Pirate Baying 3D Printing

The other week infamous BitTorrent site The Pirate Bay announced a new category for contraband digital media: Other/Physibles. The idea is that this category would hold 3D model files representing physical objects. Horrors! Not only will movies and music will be pirated, but now Everything Else! 

 

Listen, it's just a category. And it's not even a new idea - two years ago we wrote of something called "The Product Bay" (since deceased, apparently) that attempted this same approach. Certainly digital 3D model files have been passed around between friends for some time now. 

 

So is this event a big deal? We think it simply means this: in this century value is increasingly placed on digital representations over physical representations. The Pirate Bay's actions merely reflects that progression; they see value in digital representations, too. 

 

But will we see the physical world pirated away? Likely not soon, as printing physical 3D models is still quite limited in capability. Materials, properties, speed of printing, color, texture and even file format quirks all mean there's only so much you can do. In fact, an inspection of TPB's list of physibles shows a short (20ish) list of odd bits, including objects from the already free-of-charge Thingiverse, a couple of unprintable possibly commercial 3D models and of course a pirate ship. Hardly anything to be worried about. 

 

At least for now. 

KraftWurx's Patent Available

The legalities behind the KraftWurx 3D print service/software are now available for public viewing, courtesy of the US Government's Patent and Trade office. Patent application number 20110313878, entitled "Made-to-order direct digital manufacturing enterprise" includes this abstract:

 

Methods and systems for designing and producing a three-dimensional object selection of a base three-dimensional object from a customer device. A base three-dimensional model corresponding to the object is displayed on the customer device, and one or more custom modifications are received. A modified three-dimensional model corresponding to the modified object is prepared and displayed. Once confirmation to produce the modified object is received, data corresponding to the modified three-dimensional model is transmitted to a manufacturing device for production of the object, using the data to do so, such that the object corresponds directly to the modified three-dimensional model. 

 

What does this mean? We believe this could be interpreted as a method to customize a partial design in order to build unique, one-off 3D objects. This is precisely what several other popular 3D print services do today, including Shapeways. We're wondering how this will affect Shapeways, as they could be seen as violating this particular patent. 

 

The patent covers not only the consumer side of the customization operation, but also the behind the scenes processing that must take place. Included are detailed descriptions of: 

 

• Website operations
• Customer order processing
• Customized 3D view preparation
• Customer database
• Customized design creation
• Production management
• Print job optimization
• Build optimization
• Payment processing
• Materials management
• Remote printing management
• Quality tracking
• And more.. 

 

Things could get very interesting in the 3D print services business in 2012!

 

BTW, the FreePatentsOnline site is immensely easier to use than the official US Patent site; we'd recommend you view the patent there. 

 

Via KraftWurx, USPTO and FreePatentsOnline

The Wild West of 3D Models

Nick Bilton of the New York Times writes on the current "Wild West" state of legal affairs in the world of 3D printing. He compares the trading of digital 3D models with today's sharing of music and video: "You think that was bad? Just wait until we can copy physical things." We strongly agree with this, simply because there are so many more possibilities for mayhem in the physical space. 

 

Bilton relates the quickly-becoming-infamous story of the Lucky Charm Cereal Sifter, a design offered free on Thingiverse by maker Thomas Lombardi. It's a cup that can sift out the best parts of the cereal (the marshmallow, of course). While offering a great design gratis is commendable, Lombardi must have been slightly upset upon learning his design had apparently been replicated and offered for sale on Shapeways' 3D printing service. 

 

But what is a designer to do? In this case Lombardi offered the design to all at no charge via Thingiverse and selected the Attribution - Share Alike - Creative Commons license, which basically means you can reuse the model, even for commercial use, so long as you credit Lombardi and maintain the license. But that didn't happen. Did Shapeways user johnnylingo (Royston Stevens) commit some form of crime? In fact, the Shapeways version is not a remix; it appears to be an entirely new design that happens to do the same function. Duplicating the function is not necessarily the same as copying the work. 

 

Where is all this going? We're not sure, but it will be interesting and dramatic. 

 

Via New York Times, Thingiverse and Shapeways (Hat tip to Mychaylo)

3D Printed Crime

PC World takes a very deep look at some of the criminal possibilities of 3D printing in a recent article. We've been quite concerned about how this will play out, as have some others. When you have a machine that can create practically anything, what do you expect to happen? 

 

PC World's article details a few incidents we've seen before, such as the 3D printed handcuff key and the ATM skimmer replacement. The latest incident seems a bit more troubling: someone posted a magazine for an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, which then led to another creator posting a key part for the AR-15 rifle (the Lower Receiver), seemingly opening up the possibility of bypassing legal checks normally required when purchasing said rifle. 

 

Much discussion ensued among blogs, and especially on the Thingiverse page where this item still resides. Is this a legal thing? Is it moral to post it or weapons in general? Will the part actually work anyway? What does the law say. 

 

What do we think? We think you should read the lengthy comments at Thingiverse. 

 

Via PC World and Thingiverse

Cory Doctorow on Big Ideas

Writer and Boing Boing editor Cory Doctorow speaks eloquently in a new podcast on TVO about the future of regulation. Doctorow explains in plain language the troublesome future we may face if computing devices are regulated in the same ways we regulate specialized devices. He points out several examples where this approach simply won't work and may jeopardize our future exploitation of modern tech. 

 

At the 34 minute mark, Cory explains how this may affect 3D printers: 

 

In Alabama, it's illegal to make, sell or possess a sex toy. That's moderately regulatable in today's environment, but what I want to know is,  what happens when a Magistrate in Alabama in some local court decides that someone like Bre Pettis <of MakerBot Industries> who's got a website where you can upload any plan for a 3D object and plug it into your printer and make it, is in essence trafficking sex toys into this guy's jurisdiction by making them available over the internet where a 3D printer might output them. 

 

While that's an extreme (but likely to happen) example, Doctorow then describes several legitimate scenarios where regulation might be truly necessary. Conflicts such as these are perhaps inevitable and we suspect we'll see the first of them sometime soon. 

 

Via TVO

3DDC Results

On April 28th the key players in 3D printing from around the world went to Washington DC to try to influence policy makers on the best future for our technology, organized by Public Knowledge. The fear is that 3D printing could be severely hampered if restrictive regulations and digital property rights are misapplied to 3D printing. 

 

This was the very first event of its type yet held, and indeed MakerBot representative Bre Pettis remarked that: 

 

We're in a really special time, right here (points finger at table) and now. The people in this room, not just the people up here, but all of you in the audience, this is the first time we've gotten together for a meeting like this to talk about 3D printing and personal manufacturing in one room.

 

As for results, we suspect they were limited as apparently most of the audience were not policy makers, but instead 3D printing enthusiasts of various sorts. Certainly there were lawyers and lobbyists present, but perhaps not yet enough to make a difference. 

 

But we think this is still good. This industry has a very long way to go and as the first such meeting, it will pave the way for others to follow. The dialogue has begun. 

 

Via Public Knowledge

More On Copy Protecting Objects

Last week we wrote on how a Thingiverse user had submitted a set of pieces suitable for playing The Settlers of Catan game, and contemplated the legality of this move. Another view comes from website Public Knowledge, who have taken the time to analyze this a bit deeper. Their approach was to examine each of the methods of protecting ideas: Copyright, Patent and Trademark. What did they determine?

 

Copyright: They believe that copyright extends only to the images and logos used by the game. Since the Thingiverse objects don't include or attempt to include the images, they likely don't violate copyright. The object designs are effectively not copyrightable, since they are simply common shapes and would be considered "functional objects". 

 

Patent: Patents are typically used to protect the rules of the game, rather than its components. In this case, the inventor did not patent the game, and even if he did, it would be expiring in 2015 anyway. 

 

Trademark: A trademark protects only the icon or symbol of a product. In this case, the Thingiverse submission did not use in any way the trademark. 

 

It then appears that the offending Thingiverse user is likely not offending at all. But if that's the case, then this opens up a pretty wide hole in the generation of intellectual property. We may see a lot more "functional objects" appearing in the future, and it's not sure how this may affect the inventors. In a comment on the Public Knowledge post, Joris Peels asks: 

 

What would be a legal framework that would let Klaus make money from his idea? How could we balance Klaus’ rewards with the public’s right to access and remix information? In other words, what would a working intellectual property system look like if we built it today from the ground up?

 

We're wondering that too. 

 

Via Public Knowledge

Lowering Barriers To 3D Printing

We're reading an interesting piece by Kevin Carson on OpenManufacturing who discusses the challenges of switching manufacturing from today's highly centralized, mass produced, container shipped model to a more distributed, local and "home" based manufacturing world. 

 

Obviously there are challenges to providing appropriately capable equipment and software for such ventures, but in the piece Carson mentions another dimension of barrier to microenterprise: Legal obstacles. He recommends:

 

• Scaling back health and safety regulations and associated licensing, particularly where homeowners already have the devices onsite for personal use
• Eliminating zoning codes that force businesses into specific commercially-designated areas, which really doesn't make sense when today's microbusinesses are effectively invisible, unlike 20th century factory businesses

 

We would add another one to that list: reforming patent and copyright laws to encourage innovation to actually occur, rather than encourage monopolistic control of every imaginable idea by big corporations and patent trolls. A microbusiness cannot survive arbitrary cease and desist orders that might not even be applicable to their operation.

 

What do you think are the barriers to a distributed economy?

 

Via Homebrew Industrial Revolution