How DRM will infest the 3D printing revolution(extremetech.com)
extremetech.com
How DRM will infest the 3D printing revolution
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/137955-how-drm-will-infest-the-3d-printing-revolution
15 comments
Surely the issue is that users of 3D printers will be able to manufacture guns at a lower time cost, material cost and with much lower skill required?
i.e. buying a 3D printer plus material and sending a blueprint file to it is an order of magnitude simpler than acquiring and learning to use a milling machine.
i.e. buying a 3D printer plus material and sending a blueprint file to it is an order of magnitude simpler than acquiring and learning to use a milling machine.
The quality of a 3D printed gun would be abysmal using current technology, and a 3D printed gun would likely be single-use, therefore really only useful for terrorists.
But it's not hard for the terrorist to make a single-use gun now. You could probably make a pretty lethal and reliable single-use gun from $20 dollars in parts from your local hardware store.
But it's not hard for the terrorist to make a single-use gun now. You could probably make a pretty lethal and reliable single-use gun from $20 dollars in parts from your local hardware store.
therefore really only useful for terrorists
What? I'm finding it hard to believe that an odd-looking 3d-printed single-use gun would be useful to terrorists (or criminals in general, actually). What you need as a mugger, for example, is a recognizable threat. The gun doesn't necessarily need to work but it does need to look like a gun. Terrorists have it even worse, as they're generally looking to threaten a whole lobby full of people; what they're waving around had better look really automatic. And had probably better work. I can't imagine that a single-shot weapon that looked unrecognizable would suit their needs.
A single-shot gun might be useful to a murderer, but hardly an ideal choice (what if you miss)? And it might be useful in a self-defense scenario, but the same caveat applies.
In fact, they actually make single-shot guns. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derringer) And they aren't used by terrorists! They're used by pirates in movies. And in real life, generally, women carry them in purses.
Which, to come full circle, means I would support the availability of 3D-printed guns, since I perceive the most likely use would be in a self-defense scenario as a "well, it's better than nothing" option.
What? I'm finding it hard to believe that an odd-looking 3d-printed single-use gun would be useful to terrorists (or criminals in general, actually). What you need as a mugger, for example, is a recognizable threat. The gun doesn't necessarily need to work but it does need to look like a gun. Terrorists have it even worse, as they're generally looking to threaten a whole lobby full of people; what they're waving around had better look really automatic. And had probably better work. I can't imagine that a single-shot weapon that looked unrecognizable would suit their needs.
A single-shot gun might be useful to a murderer, but hardly an ideal choice (what if you miss)? And it might be useful in a self-defense scenario, but the same caveat applies.
In fact, they actually make single-shot guns. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derringer) And they aren't used by terrorists! They're used by pirates in movies. And in real life, generally, women carry them in purses.
Which, to come full circle, means I would support the availability of 3D-printed guns, since I perceive the most likely use would be in a self-defense scenario as a "well, it's better than nothing" option.
I didn't say single-shot, I said single-use.
It's very unlikely that it will be possible to make a safe, practical, reusable gun from a 3D printer in the foreseeable future.
It's very unlikely that it will be possible to make a safe, practical, reusable gun from a 3D printer in the foreseeable future.
You're probably right, though I'm always hesitant to bet against ingenuity.
I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive in my criticism. It just struck me as silly that terrorists -- you know, the guys that buy military hardware from shady international arms dealers and have their own supply and manufacturing chains for explosives -- would be significantly enabled by crappy 3D-printed handguns.
I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive in my criticism. It just struck me as silly that terrorists -- you know, the guys that buy military hardware from shady international arms dealers and have their own supply and manufacturing chains for explosives -- would be significantly enabled by crappy 3D-printed handguns.
I don't think anyone is going to be significantly enabled by crappy 3D-printed handguns, but if anyone could see utility from it it would be terrorists.
My second point was an attempt to point out that it's probably cheaper and easier to create a single-use weapon now without the use of the 3D printer.
My second point was an attempt to point out that it's probably cheaper and easier to create a single-use weapon now without the use of the 3D printer.
if anyone could see utility from it it would be terrorists.
How do you figure that?
How do you figure that?
I haven't seen the final designs from the Defense Distributed project. But my understanding is that even with the almost all 3D printed parts it still requires a lot of putting together, assembly and doing. And even aftera ll that you still don't have a very functional gun. Especially on a low end 3D printer like a RepRap I would be more worried that the gun would blow up in my face. I don't see Defense Distributed as much different than the Anarchist Cookbook ball point pen gun or pipe bomb instructions. Of course that may not be the best comparison since governments don't exactly like the Anarchists Cookbook.
>Of course that may not be the best comparison since governments don't exactly like the Anarchists Cookbook.
They should - anybody trying something out of the AC is likely to kill themselves in the process:
http://www.righto.com/anarchist-cookbook-faq.html
They should - anybody trying something out of the AC is likely to kill themselves in the process:
http://www.righto.com/anarchist-cookbook-faq.html
Probably several orders of magnitude lower.
We're thinking narrowly about what 3d printing could make available to a terrorist. Firearms come to mind since there's both a lot of hubbub around the subject and it's the most immediately effective way to harm someone.
But surely there is a range of things a terrorist could print that we couldn't even begin to conceive of right now, things that would enable terrorism to be carried out more efficiently, covertly, or what have you. But then again, those same things could probably be constructed out of analogous parts from a hardware store anyways, similar to how anyone with access to a machine shop could fabricate their own firearms - so maybe it's not as dire an issue as it sounds.
But surely there is a range of things a terrorist could print that we couldn't even begin to conceive of right now, things that would enable terrorism to be carried out more efficiently, covertly, or what have you. But then again, those same things could probably be constructed out of analogous parts from a hardware store anyways, similar to how anyone with access to a machine shop could fabricate their own firearms - so maybe it's not as dire an issue as it sounds.
A better title would be "How DRM will completely fail to infest the 3D printing revolution."
Do you really think they're going to be able to legislate away people's ability to digitally print consumer goods? Thusfar, they've been unsuccessful at legislating away people's ability to copy data, and the consumer urge to copy a physical good will be orders of magnitude stronger than a bit of audio or video.
In short, anyone who tries to restrict individuals' ability to print goods is on a fool's errand.
Do you really think they're going to be able to legislate away people's ability to digitally print consumer goods? Thusfar, they've been unsuccessful at legislating away people's ability to copy data, and the consumer urge to copy a physical good will be orders of magnitude stronger than a bit of audio or video.
In short, anyone who tries to restrict individuals' ability to print goods is on a fool's errand.
> Thusfar, they've been unsuccessful at legislating away people's ability to copy data
Tell that to the thousands of people who got sued several years ago, or the Pirate Bay guys who are either in prison or facing prison sentences.
Tell that to the thousands of people who got sued several years ago, or the Pirate Bay guys who are either in prison or facing prison sentences.
>Tell that to the thousands of people who got sued several years ago, or the Pirate Bay guys who are either in prison or facing prison sentences.
compared to the 10s, 100s of millions who still share, download and copy copyrighted media everyday?
compared to the 10s, 100s of millions who still share, download and copy copyrighted media everyday?
By "legislate away," did debacle mean completely eliminating file sharing? I presumed he just meant to firmly establish law and legal precedent that prohibits IP infringement.
Legislating away was only half of the goal, the other half was enforcing penalties (financial -- ie: fees, or physical -- ie: jailtime) where applicable.
It might even be easy to argue that legislature was a very minor goal compared to enforcement, which seems to be where copyright enforcement pairs very closely with general law enforcement and broad-sweeping monitoring of the general populace.
It might even be easy to argue that legislature was a very minor goal compared to enforcement, which seems to be where copyright enforcement pairs very closely with general law enforcement and broad-sweeping monitoring of the general populace.
There is no penalty whatsoever for downloading copyrighted material.
The penalties are for sharing and distribution, and in those areas only the stupid get caught.
The penalties are for sharing and distribution, and in those areas only the stupid get caught.
But it would criminalize a big part of the population, and although it means it won't be very effective, it does means that some people, if caught, will suffer years in prison for it.
I don't think it will, the difference with 3D printing is that the consumer end of the industry is being driven by the small start-ups and "Maker" movement. All of these open source 3D printers will never implement DRM and the low cost ones that do will get hacked by the same people.
In order for the DRM to work it needs to be decoded at the last moment and would therefore need to be implemented directly into the electronics of the printer. In order for that to work the printer itself will need to be able to decode the 3D files and plan the tool route, a job that is better done by the PC. I think it will be cost prohibitive to implement in a secure manor.
With Blu Ray and HDMI there were massive multi billion dollar companies driving the direction of the design. That just isn't the case with 3D printing and is unlikely to be the case until far to long after consumer 3D printing is established.
In order for the DRM to work it needs to be decoded at the last moment and would therefore need to be implemented directly into the electronics of the printer. In order for that to work the printer itself will need to be able to decode the 3D files and plan the tool route, a job that is better done by the PC. I think it will be cost prohibitive to implement in a secure manor.
With Blu Ray and HDMI there were massive multi billion dollar companies driving the direction of the design. That just isn't the case with 3D printing and is unlikely to be the case until far to long after consumer 3D printing is established.
That may be true, but what about when bigger players like Apple, Sony, Samsung, or perhaps even an emerging startup join the party? Many a comparison has been made to the home computer clubs of the 1970's - similarly DIY but produced giant companies like Apple who popularized the home computer. Same goes with AOL in the mid-90s crashing web and bringing the Eternal September.
I guess my point is that we are really in the halcyon days of 3d printing. This is an emerging technology. It's exciting, it's about experimentation, and it's a genuinely open-source user environment. But this phase has a shelf-life, and once 3d printing reaches critical mass, the Maker hackers will move onto the next thing of interest (rightly so) and the corporations will swoop in on the huge money making opportunities. It is just the way the world works.
Still ... DRM will never work. Whether it be a case of torrents for the Ikea desk, or firmware hacks to re-route your printer from phoning home to the corporation - hackers will find a way.
I guess my point is that we are really in the halcyon days of 3d printing. This is an emerging technology. It's exciting, it's about experimentation, and it's a genuinely open-source user environment. But this phase has a shelf-life, and once 3d printing reaches critical mass, the Maker hackers will move onto the next thing of interest (rightly so) and the corporations will swoop in on the huge money making opportunities. It is just the way the world works.
Still ... DRM will never work. Whether it be a case of torrents for the Ikea desk, or firmware hacks to re-route your printer from phoning home to the corporation - hackers will find a way.
Here's hoping Intellectual Ventures makes a nice secret shill/shell corp fully devoted to trolling the hell out of anyone who even tries to put DRM into a 3D printer.
That was my first thought, too. This may end up being a good thing if IV trolls just about anyone wanting to use DRM on their 3D printable objects. It would mean most companies wouldn't bother to deal with DRM and IV.
And my first thought as well. Except that it's dead wrong when that troll sets up shop on K street.
Yeah. The greatest heist a troll can pull is to get a patent forced on everyone by law.
I always thought that once the government mandates the use of a specific technology, it should automatically force the patent into the public domain. Anything else sets up a set of incentives that are just a bit more than way too perverse for the public good.
I always thought that once the government mandates the use of a specific technology, it should automatically force the patent into the public domain. Anything else sets up a set of incentives that are just a bit more than way too perverse for the public good.
A peculiar comparison to P2P. But I think I know what he's getting at. It's the idea of "enablement". As in, enabling easy infringement. But if my understanding is correct (it might not be), so long as there are alternative non-infringing uses that are significant, this hurdle, set by incumbent industries, can be overcome.
Perhaps good examples were analog cassette and video tapes. They enabled easy infringement. But they had so many beneficial uses, the courts were not persuaded by the incumbent industries. And Congress even created exceptions for personal use copying ("home taping") in the statute.
There is nothing inherently infringing about P2P, or even inherently enabling. Nothing says you have to use it to share bits with thousands of people or more. Back in the analog days millions of people made recordings and shared them with each other (i.e. people they knew: friends, colleagues, etc.), without being sued. It's only when some people tried to started businesses selling mass produced copies to the public (i.e. people they didn't know: customers) without authorization that they were sued. These "bootleggers" were, as I remember it, a very small percentage of total number of people using the available recording technology.
Not quite enough to keep an enormously useful technology like audio and video recording out of reach from the public.
Perhaps good examples were analog cassette and video tapes. They enabled easy infringement. But they had so many beneficial uses, the courts were not persuaded by the incumbent industries. And Congress even created exceptions for personal use copying ("home taping") in the statute.
There is nothing inherently infringing about P2P, or even inherently enabling. Nothing says you have to use it to share bits with thousands of people or more. Back in the analog days millions of people made recordings and shared them with each other (i.e. people they knew: friends, colleagues, etc.), without being sued. It's only when some people tried to started businesses selling mass produced copies to the public (i.e. people they didn't know: customers) without authorization that they were sued. These "bootleggers" were, as I remember it, a very small percentage of total number of people using the available recording technology.
Not quite enough to keep an enormously useful technology like audio and video recording out of reach from the public.
How will a patent troll holding a patent on this help "infest" 3D printing? If anything it seems like it would inhibit it.
Can someone help me? 3D pringing does not seem interesting to me so I know very little about. I also assume, that it is not interesting to Joe Average. So my question is: what am I missing and how wrong I am that application of it is pretty limited?
I guess I should notice, that recently I developed kind of aversion to cheap plastics and tend to think that this is what 3D printing gives you. How wrong am I?
The excitement comes from the combination of a few factors:
1. It's improving very quickly, both in terms of the materials you can print and affordability of the hardware. It's possible to 3d print powdered metal composites, for example, not just cheap plastic.
2. It makes possible entirely new manufacturing business models. Traditional factories will probably always be cheaper for mass-market goods, but there are likely to be lots of opportunities for niche-market goods that simply aren't economic under a big-scale factory model. Maybe even more importantly, the existence of 3d printing makes it easier to bootstrap a manufactured product -- you can start out 3d printed, and only go to big-factory-mode much later when demand dictates.
3. By bridging the worlds of software and physical goods, it holds the promise of unleashing open-source methods for the design of things, not just software and information.
1. It's improving very quickly, both in terms of the materials you can print and affordability of the hardware. It's possible to 3d print powdered metal composites, for example, not just cheap plastic.
2. It makes possible entirely new manufacturing business models. Traditional factories will probably always be cheaper for mass-market goods, but there are likely to be lots of opportunities for niche-market goods that simply aren't economic under a big-scale factory model. Maybe even more importantly, the existence of 3d printing makes it easier to bootstrap a manufactured product -- you can start out 3d printed, and only go to big-factory-mode much later when demand dictates.
3. By bridging the worlds of software and physical goods, it holds the promise of unleashing open-source methods for the design of things, not just software and information.
In the short term, it means designers can prototype a lot quicker, which should mean even if you never use a 3D printer or anything printed from one, you get better designed products.
A 3D printer itself is not interesting for most people. What is interesting is the marketing you can do with its sub-products.
- lego machine that lets you create your own legos? check. - style-it-yourself house furniture? check. - toys/dolls creator for kids? check. I could go on forever.
- lego machine that lets you create your own legos? check. - style-it-yourself house furniture? check. - toys/dolls creator for kids? check. I could go on forever.
It could be huge in tabletop board game market too. Why buy hundreds of dollars worth of miniatures when you print your own for much less?
I'm very excited about 3D printing, but perhaps irrationally so. I'd also like an answer to this question.
"There are already people out there investigating the feasibility of 3D printing gun parts. It might not be doable now, but it will be one day. Before that happens, simpler weapons like “brass knuckles” made out of super-hard plastic could worry governments where such items are illegal. Weapon laws are not about intellectual property, but they get us to the same place — restricted use of 3D printing. Copyright concerns can and will piggyback on this issue."
Because I couldn't already create "brass knuckles" out of wood in 10 minutes?
Because I couldn't already create "brass knuckles" out of wood in 10 minutes?
The 3D-DRM patent only makes sense with legislative teeth behind printer regulation. It might be naive to assume that IV and the people they can rally to that cause (Nike? Lego? Any car manufacturer ever?) wouldn't want to dump $BIGMONEY into lobbying to make that happen.
This article contains very little substance even though it sounds like it would. I suspect an editor changed the title from "may" to "will". Of course DRM may appear in 3d printing, DRM is common in almost all types of digital media. But it is by no means ubiquitous.
This sound bad. The intermediary DRM-checking server will inevitably leak, so your original designs will go to hands of competitors just like your mobile phone number in the UK leaks to every txt-spammer in India, once you registered at InfoSecurity expo online.
DRM will be toxic to 3D printing but that won't stop manufacturers from trying.
With all the recent hubbub over printing firearm components, I wonder how quickly legislators will demand the equivalent of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography for tracking specific maker-level printers.
You wouldn't steal a car... Nope, but I'd copy one with my 3d printer.
will it even be possible to DRM 3D objects? How are you going to do that? Can you put machine-readable watermarks onto physical surfaces that aren't trivially circumvented?
See: How DRM infested the recorded media revolution.
>...patent holder Intellectual Ventures, has managed to get an expansive patent on 3D printing DRM.
What exactly does that mean? IV has patented a method for performing DRM on printed objects? That is a long way from mandating DRM on all objects. The 3D printing community, and open source hardware community in general has been preparing for this. The Institute for Emerging Innovation at Public Knowledge is an organization at DC that is helping to increase awareness of 3D printing openness and is working with congress people to make sure things like 3D printing DRM cannot happen. Unlike the P2P file sharing fight, we are ready for this one.
Also a quick note about guns since this article, and many about 3D printing now mention it. Yes, there is a group of people working on building 3D printed guns. However, to call this violent and providing new access is baseless and borderline ignorant. People have been able to make real, un regulated weapons out of actual metal for a long time. It's called a CNC mill and they have been around for a lot longer than 3D printers. A friend of mine goes to a trade school where you learn how to work on CNC mills and the first project he ever did was to build a working .45. People being able to build guns is nothing new, and anybody that thinks a plastic gun is going to be so much worse is just fear mongering.