Event: 3D Printing and Intellectual Property, 13 Nov

On November 13, Netopia held a seminar at Thon Hotel EU to discuss 3D Printing and Intellectual Property, launch a Netopia report on the topic, and do a live 3D printing demo.

3D printers can already make everything from car parts and dental implants to clothes and toys – even human organs and guns.

Manufacturing used to be the domain of industries, but with increasingly cheap 3D printers these tools of production may soon be as widespread as the video camera or photo printer.

> Is this a paradigm shift that turns markets inside-out and spawns innovation and growth?

> Or will it bring the challenges of infringement, illegal distribution and market disruption that the creative industries have been struggling to cope with in the past decade to manufacturing?

> Will 3D printers challenge the traditional intellectual property distinctions of patents, patterns, trademark and copyright?

> Will we need new regulation and new institutions?

> Who are the winners and losers in this new landscape?

These and many other burning questions were discussed at Netopia’s seminar. Watch the videos:

 

Part 1/5, 3D printing demonstration

 

Part 2/5, Per Strömbäck

 

Part 3/5, Hosuk Lee-Makiyama

 

Part 4/5, Francesca Doria

 

Part 5/5, Q&A

Speakers at the event

Hosuk Lee-Makiyama,
Director
ECIPE

Francesca Doria,
Policy Officer,
DG Enterprise and Industry, European Commission

Realize,
3D printing hub in Brussels who conducted the demo

Moderator: Per Strömbäck,
Editor Netopia

 

Download the full report in English here.

Preface of the report here.

5

Leave Comment

  1. […] Netopia.eu hat einen Report über die Herausforderungen veröffentlicht, die sich dem Urheberrecht künftig in Bezug auf 3-D Drucker stellen werden. […]

  2. And here is my take on the questions:

    * Is this a paradigm shift that turns markets inside-out and spawns innovation and growth?

    Of course it is. We can print living tissue already today. In a couple of decades anyone will be able to print any physical object. The innovation of growth spawned by anyone being able to create any object, limited only by imagination will be staggering.

    * Or will it bring the challenges of infringement, illegal distribution and market disruption that the creative industries have been struggling to cope with in the past decade to manufacturing?

    What do you mean “or”? AND it will bring the same challanges of infringement. In fact the silly battle the copyright industry has been waging on sharing the last decade will just be a mild summer breeze in comparison to the tsunami that is coming. But this is a good thing, because the conflict between fundamental human rights and the copyright monopoly will become extremely obvious. And the copyright monopoly will have to go. It cannot be upheld in a world where anyone can manufacture anything basically for free in their own homes. Why buy a lamp shade from someone if you can easily print your own? Or later on, why buy the latest Hover craft from someone if you can easily print your own self-assembling dito?

    * Will 3D printers challenge the traditional intellectual property distinctions of patents, patterns, trademark and copyright?

    They will obliterate them. Annihilate them. Make them a parentheses in the history books. Well, not trademarks of course. Those will still be around, and still serve a good purpose just like they do today. The moral right to be recognised as the author or inventor will also survive (as opposed to economic copyrights, ie. the copyright monopoly)

    * Will we need new regulation and new institutions?

    Most likely not. What we need will be to abolish a lot of regulation related to patents and copyright, which will need to be abolished.

    * Who are the winners and losers in this new landscape?

    Everyone is a winner in the long term. Imagine the prosperity generated when anyone can manufacture any physical object (at least if we par it with some really cheap and renewable energy sources that are yet to be invented). In the short term the middle men making a living from the copyright monopoly will be the losers.

  3. When you say, as you did recently, that there is a “clear need for regulating the digital space” because the fact that people can share information on how to print guns, then you are not asking questions. You are saying we need regulation. When I ask you, what kind of regulation that might be, you refuse to answer.

    This follows the same pattern from your Swedish blog. You imply that there is this need for “regulating” digital communications and bring up nasty examples of stuff that can be communicated (child porn, terrorist propaganda, slander, etc.) By doing this you intend to create public opinion for “regulating the digital space”.

    But your true agenda has always been to protect the copyright monopoly, because the proponents of that monopoly are paying your bills.

    And whenever asked to clarify what “regulation” actually means you remain silent. Why? Because blanket surveillance, and censorship are harsh and disproportionate measures. You want everyone to agree on the need for “regulation” before it becomes clear that this is the ONLY type of measures that can ever prevent people from sharing copyrighted materials (or information on how to print guns).

    “You don’t have the answer.” That is BS! You do have the answer. You just don’t want to be honest and open about it.

  4. Martin – I don’t have the answer. Does that disqualify me from asking the question? Would you agree there are some real issues that we should discuss? LIke gun control, consumer safety and intellectual property rights. Or do you think no discussion should take place?

  5. You said previously on this blog that you think that regulation should be put in place to prevent the sharing of information on how to print certain items (guns), and that the printing of such items should be prevented.

    However, as usual you neglected to give any kind of details on the details of such regulation. How should we go about preventing people from sharing certain information? Blanket sureveillance of everyone’s private communication is the only viable option, along with blocking (pre-censorship). But for some reason you constantly dodge this question.

    So I ask again: Could you please be specific about the details of the “regulation” you envision?

Comment on this article