Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Digital killed printing and the only form of IP enforcement big business used to have. Same thing happened to the music industry with Mp3 and other forms of digital content. 10 years down the road it is expected 3d printers to be as common as 2d printers, what will happen to IP then?. What will happen to the majority of the insdustry, companies like GW that depend on the IP law bogeyman for they survival.

The smart company is already designing on computer.

The idea would be to not try to produce your own miniatures, instead, just desing and sell the digital copy to anyone who wants to make them.

I don't see how 3D printing will sidestep IP law. Copying someone elses work wholy is still going to be illegal unless you have permission to do so. Just as it still is with Print and Music.

Of course, copying for personal use is generally not acted on unless those people are using it for commercial purposes. The same will happen with the advancement of 3D printers. Keep in mind too that 3D printers, though getting cheaper, are not going to be a mass consumption product and the quality you get is pretty directly dependant on the price of the printer AND the material used AND the files used to run the printer.

So, like the Music industry (which is not dead yet), the Print industry (which is far from dead despite digital), miniatures companies will carry on, just perhaps in a diminished capacity (which, unless it results in more competition, hurts the end user more than helps them).

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
The smart company is already designing on computer.

The idea would be to not try to produce your own miniatures, instead, just design and sell the digital copy to anyone who wants to make them.

I imagine (from a corporate profit point of view) that would fail just as hard as DRM does vs piracy.

IP law in the digital world is essentially unenforceable, to no ones surprise since its the equivalent to trying to put a chain to an idea...

Rorschach9 wrote:
I don't see how 3D printing will sidestep IP law. Copying someone elses work wholy is still going to be illegal unless you have permission to do so. Just as it still is with Print and Music.

Of course, copying for personal use is generally not acted on unless those people are using it for commercial purposes. The same will happen with the advancement of 3D printers. Keep in mind too that 3D printers, though getting cheaper, are not going to be a mass consumption product and the quality you get is pretty directly dependant on the price of the printer AND the material used AND the files used to run the printer.

But that is the point, it is a socially accepted thing (personal use), which will become the norm. I think people underestimate how close we are to digital being physical. Its a game changer, that is why every one is so up in arms about Cody Willson and his printed weapons. His point is not to make a 1 shot fire arm (which is pretty lame on its own), the point is the impossibility of enforcing regulation regardless of personal views. Its the irreversibility of the action.

There are still going to be plenty of people that "dont know where to look" to find what they want or have moral implications that won't let them pirate, just as it is now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xxvaderxx wrote:

But that is the point, it is a socially accepted thing (personal use), which will become the norm. I think people underestimate how close we are to digital being physical. Its a game changer, that is why every one is so up in arms about Cody Willson and his printed weapons. His point is not to make a 1 shot fire arm (which is pretty lame on its own), the point is the impossibility of enforcing regulation regardless of personal views. Its the irreversibility of the action.

Is it socially acceptable? A lot of people still consider it stealing....

 cincydooley wrote:
There are still going to be plenty of people that "dont know where to look" to find what they want or have moral implications that won't let them pirate, just as it is now.

Quite honestly i doubt it. Even today i have a hard time justifying the existence of IP law, when you can apply that for "every" object, it kind of becomes the equivalent of dry law.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
There are still going to be plenty of people that "dont know where to look" to find what they want or have moral implications that won't let them pirate, just as it is now.

Quite honestly i doubt it. Even today i have a hard time justifying the existence of IP law, when you can apply that for "every" object, it kind of becomes the equivalent of dry law.

I mean, you can doubt it all you want, but like I said before, there are plenty of people that still consider it stealing. Every song on iTunes can be found for free somewhere. That doesn't prevent iTunes from bringing it absurd amounts of money every day.

 cincydooley wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
There are still going to be plenty of people that "dont know where to look" to find what they want or have moral implications that won't let them pirate, just as it is now.

Quite honestly i doubt it. Even today i have a hard time justifying the existence of IP law, when you can apply that for "every" object, it kind of becomes the equivalent of dry law.

I mean, you can doubt it all you want, but like I said before, there are plenty of people that still consider it stealing. Every song on iTunes can be found for free somewhere. That doesn't prevent iTunes from bringing it absurd amounts of money every day.

Oh i know, but i would argue that a good deal of people that pay for that (as i pay for other things) do not do it out of a sense of morality and "law abidingness" but out of supporting the author. And as i said before, regardless of the law it self, much like dry law, it becomes something unenforceable, regardless of what the law says about it.

Big companies now go for patenting existing plants and indigenous peoples. This is the big moneymaker now until forbidden.

I believe a pharmaceutical company patented a certain method of finding a cure(been a while since I read it, so details be vague!), effectively delaying health research unless every scientist pay up. When men place their greed over the livelihood of the entire specie, you know it's time to call for an exterminus, or whatever the pig latin word that them spezz mahrenz say, 40k reference, yo!

I don't think there will be an end to IP law, IP isn't just some great evil conspiracy "The Man" thought up to steal money from people through the wonderful and magical power of suing, but it's also meant to protect creative people who could just as easily be ripped off by "The Man", or are you saying that creative people should work for free in the future? They'll hopefully adapt new ways to protect IP, hopefully one that is less "evil", and won't give "The Man" so much power.

Baronyu wrote:

I don't think there will be an end to IP law, IP isn't just some great evil conspiracy "The Man" thought up to steal money from people through the wonderful and magical power of suing, but it's also meant to protect creative people who could just as easily be ripped off by "The Man", or are you saying that creative people should work for free in the future? They'll hopefully adapt new ways to protect IP, hopefully one that is less "evil", and won't give "The Man" so much power.

True, how ever that was at a point in time, when the means of manufacture were highly centralized and inaccessible. We now (historically) speaking have made a 180 on that situation. I agree Disney will always fight and lobby for this and its bogeyman, my point is we are getting close to the situation when that is also irrelevant.

Take China for instance. Notorious for its lax IP law enforcement. Say tomorrow the came out and flat out stated they are going to discontinue IP law. What is the rest of the world going to do exactly?, not trade with China? that is never going to happen.

I am trying to point the same thing that Cody Wilson pointed out, which is, regardless of your morals or what you think about it, we are almost at a position where IP is nothing more than a few lines written on paper.

Why would you invent something when someone, with no IP law, would be able to steal your blueprints and sell them for money? Where would you make money from it?

Funny how you mentioned China, being that I'm Chinese, so I think I know quite well how creative industry goes there...

Let's just put it this way, there's no such thing as "creativity" in China, people copypaste everything, there's bootleg of everything there, so no one wants to be creative, because that grand idea they come up with? Well, someone could steal that idea and make money with it and you got absolutely no protection against that, the law isn't "lax", it's corrupted and non-existent. All the big Chinese creatives you see made their name outside of China, and this is why. Well, there is also the part that if you do anything the communist party deemed "bad", you'd magically vanish as well!

China is actually a prime example why the lack of IP protection is bad, rather than why it is good.

If you want to talk about how a more lax IP law is better, look at the indie scene, they're truly wonderful, but these wonders are only possible because there are these "few lines written on paper" to protect their idea.

Once again, I'll say it, the IP law, while often abused by "The Man", is also a necessary protection for the small guys.

I'm biased because I'm also a creative.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Why would you invent something when someone, with no IP law, would be able to steal your blueprints and sell them for money? Where would you make money from it?

Last i Checked Architects do not copyright their buildings designs and still manage to make money. Same thing with music industry, records are promotional tools for concerts/live shows. The whole dinamic of production changes, i agree with you there, but there will still be profit to be made.

Baronyu wrote:

If you want to talk about how a more lax IP law is better, look at the indie scene, they're truly wonderful, but these wonders are only possible because there are these "few lines written on paper" to protect their idea.

Once again, I'll say it, the IP law, while often abused by "The Man", is also a necessary protection for the small guys.

I'm biased because I'm also a creative.

Oh, i am fully aware of the situation in China, but i was trying to be less abrupt about it. While i am Against IP, this is not the intent of the post, am against it for practical and philosophical reasons. This post how ever is about pragmatism if you will. Just like in China (thou for completely different reasons), when the means of production are universally accessible, IP law is gone, regardless of how we feel about it. A centralized pyramidal command can restrict the flow of information, a network cannot (assuming the free will of its members of course).

Much like open source vs proprietary code, to me IP law has its days numbered, sure it will still be there somewhere but it will be like that joke that says that according to law "it is illegal to enter California with a motor vehicle with out letting state police know in advance".

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't just label IP law as evil because there are greedy people who abuse it to no end. The law could be better written so it's less abusive, but it is necessary to protect creative ideas rather than saying "we should scrap it altogether because people are abusing it.", look at the year old case of EA using old GW's design in C&C, is that an IP law abuse as well? If there is no protection, then who is there to stop people from just using other people's design and ideas and profit from it, while the original creator is left out cold? Of course, there are also cases like Tetris where the original creator wasn't making any money off his idea but rather whoever the IP owner of Tetris is. Two wrongs doesn't make a right, but two wrongs doesn't make EVERYTHING IS WRONG, either.

And you're wrong, everything creative is copyrighted, music(remember RIAA? tried posting licensed music on YT?), architecture, fine arts, illustrations, graphics design, programming codes, everything creative, even when mass-produced, are all copyrighted and protected.

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_in_architecture_in_the_United_States

3D printers will make it much harder to regulate unless they go big brother on everyone, but it doesn't mean IP law is worthless or will be gone, it will still be there, the question is how they'll enforce it to protect the rights of the creators.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Why would you invent something when someone, with no IP law, would be able to steal your blueprints and sell them for money? Where would you make money from it?

Last i Checked Architects do not copyright their buildings designs and still manage to make money. Same thing with music industry, records are promotional tools for concerts/live shows. The whole dinamic of production changes, i agree with you there, but there will still be profit to be made.

You didn't check the right places, then. Architectural works are indeed subject to copyright. (And some manage to qualify for trademark, as well.)

Baronyu wrote:

If you want to talk about how a more lax IP law is better, look at the indie scene, they're truly wonderful, but these wonders are only possible because there are these "few lines written on paper" to protect their idea.

Once again, I'll say it, the IP law, while often abused by "The Man", is also a necessary protection for the small guys.

I'm biased because I'm also a creative.

Oh, i am fully aware of the situation in China, but i was trying to be less abrupt about it. While i am Against IP, this is not the intent of the post, am against it for practical and philosophical reasons. This post how ever is about pragmatism if you will. Just like in China (thou for completely different reasons), when the means of production are universally accessible, IP law is gone, regardless of how we feel about it. A centralized pyramidal command can restrict the flow of information, a network cannot (assuming the free will of its members of course).

Much like open source vs proprietary code, to me IP law has its days numbered, sure it will still be there somewhere but it will be like that joke that says that according to law "it is illegal to enter California with a motor vehicle with out letting state police know in advance".

Interestingly enough, companies still manage to make pretty good money with proprietary software. Does piracy impact the bottom line? Maybe a bit, but most of the people pirating (say) Photoshop weren't going to pay for it anyway - it's not a lost sale.

Try it this way: hundreds of thousands of books are available online, for free, and just about everyone has a screen to view them on, or even access to traditional 2d printer. Why, then, does Amazon sell the Kindle at cost? Surely piracy would mean that is an unsustainable model?

Lastly, "IP law" is a pretty broad label to toss around. 3d printing isn't going to kill trade secret law, or patent law; the ability for someone to replicate a mechanical part isn't exactly new in the patent space, and has fairly little to do with modern patent disputes.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Digital killed printing

Oh so that's why every house has a tablet on their bookshelf instead of all those books, and new agents/whatever other countries call them have small SSDs and codes where magazine racks used to be, and why there's no more birthday cards available to buy, and...

Digital hasn't come close to killing print.

 -Loki- wrote:
Digital hasn't come close to killing print.

To be fair, it depends on the genre. The book industry is still alive (but still at its peak?), but the newspaper industry, for example, has suffered big losses from the digital age.

IP law isnt going away its naive to think so.

The position that something easy to steal and get away with doesnt deserve to be protected is ethical nonsense that a patheticly large number of people embrace.

Control of the CAD file will be key.

Printers are cheap now yes, but scanning a miniature or getting your hands on the GW CAD file is not easily within reach.

I could see the file controlled like an ebook and licensed to print 10 miniatures for the low price of $50 and then expires. No packaging and you front the raw material and manufacturing time: what a deal!

 Talizvar wrote:
Printers are cheap now yes, but scanning a miniature or getting your hands on the GW CAD file is not easily within reach.

The problem is that all you need to do is have one person scan it (or create their own CAD file that looks close enough to satisfy people) and then distribute the file. The average person might not have access to a scanner or the talent to make their own CAD file, but I can almost guarantee you that at least one person in the community will and will have the motivation to do it.

I could see the file controlled like an ebook and licensed to print 10 miniatures for the low price of $50 and then expires. No packaging and you front the raw material and manufacturing time: what a deal!

And, just like every single other form of copy protection ever invented, it will be broken as soon as it is invented and unlimited-copy files will be available on every pirate website. Meanwhile prices will go up to pay for useless copy protection because GW will certainly not learn the lesson that copy protection only hurts the people who are already going to buy your product legitimately anyway.

 Talizvar wrote:
Control of the CAD file will be key.

Printers are cheap now yes, but scanning a miniature or getting your hands on the GW CAD file is not easily within reach.

I could see the file controlled like an ebook and licensed to print 10 miniatures for the low price of $50 and then expires. No packaging and you front the raw material and manufacturing time: what a deal!

Actually that is the easiest part to do TODAY, a regular projector and a webcam + soft can today produce fully rendered 3d scans. Scanning is by far the cheapest of the 2 today. Granted 30 mil scale still needs improvement, but anything 80+ can be quite detailed rendered on you desk.

 cincydooley wrote:
There are still going to be plenty of people that "dont know where to look" to find what they want or have moral implications that won't let them pirate, just as it is now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xxvaderxx wrote:

But that is the point, it is a socially accepted thing (personal use), which will become the norm. I think people underestimate how close we are to digital being physical. Its a game changer, that is why every one is so up in arms about Cody Willson and his printed weapons. His point is not to make a 1 shot fire arm (which is pretty lame on its own), the point is the impossibility of enforcing regulation regardless of personal views. Its the irreversibility of the action.

Is it socially acceptable? A lot of people still consider it stealing....

A lot of people hold views that aren't socially acceptable, on many subjects, because "a lot" isn't "enough". "Piracy" is normal for most people under 20, common among under 30's, and generally considered wrong in some nebulous way by those older than that; it's typically only moral ideologues and those directly involved in the moneymaking side of an industry who're stomping about declaiming "pirates" as vile degenerates destroying society.

The simple fact of the matter is that the whole concept of "intellectual property" is a prima facie ludicrous notion(since it necessitates the presumption that one person can own part of another person, not to mention that it is completely contra to our scientific understanding of the human creative process), made into an unfortunate(and today vastly overused) necessity because of capitalism, in which system the creator of a non-physical work must be able to receive compensation for their expended labour. But capitalism as a system was not designed, nor is it capable, of functioning properly in the face of the technologies that are emerging. We can plug the holes, bail out the water, but the ship is sinking - how can you have a labour market when human labour is largely unnecessary to the process of production? How can you have a system that controls intellectual property when information and physical product are interchangeable, and either can be copied at zero-or-close-to-it cost? Artificial scarcity is not sustainable, and in time(I won't presume to predict how much, futurists are generally about as accurate as reading tea leaves) technology will either eliminate genuine scarcity entirely, or come so close as to necessitate an entirely new way of thinking about property and economics.