My piracy response was a little tongue in cheek, but the only really good answer to "why not just print it?"
3d scanning technology is also getting up to speed very quickly; this will make regulation impossible, and just create another direct parallel to the music industry.
I already own the CD, I bought it from the intellectual property owner, so why can't I make a copy of it for "personal use" in case the original is lost or damaged? What if I want to keep a copy in my car, and in my home?
Replace "CD" with any part that can be 3D printed, and let the games begin. Prices for parts will increase to make up the loss in market share (have to cover that overhead) and that will drive more consumers away. Then maybe Billy Bob down the street will print you a $100 part for $20.
If the value is in the labor/materials, then I will just make it myself, no harm no foul. But once the argument is made to assign the value of a physical object to the intellectual property it contains, quantity of the object becomes insignificant (from one side of the argument at least.) As long as I paid for that intellectual property once, I can make as many physical objects with it as I see fit (for personal use only, of course.)
I'm afraid the next big career boom may be in the legal profession... Why make something new when there are plenty of things out there to argue over?
Some one could argue why buy a tail light cover when semi-transparent red tape is available. A point can be made that as the price increases (including taxes), the value of illegal copying increases. There needs to be a balancing point of value vs cost, in order to reduce illegal copying. Sort of like the demand curve for economics.
A recent newspaper article (I read on line, and did not buy the actual paper)about the man behind the 99 cent store, who died a billionare. He wasen't charging $20 for CD's, but items of closer value to the cost of production. Why don't people feel bad for copying CD's, because people feel the actual price is too high.
The value should be in the orignal production of an item, not the gouging of people who happen to break one.
Heard a recording on the radio this morning of a 3D plastic AR-15 being shot. Sounded like the perfect storm developoing between global warming (brought on by excess bloviation and smug cloud emanating from the central Atlantic seaboard) and nation-wide flatulence over gun control. Not taking either side, just stating that in real life nothing is idiot proof.
I actually don't think making guns out of plastic is the best use of the technology, but if Washington continues down the route of anti-gun it will push the 3D technology to more possibilities than where it currently is. I don't want to get into the gun debate here, but the gun debate will push technology to more home made items by those who want guns, and may buy a 3d printer for that purpose.
Here's the problem, 3D printable guns and knives (or any other weapons)without limits will increase the level of crimes commited world wide, so the repercussions of what Washington does will happen world wide. So while this will expand the interest in this technology, it will also form a negitive side effect.
Just vision a million Chinese, of Indian people with printed guns.
Just so I get off this topic, there was an article about printable buildings, using concreate, and the benifit was the unique shapes. The problem is how many people want a totaly unique building? After all how many years ago people thought you were crazy if you wanted an outlet on the cealing of your grauge?
Since there are already over 100,000,000 guns in the hands of American citizens today (6 of which are in my own gun safe) how is it that what Washington does next will result in the rest of the world being somehow pushed into making their own guns in their basements or garages, as you seem to imply? If I were the NRA, with virtually all of their money coming from gun manufactures, I would be the first to suggest that making it easier for people to produce their OWN guns is something that should be strictly controlled, if not stopped altogether. Otherwise the gun-shops in America could potentially go the route of Tower Records. Granted, this may sound outrageous, but I wonder what the people in the record industry initially thought when Napster first came on the scene back in 1999? And while the original Napster was dealt with in short order (it was around for only 25 months), it portended a series of paradigm shifts that even the brightest 'futurists' never foresaw, including the likes of Toffler ('The Third Wave', 1980), Naisbitt ('Megatrends', 1982), Kaku ('Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century', 1998), Kurzweil ('The Singularity Is Near', 2005), etc. (I'll admit that the jury is still out on Kurzweil).
Anyway...
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA Siemens PLM: UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
I'm just saying that if something is banned, they don't go away. The people who want them just become more creative, and soon the underground economy will take off with whatever technology exists to make them.
The fact that underground guns just fill in the XXX in the technology advancment still means the growth of XXX will push the growth of the technology. The same thing would likely happen if the price on tail light covers increased 1000%, except I don't see as much demand in tail light covers.
I still believe there is a need for custom plastic items, that if the price to print them were reasonable could be added to an existing print business. But with the increase in size of the printers, so goes the increase in the number of custom items that become printable. And the same goes with the increase in printing materials.
I think the real advancment will be when printing with different materials on the same build becomes possible. Granted some of this exists now.
In countries where guns are already heavily controlled have there been a lot of problems with home made weapons be it 'printed' or made the old fashioned way?
I remember in the UK for a while in the late 90's people were modifying starter pistols to fire BB's.
Cranky, your last comment brought to mind prohibition. There was always a way to find one's alcohol, be it homemade or craftily imported. The people rose up and got rid of it. The gun situation has a different motivation, but it seems very similar to me.
JohnRBaker, I clicked both of your links. Very informative, but Homeland Security showed up within the hour...
Best to you,
Goober Dave
Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies
The only problem I see is the argument that "any idiot can print a firearm." The technology is still a little off from one click and you have a part, but it is getting closer. If it gets out of control you can always make the argument that guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. Then try to restrict bullets. Should be fun.
Saw some kids laser cutting "brass knuckles" the other day out of acrylic. Laser cut corners are sharp, those things could slice you open.
Cranky - most home 3D printers use open source model slicing tools to generate G-Code, which can be modified pretty easily to allow for pauses. I've added pauses to prints on my solidoodle that have allowed me to drop in hex nuts and magnets which then became "captive" in the plastic as the print continued. I've been sketching up plans for a small SCARA-style arm next to my printer to do some pick and place operations, but these haven't gone very far beyond napkin squiggles. The long term plan is to have the G-code pause, send a command to the arm to pick & place in a certain location, then continue with the print.
On the topic of 3D printed guns (what is it with some people's obsession with things that kill? I got over that when I was around 16...), it wouldn't surprise me if the Darwin Awards people are preparing a completely separate category for people who decided to give it a go.
Some people find it fascinating. An old guy I know in the neighborhood keeps calling/emailing to find out if I've made a gun yet with my printer. He really wants to try one out, and I can't imagine why (plenty of regular guns around his house). Sigh...
I'm not getting this. I've never fired a gun so maybe someone can enlighten me.
A gun is just a tube (barrel) that fits closely to the bullet.
So the simplest gun is this:
So all you "3D print" is just a tube, a handle, and a trigger. All of which you can just make with a saw/drill/whatever normal tools you have in your garage. If it was an assault rifle it would be newsworthy as I guess feeding the bullets and avoid overheating and whatnot is the difficult part.
But this just a guy who glued a tube to a handle and let a nail strike the bullet?
the fun starts when the tube cannot handle the pressure generated by the force of the explosion. With a .22 long rifle round, the barrel of a regular rifle is proof loaded to 12 tons per square inch. That is double it's expected maximum working pressure.
If a random thin walled piece of tube is picked up,for a zip gun, you end up with a grenade instead of a firearm.
B.E.
