Graphics Reference
In-Depth Information
Rip, mix, and burn physical things
In the Middle Ages people fought to gain control over tracts of land. Some
economists trace the origins of modern capitalism back to medieval times,
when communally-owned lands were partitioned into privately owned units.
Today, companies ight to gain control over units of intellectual property.
Commercially valuable ideas have become the new land that forms the foun-
dations of our modern economy.
When digital media exploded into consumer markets, the infamous Napster
case marked an inlection point, the formal declaration of war between music
consumers and the entertainment industries. The world of 3D printing has
not yet faced its own large-scale “Napster moment.” People speculate that big
aggressive companies known for iercely guarding their intellectual property—
the toy companies, software companies, and media conglomerates—don't yet
feel that they're losing money because of unauthorized 3D printed copies of
their products.
Today's “wait and see” attitude may change when 3D printing technolo-
gies gain enough critical mass and commercial momentum to take a bite out
of sales. In the words of journalist Peter Hanna, “If the current 3D printing
free-for-all sounds too good to last, it is. The community today is small and
has avoided, either by chance or design, stepping on any really big toes.”
5
Hardened lawbreakers are one thing. However, enthusiastic consumers and
small business owners are another. Most people and small businesses would
prefer a clear set of legal guidelines around 3D printing.
Let's explore a hypothetical scenario. A small business or an individual
hobbyist innocently 3D prints a small plastic igurine that's an exact replica
of an iconic and copyright protected cartoon character. The toy's creator puts
the igurine onto his website and sells it for $20.
After a few weeks, lawyers at a global media and toy corporation see the
printed replica for sale online and send a “cease and desist” letter. The charge?
That by making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted toy without asking
permission and paying royalties to the global company, the creator of the 3D
printed toy is in violation of Big Corp's copyright. The letter suggests that the
toy's creator either immediately remove the printed igurine from the website
or negotiate a licensing deal.
At this point, if the toy's creator is a person with innocent intentions who
just wasn't aware of copyright law, he would sadly and quickly withdraw the
3D printed toy from their website. Or, perhaps the toy's creator just doesn't
