Some 3d printers use wood. From my research photography did not kill painting,digital art did not kill traditional art. Im starting to think technology changes but the traditional way of doing things stays the same. 40 years from now some thing to replace 3d printing will be in development anyways.
It's not replacing anything, just giving more opportunity to express oneself. Traditional art is still around, and still really cool, but Digitalized Art is becoming far more popular.
It's easy to use (once you know how) and Traditional art is too, under the same principle, but Digital Art ALWAYS looks stylized towards the taste of the artist. You cannot find an example where the Artist doesn't show it's style in Digital art readily, should they be using Digi-Art
When it gets going I think you would have to pay to download a file that tells the 3D printer what shape the object is and how much materials you'd need to print it measured in moles (unit of substance not the animal). Materials would come in cartridges and you'd only be able to use materials that would melt at a low temperature or don't need melting first for the printer to use so anything with wood or tungsten in won't work.
Food cartridges with things like chocolate sauce in would be cheap to get, ones with metal and plastic in would cost a fair bit. Those containing fancy things like gold would cost a lot of money.
Some things would have to be illegal for individuals to print, Like guns and money or you'd be able to make enough pistols to start a war with in a week.
I know you can torrent anything digital, including 3D models. To pay for them or torrent them for free would depend on the morals of the user.
I can't foresee the files being like normal model files of the sort you'd open in something like autoCAD then send to the printer. They would be in a proprietary format (or worse, there would be 4 or so proprietary formats and only one will work on a certain brand of printer) that would have stupid amounts of DRM and a serial number unique to the file you have. After you have printed the physical object the file of it would be deleted.
There would also be plugins made for 3D programs that let you turn your own works into these proprietary files so you can sell them that way. After sometime a open format will show up.
>> I know you can torrent anything digital, including 3D models. To pay for them or torrent them for free would depend on the morals of the user.
And why should anyone have to pay for a 3d shape? Or more accurately, why should anyone be allowed to say "I own this particular shape, no one can manufacture items of this particular shape without my permission"? That's just absurd. You can't own ideas, and you can't own shapes.
>> I can't foresee the files being like normal model files of the sort you'd open in something like autoCAD then send to the printer.
Actually, that's about how it works for now. Most printers are still DRM-free.
What about when they make 3d-printers that can fully self-replicate? How is anyone going to control how anything is done after that? You can just download the schematics for a 3d-printer, ask your friend who already has one to print it for you, then you can print more printers for your friends etc... that'd be awesome.
Copyrighting shapes like a square would be stupid beyond belief, You'd have to make something totally unique and not copyrighted by someone else to in order to copyright it. But I see your point.
I think the printer would put something like a tiny hallmark into the model printed, so it would be possible to identify a copy.
When you use a printer to print itself you get a "decendant" of it that will be slightly worse than the original at everything, like recording a recording makes the information slightly worse every time. After 5 "generations" of printed printers the newest would be so bad it wouldn't work at all.
Also the printer cannot print anything bigger than its maximum volume, so like stacking dolls each printed printer would be a bit smaller than the last. It would only stop when its not possible to make printers any smaller that still work after taking the above paragraph into consideration.
>> I think the printer would put something like a tiny hallmark into the model printed, so it would be possible to identify a copy.
That's not even feasible. How could the program decide where on a 3d object it's suitable to add something? It would need an actual AI that could recognize 3d shapes and could figure out where the "hallmark" would be unobtrusive.
And also, why should printers have a feature like that, when there are already printers that print exactly what you want and nothing else. Who would buy the crippled printers if there are better alternatives?
>> When you use a printer to print itself you get a "decendant" of it that will be slightly worse than the original at everything, like recording a recording makes the information slightly worse every time. After 5 "generations" of printed printers the newest would be so bad it wouldn't work at all.
And why exactly would this be true? It isn't even true of recordings any more, you can make as many copies of copies as you want with digital recordings without any loss of quality. And the situation isn't comparable at all, anyway, since each copy would be made out of the same blueprints, and would thus be identical. If the printer is truly self-replicating, it would have the necessary accuracy to create perfect copies of itself.
The only way your scenario could happen is if they purposedly crippled the printers to make sure no one could make their own printers. But still all it would take would be one self-replicating printer with freely available blueprints, and people can print as many printers as they want.
>> Also the printer cannot print anything bigger than its maximum volume, so like stacking dolls each printed printer would be a bit smaller than the last. It would only stop when its not possible to make printers any smaller that still work after taking the above paragraph into consideration.
Wow, no offense but you really haven't thought this through at all, have you...
Of course you wouldn't print the entire printer at once. You'd print it part by part. How do you think a printer could even function if it was made from one solid piece?
The copyright mafia is already trying to limit the usefulness of 3d printers. How long until we get lobbyists demanding for legislation that requires all 3d printers to be crippled with DRM, I wonder...
Imagine: we'll have technology that can replicate an item of any shape, but we can't replicate certain shapes because someone has claimed "ownership" of them.
Copyright is a bad and good thing if I made a videogame how else would I protect it? DRM haha someone will crack it and put A tut on youtube just so we don't have to deal with it.
I don't support stealing copyrighted thing but why even do it with a 3d printer you can design something much better than what they offer and put it under something like creative commons so anyone can mod and use it but a company can't steal it and copyright protect it.
That same DRM will help the new inventors to come to keep there inventions safe and in the right hands some people love taking your credit.
No, DRM is not ok in any situation. It should be made illegal. Think of e-books. You pay Amazon whatever funny amount of money for a book you want to read, and you think "hey, I now own this book"... WRONG. You don't own it - you just have a "license" to use it as long as Amazon likes you. They can at any time revoke your license for whatever reason and all the books you bought before that? Gone. But hey, that's DRM for you.
Another example - DVD movies that install rootkits on your computer to make sure you don't copy the movies. They LITERALLY infect you with malware to keep you from copying them. That's DRM for you.
DRM should be banned. Sharing and copying should be legal, period. If a company cannot survive without limiting people's fundamental rights of sharing information then guess what, we don't need that company or their products, someone else will do a better job.
As for how this relates to 3d-printers... there are already patents being granted for onerous DRM-schemes for 3d-printers. Sure, right now we have things like Lulzbot, which are completely DRM-free. But when 3d-printers become available to the average person, do you think the copyright mafia will just stand still? They have a history for trying to bring about oppressive laws just to make their ancient business models still feasible. I don't doubt for a second they would lobby for a law that makes DRM for 3d-printers mandatory...
There have already been cases where people have been threatened with lawsuits for 3d-printing shapes that someone thinks are under their copyright.
I get your point. patents on inventions and copyrights on creative works will stop people from stealing things from people/company's but that does not matter because the copy cat has no future but the original does and that's why it wont hurt business to have more open licenses. Also torrents kick the s**t out of companys and some people too. I buy and seed now no1 has to buy it company gone with in 3 weeks this is why we need a healthy way of protecting thing Like make the software free but everyone that cares donate money/crowd found them to keep the product they like in development. Creative commons like license but for everything.You get your credit. No DRM needed.
I like your point of view.Thanks for this discussion.
I believe the future is open...not free being open will make everyone happier if someone copies you is that not a complement? And if they copy you and start doing very well get them on your team ASAP!
The worst DRM I have had was.(Loading....... Reason 6 select mode I press the mode I want and the it says insert usbkey to unlock demo mode....wait WTF! I only have 2 usb 1 for the mouse and one for the midi keyboard I had to go buy a usb hub.
Crowdfunding & crowdsourcing are definitely business models of the future. The only problem is, the current corporations have gotten too big and fat to move with the times and are doing all they can to retain the status quo, to slow progress. They hate the internet, they hate the new business models because they could no longer hold all the power in those models. So they try to enact legislation that takes away civil rights from people in order to protect their own profits.
A good example from my country. We have laws that say that private individuals cannot engage in fundraising. There was this crowdsourcing attempt in kickstarter where some people sought funding to create a free schoolbook so that students could more easily afford to study. A very beneficial project. But suddenly they got a message from the local police that this fundraising was illegal. It's easy to see who benefits from such legislation: the publishing of schoolbooks is a huge business. Publishing houses periodically make small, superficial changes to old schoolbooks to force people to keep buying new books constantly, so they have a good racket going on... so of course they need to stomp any competition, they too are afraid of the new economy.
The recording labels, RIAA and such, are just doing the same thing in a larger scale. They are so afraid of becoming unnecessary, they try to prevent competition by bribing politicians left and right. They are desperate. That's why they're doing all they can to present pirates as "criminals" and criminalize sharing of culture.
But it's not going to last forever. Society is always moving towards more freedom. We don't have slavery anymore, and someday we're not going to have draconian copyright/patent laws either.
yeah I agree. Society will move to more freedom. Its ok to have a HUGE company but let it move with the world not against it. smaller company's will rise and compete with it but they don't matter. people are going to use the stuff from the company they like anyways.
Company's need to get more involved with there SUPPORTERS we are not COSTOMERS we support the work and pay them for the items if we knew the people that work there from chating on facebook,twitter and google+ and watched vlogs they maid then people woulden't steal there software because we know you and know what's going on because there will no secrets but sometimes surprises because company will need to start caring and that will make ANY company unbeatable.
They won't need licenses because they care about you and you care about them and what they do for you even if you did not buy the software you would at some point support them in some way.