Thursday, October 29, 2015
| Unlocking 3D Printers Ruling is a Mess
michaelweinberg.org: Today the Library of Congress released its rules for unlocking 3D printers in order to allow operators to use 3D printing materials that are not approved by the printer manufacturers. The decision is, to put it mildly, a mess. It is as if, at the end of the long marathon that was the rulemaking process, the Librarian of Congress decided to slap on iceskates for the last 100 yards. The predictable result was that it fell, broke both legs, and vomited all over itself. Did it manage to fall across the finish line on the way down? That’s hard to say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow. This is an incredibly stupid decision. The caveat included by the copyright bureau attempts to regulate something that, wait for it, isn’t related to copyright! In fact, there are entire divisions of our government that are created and specialize in regulating exactly that. So why is the copyright bureau, who has no expertise in either 3d printers or in the regulation of manufacturing processes. Well that isn’t a question I can answer at all but it certainly pisses me off. 3d printers, drones, and many other emerging technologies have the potential to change our world for the better but we absolutely have the potential to shoot that all right in the foot. Part of what we have to understand is that while some regulations are necessary for safety we must be careful not to overregulate and strangle these new technologies, especially when it comes to the availability of products. Weather those restrictions hurt companies or the consumer they all hurt the innovations.
It seems to me that the 3D printer companies have taken the wrong approach on this matter in a couple of different ways. Their arguments sound like they are making the issue of 3D printer hacking one of public safety and want to impose engineering controls on the technology. Second, why don’t they just take the same stance as every other technology company: “If you use our products in a way that they are not meant to be used, your device will no longer be under warranty and we will no longer be liable for things you make with it.” They are shooting themselves in the foot, and so much of the 3D printing work is based in at home or in shop DIY mods made to existing products to solve problems on the fly. As to the 3D printer companies argument about public safety, it seems ridiculous that they would try and make this argument when all other fabrication machine manufacturers assume that your going to use their machine to make things that you have a sufficient knowledge of to ensure their safety. Things we make in the shop are not rated, but we know enough about them to use them safely, and if they arnt safe, its our fault. The table saw company isnt going to sue us if a platform falls apart and injures someone, why would a 3D printer company.
I haven’t actually programmed or printed anything on a 3D printer, but I think I know enough about them to interpret this article about the unclear and hard to understand ruling. The basis of this article talks about the use of materials in a 3D printer and how they relate to copyright issues. The ruling says that there is no issue with copyright material and you can use whatever material you want in your 3D printer. I know that 3D printers use specific materials. I believe that you could copyright a material based on its specific composition and whatnot, but how to copyright what materials are used in a 3D printer I don’t get. Personally, I’d be worried screwing up the machine before I’d be worried about violating some copyright issue. I think there are two basic concerns for 3D printers. The first being that they have they potential to be used to make components for weapons. The second is that if somebody uses a material they aren’t supposed to it could have consequences ranging from a fake tooth falling out to other serious medical implications and even planes falling out of the sky. Any ruling to prevent either of this things from happening, I’m in favor of.
Post a Comment