Free Software Foundation Certifies 3D Printer -- And Why That Matters
from the I'm-sorry,-Dave,-I'm-afraid-I-can't-do-that dept
Last week Mike wrote about a new patent from Intellectual Ventures that seeks to assert ownership of the idea of DRM for 3D printing. The article in Technology Review that Techdirt linked to explains how things would work:
"You load a file into your printer, then your printer checks to make sure it has the rights to make the object, to make it out of what material, how many times, and so on," says Michael Weinberg, a staff lawyer at the nonprofit Public Knowledge, who reviewed the patent at the request of Technology Review. "It’s a very broad patent."
That's a pretty obvious approach, which any halfway competent engineer would come up with, so it's hard to see how it was ever granted a patent. But leaving aside this familiar problem with the patent system, there's an important issue skated over in the above explanation. It assumes that the printer has the power to disobey you -- that is, to refuse to print out an object that you want, because of the DRM in the file describing it, or because it doesn't have DRM at all. This parallels the situation for computers, where DRM is based on the assumption that your computer is not fully under your control, and has the ability to ignore your commands. That's one of the reasons why free software is so important: it is predicated on the idea that the user is always in control.
Against the background of the new 3D-printing patent, this announcement from the Free Software Foundation (FSF) that it has recently certified a 3D printer made by Aleph Objects as "respecting the user's freedom", takes on a particular significance:
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today awarded its first Respects Your Freedom (RYF) certification to the LulzBot AO-100 3D Printer sold by Aleph Objects, Inc. The RYF certification mark means that the product meets the FSF's standards in regard to users' freedom, control over the product, and privacy.
Here are the FSF's criteria for making the award:
The desire to own a computer or device and have full control over it, to know that you are not being spied on or tracked, to run any software you wish without asking permission, and to share with friends without worrying about Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) -- these are the desires of millions of people who care about the future of technology and our society. Unfortunately, hardware manufacturers have until now relied on close cooperation with proprietary software companies that demanded control over their users. As citizens and their customers, we need to promote our desires for a new class of hardware -- hardware that anyone can support because it respects your freedom.
That is, in making the award, the FSF has established that the LulzBot remains fully under the user's control.
Until now, that hasn't been an issue -- there's no practical way to stop someone from simply downloading a file and then printing it out on a compatible 3D printer. But the patent from Intellectual Ventures is the first step towards a time when users of 3D printers will be confronted with issues of control in exactly the same way that computer users are today.
Once 3D printing becomes more widespread, we can certainly expect pressure from manufacturers to bring in laws against unauthorized copying of physical objects and circumvention of 3D DRM schemes, just as the copyright industries have pushed for ever-harsher laws against file sharing. They may even try to get open hardware systems like the LulzBot made illegal on the grounds that the user is fully in control – just as media companies would doubtless love to make computers running free software illegal. That's a battle they lost, largely because free software existed long before digital media files were sold to consumers. We may not be so lucky next time.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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 printing, free software, open source, user freedom
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One of the things of 3D printing is the ability to produce replacement parts, especially those fiddly little plastic things that seem to be everywhere. Some of those fiddly pieces of plastic are actually critical to the safety of a design, such as a breakaway connector in a loop chain on blinds (keeps kids from choking on them). Perhaps something as simple as a seat belt kit to allow children to sit with the shoulder belt pulled down, or perhaps a pin that keeps a safety fence (for blocking stairs in a house) from opening.
At some point, some bright bulb will start to produce, using 3D printing, these critical components, and start selling them. They may not work as intended, and may lead to accidents or unintended harm to equipment or end users. There will be much in the liability field here.
If the printer company didn't follow guidelines, or made a device that does not properly check drm, or labeling requirements, or safety requirements, they may face some liability.
Further, the person who produced the 3D instructions to build the part in question may also run the risk, knowing that people could reproduce the part without the proper materials or processing.
There is a lot here that is not clear legally, and the rush to get to the finish line is very likely to leave some people with massive legal nightmares to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course "compatible" is an issue here since while it wouldn't stop you using printers that come, say, with out DRM built in, once the DRM lock is broken it would make 3D printers that the industry likes more desirable.
It is going to be interesting to see if the makers of 3D printing end up being held libel if a part one of their printers prints is defective but I doubt it's going to be a killer issue. Home manufacture already exist and these problems already exist on a home scale. People don't commonly sue the tools they used to build something if what they built ended up hurting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Oct 19th, 2012 @ 2:06am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
it would be like 3d printing of parts where you have to use a pen to draw each layer. The pen wouldn't be an issue!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As the other poster suggested, you don't know what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What is rational and what people sue (And remarkably win?!!) about are very different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's all a 3D printer or the computer controlling it does.
Just because the instructions are much more complicated changes nothing. All a computer can do is follow instructions put into it by a user (whether that user has to call tech support for help plugging in their iPhone or some uber-geek who programs the Linux kernel).
Your fear mongering is overblown and the product of the lawyer culture that infects the country.
The maker of the original product is not liable if an end user replaces some part with their own printed one. The maker of the 3D printer is not liable for a user deciding to replace some part in another product with something from the printer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thinking and discussing this now may help us avoid this w/ 3D printing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keroberos: "replace "3D printer" with "CNC machine", or "welding robot" or "injection molder"" Yes, you could do that, and almost all of those are run by companies who produce products in the market place and face liability issues when they fail. If the software in the CNC machine meant that parts were poorly made, or the welding robots only did 50% of the job required because of defective software, do you not think that the companies that make and sell them wouldn't be somewhat liable?
What happens when the 3D printing world sets a spec that requires certain materials to make certain parts, enforced by a "build chip" in the printers? If someone chooses to bypass it (hacking it, I guess) and using substandard raw materials, who is liable? What happens is a company sells a 3D printer that ignores these safety features?
You see, we don't know where it's going, but I do find it all scary. People without skills making key components that others could be hurt or lose their lives over is no laughing matter. There is just too much in play here, too many ways for this to go to shit. Vicarious liability and general liability suggests that the manufactures, especially those who make "wide open" products that intentionally avoid any restriction or safety protocols may be at risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you think we need to license every tool?
Should anyone be able to rotate the tires on their car? How many lives are they putting at risk if they don't tighten properly? Outlaw wrenches & jacks? This is no laughing matter.
No more custom cars or bikes etc... made by "amateurs?"
Trying to protect every idiot on the face of the planet is killing me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DRM to combat crap unsafe counterfeiting !
Let us control what you do for your safety !
No thanks, I rather keep my freedom and control of what I do.
A good certification program for sellers is appropriate in this. It doesn't really matter how the unsafe counterfeits were done with a 3D printer or a sweatshop to that respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only true problem for companies are fears of massive increase in pirated hardware. For now it is only fears, uncertainties and doubts. If it gets to be a problem I am pretty sure that politicians are ready to smash the dangerous machine thorugh laws!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
3D printers can only produce prototype parts, for evaluation before being put into production.
The parts produced by these printers cannot be used in any useful way, except to take the next step in part production, be it lost wax, mold formation, etc. but they cannot use them directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The licences I see, using free software, generally allude to the fact that nothing is guaranteed. It's not even guaranteed to work. "If it breaks, you get to keep both pieces."
I'd also expect the developer to query the machine to see if it's supplied with the requisite raw material to actually make the part. My normal printers notice when they're out of paper or ink.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3D Printing
3D Printing is the biggest new kid on the block and could even the playing field for rest of world, keep us all free from recession .
It will save time ,money and resources help the environment so people can have what they want, when they want.
Americans seems to have rushed through this patent to corner the market and destroy the right of others next thing you will have (swat) kicking your door in taking your equipment as-if your printing money.
All I can say is go team U.S of(A) gotta love those yanks
Bar@3d-magic.co.uk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incentives for R&D?
However, what incentive do individuals and companies have to invent new products that can be printed at home using a 3D printer if they cannot control the licensing of the product?
I'm not talking about something simple and generic here. What happens when 3D home printing gets sufficiently sophisticated to allow the printing of electronic devices like a phone? If you want an android phone, will the consumer simply print whatever hardware they can obtain freely and then license the software? At this time, it's much easier to "pirate" the software than it is the hardware. From where do revenues arrive? Does this not destroy incentives for companies to innovate and make a product that works "better"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incentives for R&D?
And when it no longer takes large companies to design and manufacture phones, those companies should either start doing something that's still relevant, or just shut down altogether.
What, should the government grant them an arbitrary right to stay in business, despite the fact that nobody needs them anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incentives for R&D?
We aren't in Diamond Age yet.
At the moment, home 3d printers deal in plastics. And mainly ones that are good at melting, but not great in other ways.
It's also not exactly free to make stuff - just like the ink in your regular printer isn't free. Economies of scale would indicate that depending on complexity of the part, making your own 'pirated' copy could cost you more than buying an official item.
And say we do get to Diamond Age levels, where you have machines creating different molecules on the fly and assembling things from the molecular level (which is what you need to make working electronics in a "printer")
I have a hunch things would be so different in that future that this pirating discussion would be irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incentives for R&D?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incentives for R&D?
At that point, we'll have to come up with another economic system to replace the current iteration of Feudalism.
Economists? Time to get busy designing....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They might not have managed to make running free software illegal. What they did manage doing is make it so if your using free software you cannot legally enjoy your media. This is one of the big problems I ran into running Linux. In order to watch movies I bought and paid for I have to break several laws to watch them on a linux box. Needless to say my efforts to go "legit" did not last long....
I hold out hope that one day these morons will learn that guys like me do not give a damn about their stupid restrictions. I bought my movie on a bluray and I'm now going to watch that movie when, where, and how I damn well please. Your DRM is not going to stop me, all it will do is piss me off and make me less likely to spend money on a movie in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the right principle
All that's really missing from the picture now is a good 3-D scanner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's very unlikely that 3D printing will get even close to matching the costs (and retail price) of injection molded plastic parts. It's a pipe dream the 3D printing people are trying to push, but it's just not very realistic.
How much is material, anyway? It looks like about $20-$40 a pound for the raw material, and with waste, it's not likely that you can produce anything cheaper than injection molding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Limitations on copyright to 3D objects
§ 113
A replacement part is a useful article and the extent of copyright is limited to features separate and existing independently of the use of the article. You can't make exact copies unless the utilitarian (fitness for some purpose or worth to some end) nature doesn't allow otherwise.
From House Report 94-1796
You could imagine that replacement parts fall within utilitarian constraints by and large.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Limitations on copyright to 3D objects
Look to pages 54-55:
The Supreme Court case Mazer v. Stein - 347 U.S. 201 (1954) makes the utiltarian/ornamentation distinction determining ornamental aspects of utilitarian objects are copyrightable, in the particular case lamp base sculpture art. Copyright doesn't extend to the utilitarian aspects (an electric lamp).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]