UK Copyright Extension On Designed Objects Is 'Direct Assault' On 3D Printing (arstechnica.com) 187
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A recent extension of UK copyright for industrially manufactured artistic works represents "a direct assault on the 3D printing revolution," says Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge. The UK government last month extended copyright for designs from 25 years to the life of the designer plus 70 years. In practice, this is likely to mean a copyright term of over 100 years for furniture and other designed objects. Writing on the Private Internet Access site, Falkvinge says that the copyright extension will have important consequences for makers in the UK and EU: "This change means that people will be prohibited from using 3D printing and other maker technologies to manufacture such objects, and that for a full century." Falkvinge points out a crucial difference between the previous UK protection for designs, which was based on what are called "design rights" plus a short copyright term, and the situation now, which involves design rights and a much-longer copyright term. With design rights, "you're absolutely and one hundred percent free to make copies of it for your own use with your own tools and materials," Falkvinge writes. "When something is under copyright, you are not. Therefore, this move is a direct assault on the 3D printing revolution." "Moving furniture design from a [design right] to copyright law means that people can and will indeed be prosecuted for manufacturing their own furniture using their own tools," Falkvinge claims.
well, Browning died 70 years ago (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:well, Browning died 70 years ago (Score:4, Interesting)
The incentive to do this is obvious.
Wealth is measured in dollars, but what it is a measure of is: influence over others. The more independent people are, the less influence the wealthy have over them. Therefore, the 3d printing revolution is a direct assault against the wealth of the wealthy.
They are just striking back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:well, Browning died 70 years ago (Score:4, Informative)
Poor people don't have the slightest notion how to draft trade policies that won't ruin the economy, let alone how to tell credible science from media-fluff.
In some African countries, very poor villagers, when given micro-loans, establish businesses that lead to thriving micro-economies. And they do so with a lack of other resources and supports that might well leave you flat-ass broke and begging for handouts if you were in the same situation. Poor != stupid, lazy, ignorant, etc. As for 'credible science', many people the world over who live at the sharp end of existence have been blowing the trumpet of global warming for decades. It took organized science a while to catch up with them.
And their best attempts at administering justice would be indistinguishable from barbarism.
If you're going to put up a straw man, you should first acquire some straw.. Your 'argument' doesn't have even that, never mind the string to hold it together and give it shape.
Re: (Score:2)
Power and wealth aren't related, except perhaps tangentially.
They're causally related. Under capitalism, the wealthy become powerful. Under socialism, the powerful become wealthy. (Oh, sure, you can imagine "non-corrupt" versions of these, but meanwhile in the real world ...).
Re: (Score:3)
Under capitalism, the wealthy become powerful.
Capitalism is an economic system, not political.
Power is a function of Politics, not economics.
The problem is, and everyone is believing that these HAVE To be linked. And tangentially they typically are, but they do NOT have to be. Think of it this way, FREEDOM/LIBERTY is a system that seeks maximum ability to live life as you see fit, not encumbered by rules and regulations that only serve to enslave us, economically and politically.
Now, there are those that say we need MORE rules and MORE regulations (tyr
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sure, you can imagine "non-corrupt" versions of these, but meanwhile in the real world ...
Re: (Score:2)
Man is incapable of ruling himself, what makes you think he can rule over others?
Distributed Not Centralized power structure ensures minimal abuse, that is localized, rather than the corrupt versions of all centralized political structures. Power Corrupt, and absolute power tend to corrupt absolutely.
Re: (Score:2)
Wealth is economic power: the ability to spend resources.
Judging by the behaviour of Wall Street and the rich in general, I'd have to say you hit the nail on the head there.
Re:well, Browning died 70 years ago (Score:5, Interesting)
The greatest wealth creator is Liberty. It frees men to pursue the talents and skills they have unrestricted by tyrant's rules. Human Capital is the greatest wealth creator, and economic wealth is just a reflection of that. If you want to free the economic capital from the wealthy, free the human capital from the rules and regulations and taxes the stifle human capital. The wealthy cannot contain human capital of others in a free and open economic system.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for confirming that Libertarians live in nutshells. Now if we could just get them to go the next step and admit that they modeled their domiciles after their beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for confirming you love tyranny, and live to enslave yourself.
See, I can make stupid platitudes that are meaningless too! You think that greater centralization, rules and regulations frees you from tyranny?
Re: (Score:2)
Centralized government is corruption. The ONLY fix is to restrict centralized governance, and make it more local.
I've been thinking along similar lines a lot lately. The city-state is an attractive model of both governance and commerce. The problem I see is that complex systems, (whether socio-political, technological, or whatever), will always 'evolve' into centralized control models. Even the Internet is moving in that direction, despite its vast geographic spread. So "to restrict centralized governance" will require some quality, strategy, or force in the social realm that's equivalent to anti-gravity in the physic
Dear all patents and patent holders. (Score:5, Funny)
You all can go Fuck yourselves. I will print whatever the hell I want in my home for my own uses. You can go and cry to your $1000 an hour psychiatrists as to why I am ruining your life.
Oh and to the MPAA... fuck yes I'll download a car! Doing it right now as a matter of fact as I want to print the Subaru Boxer engine model that is out there.
needs to be a renewal fee to stop trolls (Score:3)
needs to be a renewal fee to stop trolls.
The last thing we need is for some one to buy up old IP and then sue people makeing replacement parts or even forcing people to rebuy the software that they own just to be able to run it on a newer system in some kind of VM like system.
Just thing if for a old game. They took dos box made a custom build wrapped with DRM and say that you still need the custom controller that came with the game and then they used BS like this to take down sites telling people how to use
Re: (Score:2)
Companies will defend old IP for as long as they possibly can, because eventually they may be able to monetize it. Witness Nintendo's Virtual Console emulation platform, for example, where they sell you the games you already bought 20 years ago to play on your new console.
The only solution that will ever work is to limit copyright to 10 years + 10 more if the author is still living, and make cracking of DRM / reverse engineering completely legal and protected.
Re: (Score:2)
This change in law has nothing what so ever to do with 3D printing. This law is done to nothing but 100% corruption. The law is insanely unworkable and that is it's intent, a law corruptly written by douche bag psychopaths lawyers to create a mountain of litigation as corporations starting suing each other over knobs, switches, rounded corners, GUI arrangements, electronic forms any and everything that can be claimed to be designed and thus cripple each others new product releases with civil suits to block
Re:Dear all patents and patent holders. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dear all patents and patent holders. (Score:5, Interesting)
I disagree, 10 years is a bit long.
I will argue that doctors, firemen, first responders, etc do more important important work than "creators", yet none of them is paid one additional cent for past work.
Re: (Score:2)
And typical creators are not payed one cent for past work either.
They only make money in the future with their creations.
A no brainer.
Writing a novel easy takes ten years, some people need decades to compile a single album.
With your logic that work is public domain the moment they want to sell it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh BULLSHIT! Successful authors as opposed to hobbyist dabbler writers write AT LEAST a novel a year. Isaac Asimov got two novels published in 1983, one in 1984, 3 in 1985, 2 in 1986, 2 in 1987, 2 in 1988, 2 in 1989, and 2 in 1990. And most of those were shatteringly successful, like The Robots of Dawn, Robots and Empire, Foundation and Earth, and Prelude to Foundation. And he was pumping out mystery short stories, anth
Re:Dear all patents and patent holders. (Score:4, Insightful)
That is because their past work is not being replicated/reproduced and on sold.
Think of it this way, can the fireman say "I put out your neighbours house fire yesterday , so I don't need to put out yours today".
Also, the fireman is being paid in-between jobs, a writer can take years of research, writing and revision before the book gets published, yes some writers get an advance to see them through, but most don't. Musicians spend years honing their craft with little or no pay before they can make money from their skills.
I strenuously object to copyright after death, once dead that person can no longer create, so an incentive is worthless.
Corporations can not "create", it is done by people who work for the corporation, so corporations should not be able to hold copyright.
10 years is a reasonable length of time, it can take some years for new artists to build a following and thus create value for their early works, and they should be able to take advantage of that, but after 10 years.... no I don't think so. This is particularly true when we consider patents, they are created by people, give exclusive rights, but they are limited to 7 years.
As the world moves past the current system where by everyone works to "make a living" and we move to where everyone can just have what they "need" (as opposed to want), artists will come into their own as large masses of unemployed people will need to be entertained (at first) until such time as people "work" to add intellectual and cultural value to their lives. Go look at a university where retired professors still research, unpaid, there to satisfy their own intellectual needs and to pass on their knowledge to another generation. Yes some will choose to sit on the couch and vegetate, but the opportunity to explore the world etc etc etc and to add value will drive most people back into productivity.
The current system is geared towards "ownership" of rights, of property, of ideas, and using these rights for their sole benefit to make them "better" than those who have little property. It gives them power and privilege and wrestling that away from them will be the hardest step society will have to take before it can move on to the next level of civilisation.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations can not "create", it is done by people who work for the corporation, so corporations should not be able to hold copyright.
BINGO!!!! Lets make copyright only applicable to physical persons that actually create. Immortal corporations do not deserve any of this.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations can not "create", it is done by people who work for the corporation, so corporations should not be able to hold copyright.
BINGO!!!! Lets make copyright only applicable to physical persons that actually create. Immortal corporations do not deserve any of this.
What if multiple people are involved?
Re:Dear all patents and patent holders. (Score:4, Interesting)
I will argue that doctors, firemen, first responders, etc do more important important work than "creators"
... and I would argue that they don't. A fireman is basically a commodity. One fireman can usually do anything another fireman can do. That is not true with artists.
yet none of them is paid one additional cent for past work.
Silly analogy. They are paid a fixed salary. Artists generally are not, and when they are, they usually sign away their creative rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is irrelevant to the question of how important the job is.
An artist can paint a picture, and so can another. They might not be exactly the same, but chances are either will serve just fine. And this is even more true in the realm of
Re: (Score:2)
10 years is a bit short, the author's life should be the absolute maximum. Something in between would be reasonable.
The basic idea is: treat intellectual property like tangible property, in the exact same way.
Only bastardized copyrights like in the US and their attempts to put the same thing on europe is bad. The rights of the creator should stick to him, as long as possible. And extending that to 70 or even more years after his death, as in: inherited by his hires, only makes sense! However the americans i
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a collection of 1970s and 1980s computers. Many of the plastic parts are broken, I would like to "print" replacement parts because parts are no longer available. This is true for a LOT of things.
Re: (Score:2)
Intellectual property is a purely legislative invention, unlike real property. 28 years after the first copyrights were granted, the publishers attempted to argue that it was a form of property and the courts struck them down as there was no common law right to intellectual property. The dissenting opinion in the first major case,
Re: (Score:2)
Intellectual property is a purely legislative invention, unlike^H^H^H^H^H^H just like real property. ...
Fixed that for you
Re: (Score:2)
Not really as every human society has had some form of real property, even if it just your medicine bag and blanket, with some sort of punishment for violating others property, even if just shunning or the wrath of the Gods.
On the other hand, stories and other knowledge has generally been shared, though sometimes with limitations based on things like age and sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, no. Just no. All the way back to prehistoric wandering nomads, you were in trouble if you tried to steal Ugh's stone axe that Ugh created himself and Ugh jealously guarded as his personal property. But if Blarf painted a particular illustration in a cave, even if it took him years of labor, he wasn't coming after you if you copied the same illustration in another cave.
One is natural behavior. The other is the imposition of the heavy hand of The Man lording it over everyone. In one case, you're depriv
Re: (Score:2)
Partially right, modern copyright was created to promote learning, or as the Americans put it to promote the arts and sciences, by making sure the authors got paid. It was right in the title of the first copyright act,
and the times were 14 years with one 14 year extension along with a 21 year grandfather clause. The preamble,
Re: (Score:2)
Hang on with your broad generalizations and abuse of language. I'm an author. I sell my books. If people buy them, how is that a "tax"? How is the sale of a book in a free market a "levy"? You are using these words with such woeful ignorance it's hard to know if you are sincere, or a troll. How am I "taking an advance on the proceeds"? What does that even mean?
And my last book, I wrote a few months ago, and I'm expecting to die in a month or two now (terminal cancer), and I really hope my book sales will pr
Re: (Score:2)
the author's life should be the absolute maximum.
Let's not incentivize murder here.
When will doll manufacturers start suing mothers.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
... for producing 3-dimensional objects that look like their copyright protected products?
Maybe they will start by suing plastic surgeons for altering people to look like Barbie(TM) dolls...
Re: (Score:2)
And what about men, I can already see being targeted by sex toy makers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen some abuse of this but. (Score:2)
I'm not an expert in British law but I would hope the courts would see most of this as fair use.
If you don't have the design files what's the big deal.
I don't think this is exactly an attack on 3d printing but trying to make it into a viable business.
Don't get me wrong its totally still bullshit its just not any more bullshit that all other types of copy right law.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll disagree about the "bullshit" part, but you're right. The theory is the same.
Someone put intellectual effort into a piece of work, and technology allows it to be cloned indefinitely, effectively dividing the value of the effort indefinitely. Whether that's something that you think should be protected against or not, it is no different from any other application of copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to understand british law. Or european law.
The general rule is: law > court. So a court will usually follow the law. No idea where this fair use bullshit comes from :D
Anyway, for private use, making a copy of something is no copyright infringement anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fair use" is an American legal doctrine (though the Philippines kept it from when it was a US colony and Israel, South Korea, and Poland have recently adopted their own versions), not a UK one. The UK/Commonwealth equivalent is "fair dealing", which is generally more restrictive than US "fair use".
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, (Score:2)
Unless you are selling your #d printed things no one is going to come by your house to fine you for sitting on some famous chair.
What is the point of these laws? Or is the summary click bait?
Re: (Score:2)
UK Big Brother Shithole (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
the thing Orwell missed was the big banks and other large corporations with government in its pocket. there is a certain cartel behind this
Re: (Score:2)
It's ironic that people voted to leave the EU to "take back control", but have actually just made themselves more vulnerable to having US copyright law and Chinese industrial standards forced on them because their bargaining position is relatively weak now. What extra control they do have will be used by unelected bureaucrats and elected liars to take away what rights they do have, once the EU is unable to stop them.
Ignore the law (Score:2)
If I owned a 3D printer, I would ignore this law.
Re: (Score:2)
If I owned a 3D printer, I would ignore this law.
And what happens when they mandate that the software for your printer must detect these copies like they currently do with Photocopies and currency? Are you planning to not buy a new printer/not update your code? Rolling your own OS for the printer will not necessarily be possible.
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens when they mandate that the software for your printer must detect these copies like they currently do with Photocopies and currency?
As the AC mentioned below, I'd probably build my own (I've probably got 1/3rd of the parts I'd need sitting around in junk boxes downstairs) and use a Chinese software package or a cracked package. Or falsely-signed 3D models perhaps. Or I'd buy a counterfeit version off eBay or Amazon. Or download it off the interweb.
They'll never be able to lock this market down unless they control the entire world and every bit of software in existence, and that ain't gonna happen.
Yes, things are changing (Score:4, Interesting)
Its about fucking time.
Look crybaby, the only reason you had been able to claim your "design" warranted specific amounts of money was because other people had been willing to pay for it. This is changing. You want to keep getting paid? Finish the job and manufacture it. Or sell it as a kit. Otherwise, if I can make something just as good myself, I will, and then I'll make another and sell it to my neighbor. I don't care how bent out of shape you get over it when I do. I don't care a rats ass if its similar in design to the one you drafted up on a piece of paper. I don't give fuck-all about your feeling on the matter. If it put sawdust on my shop floor, or used some of my filament, its mine. If my 2 hands built it and it happens looks like some catalog shit, well it must be a great catalog, but that makes my creation no less mine.
I'm looking forward to the slashdot stories regarding the super-legit lawsuits brought against those legions of dishonest craftsmen, by the fine and upstanding companies that will soon control the manufacturing schematics and plans for everything.
Now if you will excuse me, my patent for "flat writing surface on 4 legs" just came back,and my copyright application was just approved for my new song, I call it "whistle'n noises" Now all I need to to is get my trusty lawyer to work extracting money from you guys for hand-writing letters (totes my idea btw) or whistling some noises.
IP Lawyers Rejoice! (Score:2)
This already happened in the 1990s (Score:2)
In the 1990s, as the price of scanners plummeted and photo inkjet printer quality started to approach photographic prints, this business model stopped working. People simply scanned
Paro3dy - a new way to criticize idiots in 3D (Score:2)
With the power of 3D printing at our disposal, these thick cartoons have already shown themselves [3dprinterworld.com] rich with new methods of mockery. First, of course, is the added detail available with the third dimension, letting the satirist examine an issue from several angles, as it were. There are endless possibilities for caricature, lampooning, burlesque, even complimentary mimicr
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Hey look, a EURO version of Trump supporter!
Re: (Score:2)
Canucks are funny.
Hint: You never burnt DC, that was the Brits. Without them you would be the 51st state in reality as well as name.
At least we wouldn't have to put up with the damn frogs. You don't see cajuns demanding signs in some frogish creole.
Re: (Score:2)
It was only "the brits" because the nation of Canada didn't exist yet. As it was though, the British who were actually from Britain were pretty busy fighting in other parts of the world at the time (hence why the US thought it would be easy to invade Canada) so it fell to the British who lived in the area now known as Canada to go to war to defend that area. It was those local "British" who burnt portions of DC. So saying "it wasn't the Canadians, it was the British!" is pretty pedantic really considering t
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean the frogs who defeated General Washington and later were much of the militia that burned Washington DC? The same frogs who haven't lost a war since 1763?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Um, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine you have 30 year old desk of a nice design. A specific plastic piece of the desk (for argument's sake) breaks. That piece cannot be purchased because the desk went out of production 25 years ago and replacement parts are not available. So you go ahead and print the piece you need - either downloading the 3D model or creating a copy of it yourself. You have a fixed desk. A few days later you get a visit from the boys in blue for copyright infringement. Replace the desk with a car, toy, or some other widget. According to your argument - you should spend possibly thousands on getting a new thing, rather than spending $1 and a little time to maintain the thing. According to your argument the rest of the world should shame you into wasting your money. Me, I'd rather not shame anyone for doing anything reasonable like keeping their stuff maintained.
Re: (Score:2)
A few days later you get a visit from the boys in blue for copyright infringement.
a) those guys don't exit
b) copyright infringement can only be called by the copyright holder or one of his proxies
c) the case you describe is no copyright infringement - you can copy for personal use what ever you want
Re: (Score:2)
you can copy for personal use what ever you want
Tell that to the MPAA, RIAA etc.
Re: (Score:2)
We talk here about UK and Europe.
There is no RIAA in Europe ... the relevant local institutions similar to RIAA demand payments for empty media and USB sticks, so that is covered.
As soon as you have purchased a legal license you can copy it for personal use. Depending on country you can share it with friends even.
Circumventing copy protection however is since introduction of DMCA and the corresponding laws in Europe "illegal".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about a desk piece (maybe a pull knob?), but I can think of plenty of vintage car trim pieces, like headlight trim, window knobs, etc, that I'd absolutely love to have an online database to be able to download, print, and install, especially on 60s/70s Japanese cars that were never in great supply in the US to begin with. (almost bought a Kei Van, it had mismatched headlight trim that looked a little odd.. Imagine being able to pull the right one, 3D scan, mirror, and then print something that
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good point - there's actually an environmental benefit to shorter copyright terms on designs (not so easily argued on paper works).
I wonder if our European cousins have anything to say about all of this. They recently enacted laws to save us Brits 27 pounds each per year, so would appear to be in the financial territory for new desks as well. They might have a final flick of their tail before we serve notice on them.
On balance though, fixing your own desk isn't really an issue (even if in theory it
Re: (Score:2)
went out of production 25 years ago
Which is why these designs should be protected by something more like trademark. Use it or lose it. If you want to sell replacement parts, great. If not, let me build my own. But I won't settle for having NO choices.
Re: (Score:2)
If they learned some honest trade they wouldn't cry now.
Repairs [Re:Um, no.] (Score:3, Informative)
If you need to repair something that's no longer manufactured and hard to find parts for, it's unrealistic to have to hire a lawyer to find and help negotiate "design usage rights". That's just plain dumb.
Or if it's a simple part with no patents on it, such as a gear, connector pin, etc. Ancient Greeks invented the (known) gear, for goodness sake.
There should be "repair reality" clause of some sort.
Re: (Score:2)
(From TFS))
...people can and will indeed be prosecuted for manufacturing their own furniture using their own tools...
...and someone else's design and engineering. That's a major effect of 3D printing now: someone else's design and engineering effort gets reduced to massively-replicated data. Sometimes it's intentional and done at the will of the creator, but with 3D scanners, it's a short jump to a lifestyle where if you want something, you only have to see it, and you can print a dozen. Why bother with commerce and incentivizing the design arts when you could just clone something for the cost of matierials?
It
Re: (Score:2)
You really should wait for 3d printers to get to 'as good as the original for cheap' before declaring that they have.
There are _insurmountable_ technical problems with plastic extrusion printers, they will never make parts as strong as injection molded ones. Simple copies aren't strong enough, not even close in most cases. To make them work at all requires reengineering the thing for the new material strength (or lack of strength across layers).
Also consider the cost/weight of filament vs. Injection mo
Re: (Score:2)
You really should wait for 3d printers to get to 'as good as the original for cheap' before declaring that they have.
We can already print titanium turbine blades. You really should read up on what 3D printers have done before declaring that they haven't.
Re: (Score:3)
With six figure metal sintering machines. The same machines that existed 10+ years ago before 3d printing became a craze.
There are no current plastic 3d printers that can make parts as strong as injection molded parts. There are no technologies on the horizon to do this. I'm sorry that doesn't fit your fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
With six figure metal sintering machines.
I can submit STL design files to their website, and get the part delivered to my door two days later. That does not cost six figures.
There are no current plastic 3d printers that can make parts as strong as injection molded parts.
So? In most cases they will be strong enough. If not, just design in some support ribs (which you often can't do with injection molding).
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why 3D printing should move toward printing molds for 3D objects rather than the objects themselves. That is, if there are materials available that would hold up to the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Thankyou for making your opinion clear, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council*.
I mean, you're wrong, because independent invention is in fact not a defense unless you can demonstrate you invented it first (since copyright law is functionally legalised extortion - and I say that as a good friend of several published authors), but your declaration of assholedom is duly noted.
*if that reference is unclear, I suggest you read The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy by Douglas Adams.
Re: (Score:2)
Only terrorists seek self sufficiency.
Exploiting the work of others without compensation is a far cry from self-sufficiency.
Do you think the furniture designs itself?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, this is rent seeking, nothing more. Most people will make furniture that is comfortable for them. And now, if it just happens to like some commercial design, it is prohibited. It's bullshit. It's real intent is obvious, but it will be a long time before this wall gets knocked down.
It's too bad you would even consider this. It's like telling people they can't grow their own food [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
If you're willing to work to grow your own food, why not work to design your own furniture?
Go study ergonomics. Go measure your biometrics. Go compute the load factors and necessary structural supports. Go design the contours and material attachments required to make something that is perfectly comfortable for you, rather than just cribbing someone else's work. Then if it happens to look like a commercial design, you have a nice solid legal ground to stand on and say "I made this on my own".
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, just copy an old design.
Just because something becomes copyrightable, doesn't imply a race to the copyright office to claim the old work.
Re: (Score:2)
you have a nice solid legal ground to stand on and say "I made this on my own".
That "legal ground" cost over $400 an hour, gee, thanks! Man, it's bunk! It's a lawyer's paradise.
Re: (Score:2)
You can be self-sufficient for that, too. All you have to do is spend a bit of time learning your laws and legal procedures. Start at your local library.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't. When you say you want to be "self-sufficient", exactly what resource do you think you're going to spend?
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, the folks designing fine Interni sofas and real Jacuzzis would likely rather sit on their porches than design such luxuries for you if they aren't being paid. What makes your time and effort worth so much more than theirs?
Re: (Score:2)
They will get paid for their craftsmanship that can't be duplicated by a 3D printer. There are millions of copies of the Mona Lisa out there. Is the original any less valuable for it? I have a friend who paints on canvas. His customers don't want a copy coming out of a LaserJet. They want his work. Yet he does sell them that way also for considerably less, but on nice paper.
This law is for the rent collectors, not the creators.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't ask about the craftsmen building the sofas and hot tubs. I asked about the designers who did the design work that you're duplicating with your printer just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
They can get paid for working, just like I do.
Ah, there's the crux of your argument! It seems that you don't consider design or engineering to be actual work.
And another thing, copyright wasn't even created to protect the artist/creator. The was a time when they were not even considered in the law. It was made to protect the distribution/publishing industry, to whom the artist/creator had to give up all his rights.
That's a fantastic bit of revisionism you've got there, but it's not how things actually happened. The first publishing laws were effectively censorship, requiring all books to be approved by the state, lest they spread any bad ideas. There was no concern for authors, who usually were removed from their works entirely. There was also no concept of intellectual property, but rather the first publis
Re: (Score:2)
In the early 1700s (250 years after Gutenberg's press), the first actual copyright law (the Statute of Anne) permitted anyone to publish and have legal protection against unauthorized reproduction.
No. The first copyright law was at Alexandria. It gave the state the right to copy any books which came through the port. It was about extending and spreading knowledge, not about restricting its spread. The Statute of Anne was specifically about revenue generation through rent-seeking. It is typically evil empire-building bullshit which retards progress in both science and the arts, and here you are defending it to the end. Congratulations, you're proud to retard progress! Sounds like a full-retard move to
Re: (Score:2)
Go study ergonomics. Go measure your biometrics. Go compute the load factors and necessary structural supports. Go design the contours and material attachments required to make something that is perfectly comfortable for you, rather than just cribbing someone else's work.
I have build my own bed. The only thing I have measured is the bedspring I was reusing from my old bed. For the rest, I have put together some plank in a way the my bed look like a japanese bed. (eg: no mine, but similar [lumberjocks.com]). What is its load factor? I really don't know, I just put some wood plank together. What where the structural support needed? I really don't know, I just put thing in a way that everything stuck together thank to gravity and need no nails or screws.
Then if it happens to look like a commercial design, you have a nice solid legal ground to stand on and say "I made this on my own".
My bed look like any commercial design of
Re: (Score:2)
Exploiting the work of others without compensation
A monopoly for 25 years is still "compensation".
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, if a man wants to built a chair from wood, even without designing it on paper they will already have a base picture in the head of what will come out based on the definition of a chair and its purpose, and any form which characterizes the chair will come from the individual's personality/character influencing the end design.
So if he wants to build a chair with a 3D printer, then he can build his own chair. He can throw some blocks together in a modeler, print it out, and let his personality influence the end design, not mine. Of course, then there's the material engineering to be added, like bracing on the legs or a dished seat, or design features like a reclining mechanism, or an adjustable armrest. What figured out how to make those function and fit the chair's design was my personality and character, combined with my time a
Re: (Score:2)
...people will wind up in court...
Well, yes. As with any new legislation, there will be court cases to establish its reasonable limits as precedent. There will be a claim that a simple chair is copyrighted, and another claim that it is public domain, and the courts will have to explain the reasons for their decisions. In time, the laws and interpretations become predictable.
...you assholes pushed for more and more extensions and restrictions...
That's fascinating... I've not mentioned my opinion of copyright duration in this discussion at all. Since you brought it up, I'll say that I think copyright terms sho
Re: (Score:2)
The use of vans with directional antennae looking for a flow of banned 3d model data would be interesting.
Physically connected data would ensure creation privacy. Also be aware of download file tracking or site visits been logged to detect file downloads.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA has crap similar to this also. Big co's legally bribe* politicians to help them milk money out of the little guy (little co's and individuals) for unrealistic reasons.
* Thanks to Citizens United ruling etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA has crap similar to this also. Big co's legally bribe* politicians to help them milk money out of the little guy (little co's and individuals) for unrealistic reasons.
* Thanks to Citizens United ruling etc.
Apparently you share a common misunderstanding of the Citizens United decision. Large corporations and wealthy individuals could donate large amounts of cash indirectly before CU and they still can. What changed is that CU allows groups of private individuals to pool their resources to do the same thing. It's been vilified by both sides (actively by the (D)s, passively by the (R)s) and strongly propagandized as being almost the exact opposite of what it is and does *precisely because* it empowers citizens t
Re: (Score:2)
UK certainly seems to be dragging its feet on the matter. Maybe we should simply kick them out so we can get on with our lives?
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't 3D objects be subject to patent law, not copyright law?
In short, no. Design patents are a thing, and they are useful. The problem lies in making them last so long. No patent nor copyright should last longer than a generation; that's long enough for them to become part of a culture and letting corporations control your culture is toxic in every way.