Copyrights and 3D printable objects: a forthcoming war!
Free and customizable GoPro-compatible mounts: not illegal because I designed them! Still, would GoPro appreciate it when they would charge $30+ for this? |
Will all the printer owners become the next pirates?
Is there a chance that we soon get commercial repositories where we can buy, download, customize, and print Lego bricks, Barbie dolls and cheap vehicle spare parts? Or will it be the hard way with inefficient injunctions, DMCA and court battles again ?
Makers, designers and the copyright holders
Is Yoda's head a good, huh, "test"? Oh, yes for sure...
Consider the following example: many if not all the makers soon or later 3D-printed the famous head of Yoda from StarWars. Just download it here, for free!What the heck?! Copyrighted "Youtube" while published in the UK Dailymail without a single reference to LucasArt? |
Now think about the expensive "Mechwarriors" or "Barbies" that are being sold to youngsters? Would people naturally restrain from printing them for a few cents at home for their kids? Probably not more than they download illegal movies.
So is copyright something 3D-printer owners care about?
Actually, I cannot tell for the users that never design an object. Strangely though, designers are probably more common than users as for now (april 2013). So the question is more interesting when stated as: "do makers from the 3D printing community care about copyrights?"After all, most of us publish things under "free" licences, such as the Creative Commons, the GNU or other open source licences. We design open hardware and open software, which really characterize one of the most positive and human aspect of the 3D printing scene.
But still, most of us do care about our rights : I easily recall a serious debate spawned by Josef Prusa, one of the prominent and early founders, which he appropriately named "occupy thingiverse: be the owner of your designs".
"Occupy Thingiverse" was a response to the discovery of excessive claims of property on our own designs by MakerBot Industries, the private owner of the repository. MBI was once a hero of the Open Hardware movement, but they changed their mind,with the help of a few million dollars, and no big consideration for the bootstrapping contributions made by the community. |
Complex licences rule the world, let me add this anti-copyleft Open Hardware logo BS derivative! |
More on this: as a consequence, some designers removed their designs and left the website, and others including me debated about alternatives to the privately-owned and biased Thingiverse. Even though I am getting lots of views on my objects hosted on Thingiverse I feel uncomfortable with the policy and I would favor open repositories with no biased or obviously paid promoted reviews... One of the most promising and smartest project in my opinion is the decentralized thingtracker network by Gary Hogson, were people collect and share lists of pointers to objects that can be stored anywhere, including Thingiverse (no fanaticism here).
So you bet we do care about our rights! Given this, it is hard to ask for the right to copy and let people download any model regardless of the copyright holder? Do not think that I am saying that makers/designers are pirates though : for examples, all my objects are genuine creations of mine, but for a few clear and legal derivative of other's work.
How will the "majors", aka the Industry, fight back ?
Soon or later, the "majors" will increasingly go after the 3D model repositories with DMCA requirements (though DMCA is a very US-specific stuff and inefficient approach). It already happened a few times, but I would not be surprised that individuals soon or later will get sued: print a head, go to jail. There are also long-lasting rumors of digital right management systems that could be added to the printer. Will the open source printers be banned because they lack the special trademarked chip to asses and decode the 3D shape? Will designed be required to pay to sign their design?
Am I pessimistic? Think about what happened with MP3 music... Nowadays even a grandma that illegally downloaded a few songs may get in deep trouble and outrageous fines (apparently random ones). And it does not prevent it anyway. People would think it was just bad luck.
Copyrighted music vs. copyrighted objects: just rename .MP3 to .STL
The status of 3D printing models matches a lot that of the early MP3 music tunes. Majors first did not realize the "threat" to their intellectual property at first. Then, they only tried to stop it by suing everyone. They all failed to consider it as an opportunity, and they let new players such as iTunes get the market and start eating their massive margins.
The brilliant printed music box by Philipp Tiefenbacher. His licence would let me make commercial use of it, but what if I encode a copyrighted song and get paid to play it back in public? |
Let us just hope that the industry reacts with intelligence and good will this time. Could it adapt to the homemade 3D printable things? I don't know but if they just try to take the whole things down they will fail as miserably as the majors with the music industry. Who buys real CDs nowadays? Who would still go to a store buy a Barbie when it can download and print a customizable version for a few cents instead?
I foresee as many that the 3D printing battle to come will be something order of magnitudes bigger than music!
So what is the way out for the industry?
Who knows? I am no economist, and this is a really serious issue that many should think about. A lot of "injustice" on both sides is to be expected, with abuse on both sides also.
Could the industry adopt the practice of a few existing ones? Some companies deliver a full blown notice of each of the parts of the object you purchase, with references or sizes of each of them. This often occurs for high-end electric craftsman tools, electronic measuring devices and so. It means you know what is inside and you have a chance to repair it yourself.
Could Lego publish the official specifications of their bricks (well, may be they did already), and go further by letting you download them and print them at your house after you pay online? Why not?
To me, it also means that the company that produces the thing knows how to make a profitable business without hiding behind a stupid set of ridiculous patents nor environmentally aggressive planned obsolescence.
Is "opening" you specs a threat to your business?
Consider my desktop DC regulated power supply: it came with the detailed electronic schematics and all the references of its components, which is not unusual for such goods. And I can even download them legally, as people that did not buy the power supply !
Now is it worth making a copy myself? Well, it was not that expensive. It was well packaged in its quality housing, it came with some QA and a warranty that I would not have if I made it myself. And the time I spared can be spent on writing this post instead...
So, in the end, I just trust the company that built it, and I would recommend and buy again. It is another counter-example of planned obsolescence. Bingo for them! And another happy customer.
Now is it worth making a copy myself? Well, it was not that expensive. It was well packaged in its quality housing, it came with some QA and a warranty that I would not have if I made it myself. And the time I spared can be spent on writing this post instead...
So, in the end, I just trust the company that built it, and I would recommend and buy again. It is another counter-example of planned obsolescence. Bingo for them! And another happy customer.