Prompt:
Report on an ethical or legal issue pertaining to your information community. Use the modules on ethical issues and intellectual freedom as resources to define and reflect on the issue.
Reflection:
The maker community by and large are a very open and sharing group. Most seem to be involved with the community in order to share their knowledge and learn new skills. They use cutting edge technology to manufacture within their homes and group spaces. Because of this there are many topic I could touch on such as, fair use, creative expression, Intellectual property within a very open community, implied contract and many many others. For the purpose of this review I’m going to narrow down the community a little and just focus on the 3D printing community within the greater making community and copyright.
Makers make stuff, they create files, desk, weld bikes, they make. But what happens when one individual makes something and another screams “But I thought of that first!”. 3D printing is not new it’s only recently with a dramatic price reduction and influx of kickstarted printers and open source models that they are now in many homes. What happens when everyone is able to download a file and just hit print? Who created the file? Where did the user download the file? What is the impact that 3D printing with have on copyright and IP? The best example I have found is to compare the copyright and IP problems of 3D printing is to those of Napster and the music industry.
Like Napster makers can use a site like Thingverse.com to upload content which in turn can then be downloaded by other users. Napster’s downfall was the fact that most of the sharing going within it’s network was with copyrighted materials. The entertainment industry was losing millions in profits and spent decades in the courtroom suing others for copyright infringement. Because of the growth of peer-to-peer networks, expansion of high speed internet, and the ease to file sharing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed.
The DMCA states that the creator/owner can sue for copyright if that the individual in question creates and distributes the copyrighted material. The DMCA also covers digital files as well allowing those creator/owners to sue or claim copyright. However, the creator/owner must actively police their own products through takedown notices to the service providers housing the stolen or copied file. This also allows larger service providers, like YouTube and GitHub to simply remove the content rather than be blamed for the copyright themselves. Because of the this large sites like Thingverse.com can house files that may violate copyright laws without fear of retrubution. It allows users, creators and copyright holders the right to police the site themselves.
The problem with 3D printers is they give you the ability to download files that you can print in your kitchen. This creates the potential for a large amount of makers breaking copyright laws, consciously or not. A great example given by Melissa A. Barnett, author of The Next Big Fight, is of a young man who created an object containing HBO’s Game of Thrones logo. He then sold that object online for $50. HBO sued the young man for copyright violations and he was required to cease and desist while also refunding the money he collected while distributing his prints.
How does something like this effect libraries? Are we responsible for what our patons print out within our makerspaces? How does this affect us in the public forum as more and more libraries are introducing makerspaces and 3D printing? As one of the great havens for free speech, censorship, and user privacy how do we police ourselves on a very subjective subjects of creative expression versus copyright and Intellectual property concerns? I don’t have the answers but I should probably talk to the library’s lawyer before my next 3D print class.
Makers make stuff, they create files, desk, weld bikes, they make. But what happens when one individual makes something and another screams “But I thought of that first!”. 3D printing is not new it’s only recently with a dramatic price reduction and influx of kickstarted printers and open source models that they are now in many homes. What happens when everyone is able to download a file and just hit print? Who created the file? Where did the user download the file? What is the impact that 3D printing with have on copyright and IP? The best example I have found is to compare the copyright and IP problems of 3D printing is to those of Napster and the music industry.
Like Napster makers can use a site like Thingverse.com to upload content which in turn can then be downloaded by other users. Napster’s downfall was the fact that most of the sharing going within it’s network was with copyrighted materials. The entertainment industry was losing millions in profits and spent decades in the courtroom suing others for copyright infringement. Because of the growth of peer-to-peer networks, expansion of high speed internet, and the ease to file sharing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed.
The DMCA states that the creator/owner can sue for copyright if that the individual in question creates and distributes the copyrighted material. The DMCA also covers digital files as well allowing those creator/owners to sue or claim copyright. However, the creator/owner must actively police their own products through takedown notices to the service providers housing the stolen or copied file. This also allows larger service providers, like YouTube and GitHub to simply remove the content rather than be blamed for the copyright themselves. Because of the this large sites like Thingverse.com can house files that may violate copyright laws without fear of retrubution. It allows users, creators and copyright holders the right to police the site themselves.
The problem with 3D printers is they give you the ability to download files that you can print in your kitchen. This creates the potential for a large amount of makers breaking copyright laws, consciously or not. A great example given by Melissa A. Barnett, author of The Next Big Fight, is of a young man who created an object containing HBO’s Game of Thrones logo. He then sold that object online for $50. HBO sued the young man for copyright violations and he was required to cease and desist while also refunding the money he collected while distributing his prints.
How does something like this effect libraries? Are we responsible for what our patons print out within our makerspaces? How does this affect us in the public forum as more and more libraries are introducing makerspaces and 3D printing? As one of the great havens for free speech, censorship, and user privacy how do we police ourselves on a very subjective subjects of creative expression versus copyright and Intellectual property concerns? I don’t have the answers but I should probably talk to the library’s lawyer before my next 3D print class.
References:
Hirsh, S. (2015). Information services today. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
The next big fight: 3D printing and intellectual property | Lexology. (2014, January 31). Retrieved October 18, 2015.
The next big fight: 3D printing and intellectual property | Lexology. (2014, January 31). Retrieved October 18, 2015.