforce the cotton gin, but he got rich with
producing munition for the US army, while at the same time inventing the
concept of interchangeable parts.

We saws that American writers hating their competitors from England because of
the massive piracy of British literature leading domination in the American
literacy market. Some English writers managed to make more money from the
American than he could collect via some amount of royalty years. It was only
when large publishing house finally change their tune that the American
finally recognize British copyright.

We also saw James Watt's partner using the parliament to extend patents for
Watt's steam engine invention. This waste to tremedous wasteful effort from
Watt suing various people for violating his patents. In reality, Watt was just
one of the many steam engine inventors, who hampered other steam engine
inventors' ability to make a living and build on top of his work. He also
ironically got hampered by some other guy's patent, forcing him to use
inferior design for his steam engine.

~~~
steveklabnik
There's a great book about all of this, "Against Intellectual Monopoly." [1]

There's an interesting bit about the English/American writer thing you
mention, specifically Dickens. From chapter two:

    
    
        The amount of revenues British authors received up front 
        from American publishers often exceeded the amount they 
        were able to collect over a number of years from 
        royalties in the UK. Notice that, at the time, the US 
        market was comparable in size to the UK market.
    
        More broadly, the lack of copyright protection, which 
        permitted the United States publishers’ “pirating” of 
        English writers, was a good economic policy of great 
        social value for the people of United States, and of no 
        detriment, as the Commission report and other evidence 
        confirm, for English authors. Not only did it enable the 
        establishment and rapid growth of a large and successful 
        publishing business in the United States; also, and more 
        importantly, it increased literacy and benefited the 
        cultural development of the American people by flooding 
        the market with cheap copies of great books. As an 
        example: Dickens’ A Christmas Carol sold for six cents 
        in the US, while it was priced at roughly two dollars 
        and fifty cents in England. This dramatic increase in 
        literacy was probably instrumental for the emergence of 
        a great number of United States writers and scientists 
        toward the end of the nineteenth century.
    

Arguments about intellectual property now seem to always focus on the ability
of the author to make money, and not about the basic reason that the concept
of IP was created: it was a gift from society to creators to both help them
and encourage the enrichment of society at large. The dramatic rise in UGC
demonstrates that 'creators gonna create' anyway, so the deal makes less and
less sense for society to keep up.

There's also a part in the book about the steam engine stuff, too, but this is
already getting long...

1:
[http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm)

~~~
alanh
UGC is one thing, but without financial backing largely enabled by IP, it’s
hard to imagine the most epic and polished movies & games would still be made.

~~~
steveklabnik
A great recent counterexample to this is Avatar, right? Super expensive, all
financed by Cameron, right? Made tons of cash.

There will probably be less made, you're right. But they'll still get made.

~~~
jimbojohn
But he recouped the money through charging people to see the movie. Not a
counter-example at all.

~~~
steveklabnik
He did. It was also available to download for free on the Internet.

"No IP" does not mean "You can't charge for things." Enough people would
rather go to a movie theater than get on Bittorrent that he made his money
back.

Side note: I was one of those people. I wear Pirate Bay tshirts around, I'd
throw out all IP law if I was in charge... but I did pay money to go to the
theater to see Avatar. Going to the theater and getting that crazy huge
screen, great sound system, and (maybe) the 3D was totally worth it.

~~~
teamonkey
The fact that it worked for one movie does not mean that it would work any
other movie.

The hook with Avatar was that it was a spectacle deliberately designed to be
seen in 3D on the biggest screen possible, to the extent that there's very
little point _not_ seeing it in a movie theatre.

It's a unique example and its impact (and profitability) would be lessened by
a) competition by similar movies and b) greater adoption of home 3D hardware.

~~~
steveklabnik
Absolutely. There's no question that without IP, things would be different.
The real question is if it would be a better or worse world.

~~~
alanh
In my mind, the answer is “better” _if_ we also no longer need to worry about
money (that is, a post-capitalist system). I’m not sure about the meantime.

~~~
steveklabnik
The book that I cited up there in my huge post actually lays out a pretty
compelling argument that it even works within capitalism.

IP is a pretty new concept. Things have worked really well for a long time
without it.

~~~
teamonkey
Yes, capitalism is a pretty new concept also. The two go hand-in-hand.

But never before in history have we been able to copy media ad infinitum for
practically zero time, cost and effort. It's always required time, an
educated, talented person to copy, or resources that had a real cost.

In the case of the 3D printer the only real expense is the plastic used to
print the object, which is awesome only for those who manufacture the
materials.

~~~
steveklabnik
Actually, it's pretty funny: the materials are the only place where they make
their money. 3D printers are sold on a total razor and blade model, the
machine manufacturers make 70% of their money from materials, and something
like 5% on actual machines.

Then things like this happen: <http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/2009/10/sugar-
sugar-powder/>

> The cost of this mix is $0.15 – $0.30 per pound!

------
wazoox
Patents and copyright were a tremendous progress back in the 1700s when you
need a "privilege" from the King to undertake about anything. Nowadays they're
just some sort of fossilized roadblock from the past. Here's another fine
example of this sorry state of the matter.

------
alanh
This & P2P mesh “internet” are Doctorow’s favorite topics, if his stories are
any indication

~~~
daeken
My favorite of his short stories on the subject, Printcrime:
[http://craphound.com/overclocked/Cory_Doctorow_-
_Overclocked...](http://craphound.com/overclocked/Cory_Doctorow_-
_Overclocked_-_Printcrime.html)

------
tbrownaw
Next step: automated home chemistry setups that turn near-arbitrary feedstock
containing the right elements into soap, food, shampoo, beer, plastic resin,
...

~~~
camiller
..., Rohypnol, viagra, duct tape, ...

------
steveklabnik
This whole copyright vs 3D printing thing is interesting, but the bigger, more
important battle right now is actually patents vs. 3D printing.

The entrenched players in the industry have large patent portfolios, and this
hurts the ability of projects like the RepRap to actually make improvements.
We probably could have had all of these kinds of projects years ago, but the
patents are only now starting to run out...

~~~
kiba
What evidences to suggest that these kind of projects didn't start because of
patents?

~~~
steveklabnik
First of all, IANAL.

Secondly, it would appear to me that MakerBot, for example, is pretty
blatantly infringing on the FDM patents that Stratasys has. Those are about to
run out Real Soon Now, though, so they're probably fine.

Third, the industry has shaped up the way that it has because of patents.
There's a reason there's 14 different ways to do 3D printing. Yeah, some are
better at some things than others, but realistically, we'd really have like 3
or 4 processes if there were no patents to force new hardware companies to
reinvent the wheel all the time.

The fact that there's pretty much a 1-1 mapping between companies and
processes suggests that it's difficult to start a business in this area, due
to the large amount of capital needed to invent a new way of doing things.

~~~
kiba
It does seem to me that new companies can't start, but I doubt somebody really
interested in 3D printing research would really care?

~~~
steveklabnik
But we'd move forward faster if we had both startups and university research
working on the problem.

I'm not saying that it quashes all of it, just that it's set back personal
fabrication 25 years.

~~~
kiba
_I'm not saying that it quashes all of it, just that it's set back personal
fabrication 25 years._

Forgive me for my historical ignorance, is there any sort of open hardware
movement 25 years ago?

If not, than replication technology 25 years ago would probably have a
different character.

~~~
elai
The parallels between the makerbot/reprap and the Altair 8800 in 1975 is very
interesting. It couldn't do much, but it marked the start of the "personal"
computer era. Microsoft made it's first piece of software for that machine.

------
bld
Also see: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1891316>

------
clistctrl
I would assume it would be almost exactly the same as digital media works
today, while it is best to manufacture things in mass quantities a CD of the
machines components will be shipped with the dish washer. The opening of the
box will imply acceptance of the licensing agreement for the machine. An
alternative, is you get access to the washing machine support site with the
warranty number included. You would be purchasing the right to the design, and
maybe 1 working copy of a part at a time.

if we ever got to the point where it makes more sense for you to manufacture
the entire product at home, then the concept would be the same. You are
purchasing the rights to manufacture 1 working copy. If you give the files to
another person who uses them, technically they are breaking the law.

Of course I think this is all kind of ridiculous. However the only solution I
can think of to combat piracy is to crowd source the funding to the creation
of new plans, and release the product in the public domain.

