3D Printed Copyright Creep
from the copyright-keeps-spreading dept
When your car runs out of gas, you can fill it up at any gas station you like. You never worry if the company that made your car has an exclusivity deal with one gas station or another, or even if that company has a preference for one brand of gas. In fact, you would probably find it some combination of ridiculous, galling, and offensive if the company that made your car threatened you with a copyright infringement lawsuit if you didn't go to their preferred gas station to fill up.This dynamic is true for all sorts of things. Once you buy it, it is up to you to decide how you maintain it and replace what needs replacing. This is true of gas in a car, water in a bottle, and filters in a vacuum cleaner. But as software gets introduced into more and more everyday objects, some companies are trying to stretch copyright law beyond its limit in order to lock you into buying replacements only from them.
A decade ago, we saw this play out with 2D printers and toner ink. Some companies that made printers decided that they would prefer that consumers buy replacement toner (at a substantial markup) only from them. In order to attempt to lock themselves in as the only place to buy replacement toner, these companies designed their printers to look for a special verification chip on new toner cartridges to prove that the new cartridge came from them. When another company figured out a way around these chips, the printer manufacturers ran to copyright law to try and shut them down.
Fortunately, the courts saw through this ruse and were able to recognize that allowing consumers to choose where they get replacement toner for their printers has nothing to do with copyright law. Unfortunately, today some 3D printer manufacturers are trying this same gambit and hoping for a different outcome.
In a proceeding in front of the Copyright Office, 3D printer manufacturers offer a parade of horribles of what will happen [pdf] if users are free to choose the materials they use in their printers. Notably, none of these have anything to do with copyright. The only connection any of this has with copyright is that the printer manufacturers use a small line of code to verify if they sold the refills.
Just as adding a verification chip to a gas tank shouldn't be used as a pretext to lock a car owner into a single source of gasoline, adding a verification chip shouldn't be used as a pretext to lock a 3D printer user into a single source of 3D printing material.
3D printing is an emerging engine for innovation, and because of that this issue would be important even in isolation. However, the battle being fought over 3D printer material occurs against the backdrop of other attempts to use copyright as a pretext to limit consumer choice in all sorts of contexts. Be it accessing data from medical devices implanted in your body, repairing farm equipment that breaks down in the field, or unlocking your cell phone, the current proceeding before the Copyright Office – known as the "1201 triennial" after the part of the law that created it – is a preview of a future where manufacturers have the power to lock consumers into whatever they please.
That is what makes the Registrar of Copyrights' decisions so important in this proceeding. Not only will the right decision clear the way for consumer choice. Strongly siding with users and against copyright creeping into everything sends a strong message that copyright has its purpose, but that it should not be abused.
Public Knowledge is hosting a 3D printing event at the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center April 29 from 10:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. This free event is an opportunity to engage with 3D printing experts on panels and interact with the latest 3D printing technology. You may register here.
Michael Weinberg is a 3D printing advocate and can be found at michaelweinberg.org. He is a former Vice President of Public Knowledge and currently IP & General Counsel of Shapeways, but writes here in his personal capacity.
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: 1201, 3d printer materials, 3d printing, anti-circumvention, copyright, dmca, dmca 1201, triennial review
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cognitive Dissonance or Massive Irony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rights-managed madness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or...
It'll probably be more sensible and less encumbered by old thinking and rulings than anything that comes out of the Copyright Office. And less likely to harm the interests of the American people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"copyright has its purpose, but that it should not be abused"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "copyright has its purpose, but that it should not be abused"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
think3d
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ruling were not about cartridges. They were about the principle of mis-using copyright in attempt to get an exclusive right to sell some other product. Call you thing a 'pod' doesn't change the principle. Nor does calling it a 'filament'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Aside from having even a small sense of ethics. But these companies clearly lack even that, so your statement remains correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Necause I'm currently in the market for 4 (medium to high-end) 3d printers for my workplace and even if these particular companies now back down, I will be making a recommendation NOT to use those companies for any reason whatsoever as they can no longer be trusted.
ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that some 3d printers have upgradeable firmware, so they could add DRM at any point in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]