[MUSIC PLAYING]
[DING]
[WHOOSH]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
In last week's
episode, we talked
with Michael Weinberg
from Shapeways
about 3D printing and copyright.
Let's see what you had to say.
MadeofMagicandWires
on the subreddit
brings up a really awesome
point and starts a really great
conversation about the nature of
making a copy when the copy is
of something that
is not intended
to be a physical object
in the first place.
And is this still, in some
way, copyright infringement?
And, as I think we will
see throughout a lot
of the questions that get
answered in this comment
response, the short
answer is yes.
Yes, it is.
And this is maybe one of
the number-one reasons
we can look at the
copyright regime and say,
as one of Michael's papers
is titled, "This Will Be
Awesome if We Don't
Mess It Up," that there
is a lot of complicated
ins and outs.
There are a lot of edge cases.
And it's kind of all about
understanding those edge cases.
Some of this idea and some
of the related territory--
and also some of the
stuff that was brought up
by Dan Mac and David Schoenheit
on the Facebook page--
are a thing that
Michael and I actually
talked about a little bit
that didn't end up an episode.
It ended up on the
cutting room floor.
We had a conversation about
a recent kerfuffle slash hoax
question mark that
happened in Germany
as it relates to a bust of
Nefertiti that was 3D scanned.
We talked about the
nature of a copy--
whether or not one
can have interest
or can protect a handmade
copy versus a scanned copy.
So we're going to
package that up.
We'll upload it as
a private video.
We'll put some links here
and in the description
if you want to watch it.
And I think it gets to
some of these questions
and is also, just in general,
a really interesting thing
that Michael knows a lot about.
L0c0dantes, who works
in manufacturing,
starts a really
great conversation
that gets into some
very interesting
technical high
grass, let's call it.
It's not quite weeds.
It's just high grass.
And it seems like the
central conceit here
is that every generation--
maybe every decade or two--
there has to be some sort
of moral technological panic
that occurs related
to the capability
that human beings
have to copy things.
It was Betamax.
It was VHS.
It was mini disks.
It was MP3s.
It was tapes.
And now it's objects.
And I think it's 3D printing.
And I think that the
reason 3D printing
is different is
because it's objects.
It's a different set of ideas
and manufacturing methods
than all of those other
things, which were related
to media and not things.
And I think that a lot of this
conversation, and especially
some of the things that they get
to in this conversation, really
allows us an opportunity
to consider the differences
that we perceive and take for
granted between information
and media and things, even
though they are necessarily
sort of somewhat the same.
Tommy Hanusa, Nicholas Kindig,
and a bunch of other people
brought up 40K-- which,
if you aren't familiar,
is a table-top war
game that relies
very heavily on miniatures that
has been very much involved in,
let's say, the conversation
surrounding the duplication
of objects and the
ability for people
to print them out because a
lot of their business model
is based around selling
very high-quality,
very detailed miniatures
that are not only
used to play the game but
can be painted and decorated
in very painstaking ways, make
these beautiful little objects.
And so this is a huge part of
this conversation about what
3D printing can eventually
bring to all different corners
of culture.
And conceivably
one of them would
be printing out miniatures that
you use for your past time.
But a lot of the powers
that be, of course,
are threatened by
this because it
is an additional avenue
for the people who
play their games
to get the parts
needed to play them
possibly through, you know,
less than "legitimate" means.
And I think that, really,
what we'll see in the end--
we'll put some links to some
really interesting articles
that you can read
because this is
a much larger conversation
than we have time
for in a common response.
But I think that, like what
Michael was talking about,
it took 10 years
for music publishers
to realize that the
solution to the problem
is to just be the best provider
of the material and the content
that people are after.
I like to think that, hopefully,
the same thing will be true
for war games and miniatures
and all the related parts,
that these companies will
eventually realize that
the best way to "solve"
this "problem"--
I've got so many quote fingers
I'm about to fly away--
is to be the best provider.
And maybe that means selling
models, selling object files
for people to print out models,
having 3D printers in the shops
themselves.
I've heard of a couple
different places that
are doing something like this.
But, yeah.
I'm hopeful for the future.
And for those of you that know
more about 40K and the related
games, I'd be
curious to know what
you see as solutions to
this problem and things
that are just on the
edge of being accepted
both by the community
and, you know,
the companies that
allow everybody
to come together and
play these awesome games.
Shane Tilton and I had a
really short conversation
on the Idea Channel Facebook
about how Walter Benjamin would
feel about all of
this, especially
as it relates to the stuff
that Michael was talking
about with the arts,
that this really
brings a crazy challenge to the
idea of the original in the art
world.
And there is some
precedent to this
where someone like Sol LeWitt,
who did a lot of wall drawings,
would only allow
one wall drawing
to be in a single
place at a single time,
though conceivably it could be
anywhere because the "piece" is
really just people following
a set of instructions.
And so that's how he
maintained the scarcity that
made his works valuable.
When we're talking about 3D
printing, you know, what is it?
Is it that checksum that
Michael was talking about,
that there is somehow only
one object at a time that
is the "official" object even
though there are actually
several different instances
of it around the world?
So my read on the situation
is that Walter Benjamin
is probably, I mean, you
know, not rolling in his grave
because he's been
dead a long time.
But if that were a thing that
happened, so much rolling--
there would be so much
rolling in the grave.
David Schoenheit,
this is a great idea.
But I just want to point out
that I misread this and thought
that you were saying that it
would be interesting to create
a model of the songs that
you can buy on iTunes that
represents their audio content
and then sell it on Shapeways.
And then that got me thinking
about then rescanning that
and trying to turn it back into
audio from a physical object.
And now I guess there
goes my weekend.
Benjamin Silver and
someone whose username
is very complicated, so I'm
going to read it off my phone
just in the hopes of getting
it even close to correct--
zsetrydtyguklvhi,
oh, boy-- asked
a question about where
functional and decorative
objects meet.
What happens when
you have something
that can be said to be a
decorative version of something
that serves a purpose?
And this was a question
that I asked Michael.
I asked him how
you approach this.
And he talked about how there
is a degree to which one
can separate the decorative
aspects from a functional item.
And that is very much a judgment
call how much the decoration is
in fact functional, how
much decoration or function
can be split before,
you know, you
change it into-- change the
very nature of the object.
To sort of look into this
more, the legal concept
is called severability.
So if you want to go
and do some Googling,
you can take a look
at severability.
And this is-- this is the
sort of legal judgement
that goes into whether
or not something
is protectable by
copyright or by patent.
And its whether or
not the decoration
is severable to some
degree from the function.
Daniel Bockin asks a
really interesting question
about how 3D printing will
impact the construction
of automobiles.
And this is another question
that I asked Michael.
So I'm actually just going to
read his response because I
think it's really good.
He writes, "I don't know
that this necessarily
raises new issues.
Major components
of modern engines
already exist as CAD files.
And the method of
manufacture-- CNC routing
versus casting
versus 3D printing--
generally should not impact
their intellectual property
status.
"Major vehicle manufacturers"--
and this is the part
that I find really interesting.
Of course this is the case.
I just never thought about
it-- "are worried enough
about losing this
information to a rival.
So they have pretty strong data
security protections in place.
Presumably, these
are robust enough
to handle any changes related
to mass access to 3D printing."
I think one of the reasons that
I find this really interesting
is that I now have a new idea
for a plot in my Shadowrun game
where the runners have to go
and steal 3D modeled files
from a rival company.
This is just an amazing
corporate espionage
story waiting to be told.
Noshei21 asks a question
about personal use
and whether or not one
is still infringing
when they make a copy of a
functional object that is just
going to be used in their home.
And this is the-- another
question that I ask Michael.
And his response
was basically, yup.
It's still breaking the law
even though it is likely
that the people who would be
upset don't know about it.
So this like, you know,
if a tree breaks the speed
limit in the woods and there's
no police officer with a radar
gun there to see it happen-- et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Michael also points out
something really interesting,
which is that, you
know, this is the reason
why so many of
these corporations
go after aggregates-- you know,
websites that pull together
infringing material because
they're just-- they're
highly visible whereas
someone, you know,
in their home printing out
something that infringes
on a copyright is a thing that
just will never actually know
about.
I think we're all on
the same page here.
We would all absolutely
positively 100% never ever
hesitate.
We would download a car.
And last but certainly
not least, buy our merch.
Are you or someone you know
a liberal arts unicorn?
If so, you get them or yourself
the new Idea Channel t-shirt,
which depicts exactly that.
The illustration is by
a friend of the show,
Andrea slash artsparrow, who
did our light bulb and butterfly
t-shirt.
It also includes my
personal favorite part,
the slogan "omnia sunt gravia,"
which roughly translates
from the Latin to "all
things are interesting,"
which I like to
think is somewhat
of the driving force or the
central ethos of Idea Channel.
It is a black t-shirt,
clearly, with slightly silvery
silver ink-- slightly sparkly.
We'll put a link to
DFTBA.com everywhere if you
want to put this on your body.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
[DING]
[MUSIC PLAYING]
