Is This The First DMCA Notice Over 3D Printer Plans?
from the begin-the-beginning dept
Just a few months ago, we highlighted how an upcoming battle in the copyright world will be coming from the rise in 3D printing, and the ability to simply print out new physical objects based on plans. And, as a few different folks have sent in, a site that collects and aggregates 3D printer plans called Thingiverse recently said that it's received its first ever DMCA takedown notice over a plan for a 3D printer object. To avoid liability, of course, the site complied. The specific DMCA takedown involved this 3D printable design of "the impossible triangle."
In the end, Schwanitz decided to back down, rescinding the takedown notice and promising to release his version into the public domain (where it may have really been all along). Still, this definitely is an early warning sign of things to come. I'm sure it won't be long before we hear of more copyright issues related to 3D printers, and they'll be over issues a lot more serious than an optical illusion.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 3d printers, copyright, dmca, penrose triangle
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They call it dirt for a reason
You once again attempt to fully engrace me with your presence, but with a three-week-old story.
Who prioritizes your stories? I ask because I want to give them a reference to work for my competitors.
Keep up the good work (I think)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They call it dirt for a reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They call it dirt for a reason
The most important being that the plans to print something on a 3D printer would be the same as the plans to build a house. Yes, you can copyright building plans (and even trademark the "names" of these places), even if the look of the building is similar to other designs in the past. Architectural plans are both science and art, and merit protection.
It wouldn't be unreasonable for that to be extended off to 3D printable objects (and maybe even the future Star Trek Replicator Device).
If designers want to put their product in the public domain (or 3D CC license), that is their right and more power to them. But there should not be some sort of assumption of free to start with, as it would not line up with any other legal standing for art or design items.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They call it dirt for a reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They call it dirt for a reason
Cost of materials - Consumer spends $X
Cost of finding blueprints - Consumer spends X amount of time finding their desired schematics or building their own
Cost of a DMCA takedown because people aren't buying your products but making their own?
Companies are going to hurt themselves.
Finally, the cost of knowing you have a printer to make up new ideas for a cheaper price? Priceless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They call it dirt for a reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They call it dirt for a reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They call it dirt for a reason
It wouldn't be unreasonable for that to be extended off to 3D printable objects (and maybe even the future Star Trek Replicator Device).
Why don't we just stop coming up with new technology? It seems like any time someone invents something innovative, most of the effort goes into finding ways to put limits on it. Limits either built into the technology itself or imposed on it by the legal system.
Companies make faster internet services and then place caps on the accounts so that people can't actually use it like they want to. We invent digital files that can be copied an infinite number of times with no loss in quality and all the corporations spend millions coming up with ways to make them un-copyable. They invent display devices capable of beautiful HD pictures and then they saddle them with restrictions on what can be connected to them. Companies like Netflix come up with the idea of letting people watch streaming movies online and the studios try to kill it with high fees and restrictive licensing.
Why even bother inventing something new when it will just be the source of controversy and a push to have all sorts of limits and restrictions placed on it? Much better to just freeze technology at its current level than to try adapting to a world where things are no longer finite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They call it dirt for a reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They call it dirt for a reason
> extended off to 3D printable objects (and
> maybe even the future Star Trek Replicator
> Device).
I'm waiting for them to invent the holodeck technology and the furious legal issues involved with celebrities upset that Joe-Six Pack can come home from a rough day at the plant and order up Angelina Jolie for a night of X-rated adventure.
Or the guy who divorces his real wife in favor of an completely realistic hologram which he can turn off whenever he likes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They call it dirt for a reason
Mike was actually posting this BEFORE it happened, but, because of a temporal shift, caused by an unpatched bug in his server's Linux Kernel, it actually got posted long AFTER it happened.
Or maybe this has been on the story queue for ages, but got pushed back because other, more important stories kept showing up. Nah, occam's razor: Time shift did it :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They call it dirt for a reason
You once again attempt to fully engrace me with your presence, but with a weak lametroll attempt.
Who informed you of the best place to get breaking news? Did you figure it out all by yourself? I ask because I want to give them a reference to work for my competitors.
Keep up the good work (I think)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They call it dirt for a reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They call it dirt for a reason
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They call it dirt for a reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They call it dirt for a reason
Not everyone is a dilettante with nothing better to do than jack off and troll blogs (I think).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They call it dirt for a reason
> me with your presence
"Engrace" is not a word, genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They call it dirt for a reason
(1) Story is just a few days old, not three weeks.
(2) We make no claims to breaking news, and quite frequently write about stories that are three weeks old or older.
(3) This story includes much more recent news, including yesterday's revelation that the guy backed down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They call it dirt for a reason
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=oyZxzkd-Jsk
When he becomes 16, he's going to have many more opportunities than I ever had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They call it dirt for a reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spot On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spot On
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illusion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doctorow novel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doctorow novel
http://craphound.com/?p=573
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much has changed
How will this affect the industries that rely on physical scarce goods? Will the embracing of this technology by many industries be futile as home 3D printers become more feasible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]