They use thermoplastic, so they are already reusable. Just about every recyclable container is thermoplastic. Polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and PVC are all thermoplastics. Some are better suited to particular purposes, but they all can be melted and reshaped repeatedly.
What is stopping people from shredding those items so the resulting pellets can be melted into more raw material for the printers? This seems to be very ecologically efficient. Use cheap, reusable raw materials, make them into new items, and break them down into raw material again after they no longer serve a use. It seems to me that 3D printing is a way to create an abundance of highly reusable resources. Why would you toss useful raw materials into a landfill when you can just use it to make something else, saving you money in the process? I will be glad to see billions of people using these tools to see what they can create. I welcome the infinitely renewable, ubiquitously abundant, post-scarcity economy and their beneficent overloads.
It goes without saying that this guy is clueless. If he wants to be paid, and paid consistently, he should be seeking people willing to pay him to do what he does. If it takes him X number of hours to make something and he requires Y quantities of income to live on, then he should be seeking people that will collectively meet that threshold so that he can release it directly to the public domain. Then he has his income and he can extend it even further by touring.
If things like Kickstarter have taught us anything, is that people will pay to have stuff created and earn VIP/premium benefits for increasingly larger contributions. It's probably the least risky path for anybody to get paid for their work. If nobody pays you, you're not obligated to produce anything. If the threshold is met and you deliver on your promise, you're guaranteed to get paid. It's a distributed version of a work for hire model. Instead of one client, you have many and they all want the results of your work, which they are willing to pay their share for.
The biggest convenience is that I don't have to have a local copy of every movie, show, song, or book in existence. Imagine if you had to download every work that exists in a digital format to your hard drive in order to access them at you whim. Downloads are cheap, but you have to wait for them and you have to have space to store the download. So yeah, the selling point is remote storage and instant access.
I don't think anyone who cares about the subject is incognizant of the fact that DRM is a tool to make people buy more copies of the same thing when they ought to be able to make their own copy after they've paid for the first one. It's quite apparent that is what they sought to achieve.
As the AC said, the answer isn't "NO!", it's "give us more money and we'll think about it."
Re: Absolutely IS! "I made it, therefore I own it", and ALL rights to dispose of it.
"Vote with you money."
What a laughable and impotent platitude! If money gets you "votes" in the market, then who has the most votes? The people with a war chest the size of the Exxon Valdez, you twit! If your influence is contingent on how much money you have, then it's pretty plain why nothing changes. The status quo has the money. The status quo has the votes. The status quo has the most influence and they can leverage that influence to make sure they get to keep it. So you can take your "vote with your money" excuse and stuff it up your atrophied posterior until you can tickle your adenoids with it.
Do you even know what an ad hominem attack even is? No, you don't. "You can't trust John's recommendations on tax policy, he doesn't even have a job!". That, is an ad hominem. Calling you out on your bad behavior is not an ad hominem.
Culture is also about the influence it has on you. A person given a new idea is never the same as they once were before, so even an unpublished work contributes to culture because that person was changed culturally when they created it.
Culture is the norms, mores, symbols, beliefs, and customs of a group of people. They don't have to be communicated directly to influence culture so long as one person is influenced by it, namely, the author. If even one person is influenced, it propagates throughout a society and culture is changed.
"What you want to do is to take away the rights of artists to do what they want in favor of forcing them to do what you want. You don't care about artists and you are in no position to take the moral high ground. You have absolutely no regard for morality and are only self interested (assuming your post isn't sarcasm which is hard to tell)."
That's a hefty presumption there. You forget that to grant artists those rights, they had to take them away from the public. So, to use your own argument: You don't care about the public and you are in no position to take the moral high ground. You have absolutely no regard for the freedom of speech and are only self interested.
Don't pretend that arguing that copyright is broken means robbing people of their freedom. Freedom was taken away when copyright law was written, presumably, to promote the creation and distribution of more useful works for the public to assimilate.
Copyright was a compromise between the public and the author in order to form a mutual exchange of one benefit for another. As time went on, one side gained more and the other lost more. But, fortunately, technology caught up to copyright and has made great strides in returning to the public what was lost and even making it evident that in an environment of ubiquitous copying, copyright is not only ineffective at serving its intended purpose, it actually inhibits it.
Enough of the diatribe. Just shut up. I'm through arguing with people that spit out the same bullshit every day. Do us all a favor and just shut up. You're not a hero of copyright, you're a sad, annoying, pain in the ass that doesn't do anything but throw a fit like a two-year old. Take your toys and go home little baby.
Well then, the system needs to be restructured, doesn't it? Create a single public network that ISP's are permitted to sell access in exchange for administering the network. So the network is the public, but the ISP's provides the service of running it for the public's benefit.
It's like this, we have this road that the people built. We need someone to provide transportation on that road because we don't want to do it. We ask that businesses provide transportation on that road, for which the businesses will have the opportunity to sell such a service to the public. Basically, you can use our stuff for your profit if you make it useful to us.
I remember when that image of the service packages for internet was circulating at the beginning of the net neutrality debate and people said it would never happen. Well, guess what?
If the words have value in being retold, it doesn't matter who originally said them. Accreditation doesn't bear any measure of merit on the words, to take offense in their reuse is nothing more than an appeal to emotion that is fueled by a misguided concession to marketing concerns.
He shouldn't have to apologize, and we do not all agree that what he did was wrong on any level. Any line you can draw on what is acceptable can be argued as subjective. Thinking that you can tell sewage from water after the two have been mixed is self-deluding. (Yes, that was a pun.)
On the post: Will 3D Printing Transform The World -- Or Just Fill It With Non-Biodegradable Personalized Junk?
Re:
On the post: Will 3D Printing Transform The World -- Or Just Fill It With Non-Biodegradable Personalized Junk?
On the post: Please Stop Trying To Argue That Netflix Should Be More Like Traditional Cable TV
If background noise is all you're looking for...
On the post: MPAA Head Chris Dodd: I'm Willing To Discuss Copyright Reform As Long As Nothing Changes
Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA Head Chris Dodd: I'm Willing To Discuss Copyright Reform As Long As Nothing Changes
On the post: Pioneering French Electronic Artist Thinks Creative Industry Should Get '$300-400' Of Each Smartphone Sale
Re: Re:
On the post: Pioneering French Electronic Artist Thinks Creative Industry Should Get '$300-400' Of Each Smartphone Sale
Re:
On the post: Pioneering French Electronic Artist Thinks Creative Industry Should Get '$300-400' Of Each Smartphone Sale
If things like Kickstarter have taught us anything, is that people will pay to have stuff created and earn VIP/premium benefits for increasingly larger contributions. It's probably the least risky path for anybody to get paid for their work. If nobody pays you, you're not obligated to produce anything. If the threshold is met and you deliver on your promise, you're guaranteed to get paid. It's a distributed version of a work for hire model. Instead of one client, you have many and they all want the results of your work, which they are willing to pay their share for.
On the post: Pioneering French Electronic Artist Thinks Creative Industry Should Get '$300-400' Of Each Smartphone Sale
Re:
On the post: DRM Is The Right To Make Up Your Own Copyright Laws
Re: Re: Re: Re: DRM
On the post: DRM Is The Right To Make Up Your Own Copyright Laws
Re: DRM Is The Right for **Corporations** To Make Up Their Own Copyright Laws
On the post: DRM Is The Right To Make Up Your Own Copyright Laws
Re: The fallout from DRM
As the AC said, the answer isn't "NO!", it's "give us more money and we'll think about it."
On the post: DRM Is The Right To Make Up Your Own Copyright Laws
Re: Absolutely IS! "I made it, therefore I own it", and ALL rights to dispose of it.
What a laughable and impotent platitude! If money gets you "votes" in the market, then who has the most votes? The people with a war chest the size of the Exxon Valdez, you twit! If your influence is contingent on how much money you have, then it's pretty plain why nothing changes. The status quo has the money. The status quo has the votes. The status quo has the most influence and they can leverage that influence to make sure they get to keep it. So you can take your "vote with your money" excuse and stuff it up your atrophied posterior until you can tickle your adenoids with it.
Do you even know what an ad hominem attack even is? No, you don't. "You can't trust John's recommendations on tax policy, he doesn't even have a job!". That, is an ad hominem. Calling you out on your bad behavior is not an ad hominem.
On the post: New Net Neutrality Bill Introduced, Has No Chance Of Passing
Re: Re:
On the post: Dr. Matthew Rimmer Takes A Closer Look At Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Culture is the norms, mores, symbols, beliefs, and customs of a group of people. They don't have to be communicated directly to influence culture so long as one person is influenced by it, namely, the author. If even one person is influenced, it propagates throughout a society and culture is changed.
On the post: Copyright Week: If We Want To Get Copyright Right, It's Time To Go Back To Basics
Re: Re:
That's a hefty presumption there. You forget that to grant artists those rights, they had to take them away from the public. So, to use your own argument: You don't care about the public and you are in no position to take the moral high ground. You have absolutely no regard for the freedom of speech and are only self interested.
Don't pretend that arguing that copyright is broken means robbing people of their freedom. Freedom was taken away when copyright law was written, presumably, to promote the creation and distribution of more useful works for the public to assimilate.
Copyright was a compromise between the public and the author in order to form a mutual exchange of one benefit for another. As time went on, one side gained more and the other lost more. But, fortunately, technology caught up to copyright and has made great strides in returning to the public what was lost and even making it evident that in an environment of ubiquitous copying, copyright is not only ineffective at serving its intended purpose, it actually inhibits it.
On the post: Copyright Week: Fair Use Is Not An 'Exception' But The Rule
Re: "Copyright Week" is actually Piracy Week.
On the post: Losing Net Neutrality Is The Symptom, Not The Problem: Now Is The Time To Focus On Real Competition
Re: Wrong
It's like this, we have this road that the people built. We need someone to provide transportation on that road because we don't want to do it. We ask that businesses provide transportation on that road, for which the businesses will have the opportunity to sell such a service to the public. Basically, you can use our stuff for your profit if you make it useful to us.
On the post: AT&T's 'Sponsored Data' Program An Admission That Data Caps Have Nothing To Do With Congestion
On the post: Shia Labeouf Brilliantly Parodies Intellectual Property With Plagiarized Apologies And Defense Of Plagiarism
Re:
He shouldn't have to apologize, and we do not all agree that what he did was wrong on any level. Any line you can draw on what is acceptable can be argued as subjective. Thinking that you can tell sewage from water after the two have been mixed is self-deluding. (Yes, that was a pun.)
Next >>