soon... this issue won't be related to just music, movies, software and content/media.

The next Napster? Copyright questions as 3D printing comes of age

Absolutely, it's scary in the long term.

Interesting article, obviously written from the freetard POV.

But what does it have to do with music piracy? Nothing that I can see, it's just another red herring to the purpose of this forum.

I disagree - the whole argument about "but it's not a physical product" which is actually in active conversation in another thread right now, is a seriously flawed argument given that soon, it will also be "physical products" being pirated.

Anti-Piracy legislation will be far more reaching than just music, software and movies.

Physical products are being pirated RIGHT NOW, and have been for years.

It's one form or another of counterfeiting.

What's needed is legal recognition that digital copying is a form of counterfeiting, just as counterfeiting money of Gucci bags is. That would effectively eliminate the freetard argument that "sharing" doesn't deprive the owner of his property because counterfeiting doesn't either.

All these pundits are confusing the issue and making things a lot more complicated than they really need to be.

And what's being discussed in the other thread right now is the correctness of compelling a customer to pay for additional licenses for a product for which he already owns a license. And that discussion is mostly about digital files on a home computer being uploaded to a cloud service. The question of hard copy is tangential at best.

I still don't see what 3D printing has to do with music piracy. It's not like anybody is going to 3D print albums - the resolution simply isn't good enough and never will be on an affordable consumer machine.

I look forward to the day we can actually print an open source (or dare I say pirated) car, if for no other reason for Chrisso to stop calling my analogy "fantastical".

Will it have airbags and ABS?

it'll have fantestical ones.....


there is no spelling mistake.

I'd like to see that day as well - I'm a HUGE science fiction fan.

But I fear it will be a very long wait.

And, there are bound to be appalling mis-steps... like something that comes out half-Volkswagen/half-Bentley.

More likely half Pinto and half Yugo......

The thing that all these futurian pundits miss, of course, is that it's not going to be possible to print functioning engines. The reason they don't understand this is that they know absolutely nothing about the science of metallurgy.

Printing may make it possible / economical to produce a totally different powerplant. Even conventional engine technology will be cheaper to produce if someone comes up with a practical way to print solid aluminium and steel, for example. Current design is limited by the limitations of the casting processes currently used and the cost of the machining required to transcend those limitations.

Printing metal objects relies on a process known as sintering.
Sintering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can't make a viable engine out of sintered parts. They don't have the necessary mechanical strength and they're too porous. Also the metallurgy of sinterable metal powder is pretty much the exact opposite of the metallurgy required for an engine. You can't have a material that has both a high and a low melting point. You also can't heat harden and temper sintered metals. You also can't print things like the fine insulated wires found in electric motors, generators, and coils.

Anti-piracy is only important if we continue to have a pure capitalist economy. When the entire scarcity model dies, the whole market will end abruptly. What we need to push for when we do face this fact, is not starting a war or get the transistion wrong because we will die, I'm sure of it. Instead, we need to spend all of our research on getting it out and everywhere before crap hits the fan.

The next 20 years will be very weird. We've been seeing technology devalue the world, and it's going to keep on doing so. The people at the head of those areas aren't going to stop without a fight for blood.

Since we're eliminating the "scarcity model" could you please pass that bong this way?

Seriously, it ain't gonna happen. It runs contrary to human nature, it runs contrary to basic economics, it runs contrary to the law of supply and demand.

That whole way of thinking is based on people digging through dumpsters and saying "Wow, look at all this cool stuff just being thrown away!" which works only as long as you have cool stuff being pitched into dumpsters which isn't going to continue to happen much longer.

Then there's people who look at gizmos like the 3D printer and say "What a cool thing! Wow, I could do so much cool stuff with that, nobody will ever have to buy things again....." which is simply based on their ignorance of the technology involved and the limitations of that technology.

It's not a magic bullet, people. A 3D printer isn't a Star Trek replicator. It's not even close.

Oh yeah I know, I'm familiar with the technology. When I took CAD in high school, we kind of had a similar thing except it was all clay models and that was 8 years ago. It will actually be a good way for small gear developers that want to make cases for niche electronic instruments and/or rapid prototyping. I think that is going to cause a DIY explosion on it's own, similar to what the indie explosion did with the music industry.

I think the only thing that we're talking about is that it's a sign of more things to come. The way that they're trying to design nanotech, is in much of the same process as a 3-d printer we just can't get that small yet. Advances *are* being made though, I read the news articles and white papers all the time. Technology never stays in one spot, and it hasn't since we've found out how to control fire and make tools. I do believe that it is accelerating, of course the CPU market is trailing off and leveling out but there are other things being done in research labs right now that bring us that much closer to the "star trek replicator" type technology. We're going to have all sorts of interesting products in the coming years, one industry that will definitely be shaken is the battery industry which is huge by thin film solar, solar fabric, and super-capacitors.

(most of that is based on small form manufacturing technique and nanotech)

I wasn't talking about sintering, but thanks for the memories. The Olivetti TE300 series teleprinters I used to maintain 40 years ago used sintered metal components. It was the only cost effective way to make the complex parts needed to implement digital logic in mechanical components. It had monostable and bistable clutches, for example.

I was thinking more along the lines of controlled metal deposition, which is already common at the nano and micro scale. Things will get interesting when it becomes cost effective at the macro level.

There's still the question of metallurgy - for example can you do controlled metal deposition of hardened steels? AFAIK you can't, but I could be wrong.

Also a process that's cost effective on a mass scale isn't necessarily cost effective as a one-off.

And there's the question of resolution - a 3D printer that's cost effective for home use isn't going to have the resolution of an industrial unit. It also isn't likely to be able to handle as wide a range of materials. And the more materials it CAN handle, the more expensive and elaborate it will have to be.

It's also likely that even if it becomes possible to "print" a complex mechanical system that system will have to be printed as individual parts, assembly required. How many people are going to be able to assemble a car from a pile of parts? An ink-jet printer? A toaster? Most people have difficulty building a model airplane kit without screwing it up. And that doesn't even actually function.

Metallurgy is not a problem - if you're depositing individual atoms, you can deposit any blend (alloy) that you want. It need not be random, either - you can deposit grain oriented or "work hardened" patterns.

But in general I agree, practical and home versions are some way off.

fixed.

And again.

And how many different technologies are you going to incorporate in your "3D printer"? How many different base materials are you going to stock?

The idea's fine for making models, toys, costume jewelry, disposable clothing, simple objects like eating utensils, some replacement parts for various devices, and possibly some larger objects like furniture. But complex devices like automobiles or electronic equipment, no, not in a home scale unit.

What's a lot more likely is a neighborhood fab shop. That that would be a commercial facility and piracy would not be a real option.

PCM used to be top secret military encryption, and took huge computers in a lab. Computers themselves were never meant for home users either.

Everything that gets developed in a lab, gets to the public in one way or another eventually once it becomes cheap and ubiquitous enough to do so. The whole "holding technology back" thing never has been and never will be true. I don't buy it. Every time someone has tried for whatever reason, they've failed.

Once it's done in a lab, it's over. It's actually good that we have both sides of the fence with different agendas making different advancements in technology, I believe it levels the playing field to be honest.

The problem lies in the implementation. We're going to have to play with two types of economics heavily in the very near future and that can definitely create huge instability in both because they are not inherently compatible. It will cause drastic instability in our society if we don't implement these things right and in due time without trying to start a war by choice or starting a war by consequence.

The first things that will be fabbed will be more fabs, even in a community. Guranteed.

And you qualifications in materials science and/or fabrication are?

Do you believe that advances in biotech and nanotechnology will give winged pigs the ability to fly to the moon?

I'd advise that you read my previous post carefully. Then read it again. Repeat until it sinks in.

The crux of the matter is that just because something is possible in theory or even in a lab proof of concept does not mean that it's a practical or economically viable approach to a given end.

There are some things that 3D printing will be practical for. But it's not a panacea. There are far more things that it is NOT practical for. And many things to which the process is totally unsuited.

Oh, and there's a HUGE difference between a computer lab and a physical science l,ab.

100% documented historical fact and facts from articles and whitepapers I've read on Kurzweil's site, nanotechnology now, Stanford, MIT, etc is all I said or commented about. Why would it be ANY different this time? The only point of R&D labs is to research, that research ends up somewhere in products on the free market and if profitable to any extent more research happens 100% of the time.

Either of us could be right, the truth is nobody really knows. So to your comment about "winged pigs" I can safely say I don't know, because it is not here and nobody has done it yet. All I can say is that it's scientifically possible. As something as crazy as this though, I can safely bet that it will be accepted en masse, and more developments will take place because of the economic savings for startups, DIY hobbyists, and other organizations who are using the existing technology *today* to fab things like cases. For example, like in the x0xb0x project which even got the creator on the front cover of the latest WIRED. That fact alone makes the probability ratio fairly high. I can safely bet that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the technology will be used for something though what, I can't say. Much of the same thing has happened with digital recording and the liberation of the audio/music industry which partly was theorized in the late 19th century, possible in the 40s but not practical until 40 years later. Speaking my opinion from a purely unbiased perspective of course. That's all.

You're right that they're *not* able to do any of this stuff, because they are not practical RIGHT NOW. Who's to say they won't be tomorrow? They're spending money on it, it's in the published budgets. The technology we have RIGHT NOW in this specific area is crude and everyone knows it. Ten years ago, people such as yourself would've laughed about what is currently on the market if someone would've put forth the idea as inconceivable. It's nothing new, it's happened over and over again yet someone with some brains and the audacity to try thinks they can do it and often succeeds. Until they hit a brick wall which is currently far from the case, I'll stay an optimist. That's all I'm saying.

100% in house manufacturing for a business makes it economically viable from the beginning no matter how you look at it, which provides the push to make it practical for other uses as the technology gets cheaper, improves, and easier to produce. Creating "winged pigs" isn't. The casing industry is huge, because up until very recently it was limited to huge manufacturing plants. Now it is not, so we can expect that industry to change.

I believe tech/nanotech will progress, and then explode into other areas of science, because it's done a very good job of doing so already. The reason we are able to do nanotech today to ANY degree, even 3-d printers, is because of the 30 years of microchips decreasing in size and getting more powerful, either directly or indirectly. That's all Kurzweil ever said either, I don't understand how people get these funny ideas about anything else like "solving all of the world's problems" because there's nothing concrete to back it up. (last time I checked the world was still full of insolvable problems, tornadoes being one of those problems )

However, the chance that we'll have full molecular manufacturing over the next 100 years is with current data near fact, and even 50 years it is still high. The current line of 3-d printers are really just the breakthrough, that is all and a very important one. The actual technology doesn't even have to be a 3-d printer as they are today. (though, there's not much else of a better term to describe something that prints a three dimensional object) Kurzweil's *books* are *fiction*. A utopia. His lectures are not, obviously nanotechnology isn't, and any opinion he ever has given he's stated it was an opinion.

it's not 3d printers that will come under fire but 3d scanners. Where I see issues is when you can go download plans for legitiment plastic replacment parts like automotive insaneswitches gaskets gears battery door covers washers etc. stuff companies want to charge insane amounts for or don't cover at all. imagine printing a battery door cover for a roland 303 or 808 then roland screaming we own that. Do they sell replacment covers ummm no can we buy replacment covers umm no does roland want us to be sol for no reason yea pretty much.

I don't see any problems with the x0xb0x. Gaskets, gears, etc have already been fabbed 3rd party for years in things like classic cars all it really takes is a micrometer and some CAD software and it's off to the machine shop.

I have no issues with the world changing at all, but we have to take into account that we currently operate under a market and that transition has to be smooth. I'm all for bettering people's lives and giving them the power to create their own stuff. Nobody likes blatant copying, that's pretty much where it is. Piracy is 100% blatant copying, and re-distribution as if you made it yourself without getting a license.

Yes, people will lose money to stuff like this but a whole new industry will emerge in its place based upon the same industry before.

I *don't* agree with monetizing IP of other people to gain power off of their backs. Completely ticks me off. As far as this is concerned, I think the liberation of DIY design is great. No use re-hashing the past really. In this case, I think you're more likely to add new things and make improvements even if it was a defacto copy at the start. Why stop at a battery cover, why not replace the whole case with a sturdier design? 303 cases are pretty crappy. As long as the patents have expired and you modify it to a great extent or make improvements, then it's completely legit. That's why you can buy re-designed 3rd party rack gear of all sorts of pres, comps, etc.

It's kind of like taking a song's chord structure, re-working it, writing new lyrics, and creating a new song. This is why I agree with sampling art and collage. I think the law should be changed in favor of those types. Others would disagree, but it is a sound not a song. Used to create a completely different original work. Who can copyright a sound of a sparrow chirping or a cat meowing in a certain room with a certain signal chain? The cats? The gear manufacturers? The guy who built the room? The guy who simply stood there with a microphone with a dumb look on his face and recorded it? If so, is it not the same difference is sitting there with a sampler and recording the recording of the sound of the cat? Lennon striking a chord on a mellotron is simply striking a chord on the mellotron. I can go to the same mellotron and strike the same chord. If I took the chord sequence, it violates copyright blatantly and that I agree with. If I don't, then I don't think it should.

Those guys who go through all that FFT analysis junk trying to find sampled chords are nitpicking. Squarepusher and guys who find breaks can make some grooving all new songs from just a few drum hits.

I'm looking into getting a plastic 3-d printer for some arduino/microcontroller based digitally controlled analog synth projects. I already have a Rhino license. It will be fun!

Well, it would be nice if you were right but I'm not holding my breath.

Simple objects like cups or even car body parts are one thing, but I'd say the chances of an affordable (to the home or mom and pop business) 3D printer capable of creating a functioning complex machine in the foreseeable future are about as likely as those of the earth getting clobbered by a giant asteroid. Sure, it's possible. It's also possible that I'll become a well known rock star at the age of 61. And a hell of a lot more likely.

There has been a burgeoning hobby in home machining for some time. Anybody with a few thousand dollars can buy a CAD/CAM system with a computer controlled lathe and milling machine and create the most intricate devices, including working engines. But it takes skill. Even if 3D printing is capable of this type of creation on a practical level (which I doubt) it will still require skill, just as using any CAD/CAM system does. When you create a motor you'll still have to make each part individually and assemble the damn thing - and almost certainly some of those parts will need finishing before they're usable. Can't really have stairstepping on our bearing surfaces, you know. Even if it's microscopic.

Incidentally there is no law against copying a patented device for your own use as long as you don't sell it (before the patent expires) or publish the design. In theory you could use a CAD/CAM system and a scanner to make yourself a brand new Ferrari if you wanted - provided you could get somebody to allow you to completely disassemble THEIR Ferrari to scan all the parts. Perhaps some day there will be accurate X-ray or ultrasonic imaging scanners that will get around that small problem but not now. The thing is that the amount of work required to do it would effectively prevent anyone from actually doing such a project except as a really hard-core hobbyist sort of thing. It has actually been done (from blueprints, not a scan), but we're not gonna be seeing the streets clogged with home-brew sports cars any time soon.

Incidentally, I can see a real future for 3D printers for doing things like creating the perishable rubber parts for 24 track tape machines. I had to spend over $100 to order a simple rubber coupling disk for one of the reel motors on my Studer that would have been a prime candidate for 3D printing. ($30 for the part, over $70 for shipping and money transfer to/from Switzerland. GRrrr....)

The thing that's the most likely is blowing ourselves to smithereens because of religion and conflicts about information and it's uses.thumbsup

I think some of this stuff is a need, we need new resources. I'm just glad someone has some brains and is trying to make that happen. It's a better thing to follow than following the crappy national news, we actually have a chance not to destroy the planet and ourselves. Efficiency and energy applications is probably potentially the best thing to come out of miniaturization and nanoparticle research.

I think it will be somewhere in the middle though between Bill Joy's dystopia and Kurzweil's utopia. Lots of things could go right, or go wrong. Not sure what to think about "grey goo".

It is impossible for me to underestimate technological advancement. While I don't know what will go on in the future, I can't underestimate nor ignore the process, it's basically the only thing that's been steady throughout history.

Many have succeeded there! heh

The reverse is also equally true.

For every unanticipated technological breakthrough there is at least one much hyped "breakthrough" that never happened, which is why I tend to not trust or belive in futuristic hype.

Remember flying cars?

How about how the internet was going to bring a new utopia of prosperity to musicians?