[Discuss] 3D printing might allow for an enforceable open hardware license

[OpenSource Citizen]

How is IP being justified as Open Source?

For me its an ethical and spiritual decision and lifestyle choice.
Ethical: I'm choosing to not dominate over my fellow humans by asking an 
arbitrary-government power to use force to keep people from building 
something that could benefit their life.

Spiritual: Myself, like most of us,  were conditioned to be 
individualistic, conceited, consuming pricks because its good for the 
fake-GDP-economy. I awakened and realized that we are all one in the sense 
that nobody really has an original idea. Its ALL based on observations from 
the work of other humans and from the LAWS of nature and what nature can do 
for us. Tesla believed in mindfulness, that some of his knowledge wasn't 
merely observed but came from some magical supernatural knowledge pool. 
Even if this was true, they still weren't his ideas. I love how the patent 
office has everybody arguing, well that idea isn't original enough. Its all 
just a made up religion of worshiping arbitrary points on what is really a 
continuous sliding scale of from originality to copying. If the patent 
office was more accepting or more rejecting then its loyal slave-public 
subjects would adjust their logic-ethic rationale in the same direction. 
Manufactured Morality.

Its like putting a solar panel on a bradley tank and trying to sell it to a 
soccer mom as a Green-grocery-getter. People like this are just trying to 
capitalize off of other people's good intentions and end up ruining it for 
everybody and the inevitable happens. They rally a few greedy "artists" to 
go along with their compromising and corrupt the spirit of said creative 
movement, then the ambulance chasing lawyers swoop in, then big business 
comes in with its high power lawyers and lobbying. Then all 
printers/players and files are DRM locked and a simple audio CD that could 
have been spun in a basement studio ends up costing more then a 2 hour 
bluray DVD that had $100million budget. The original greedy whiners are 
long forgotten.



IMHO


On Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:49:05 PM UTC-6, Matt Maier wrote:
>
>  From the article<http://jipel.law.nyu.edu/2013/04/three-dimensional-printing-and-open-source-hardware/>
> ...
> "a robust open hardware framework must ensure that obligations of 
> attribution and documentation are easily passed through complex supply 
> chains, and that any such requirements are relatively frictionless and 
> impose minimal transaction costs. The TAPR and CERN licenses, which do not 
> address downstream recipients at all, do not provide an adequate framework 
> for the easy integration of open hardware in these settings."
>
> "Current open hardware framework [copyright, patents, contracts], 
> however, cannot easily impose documentation or attribution obligations on 
> downstream users, and cannot enforce their terms with effective legal 
> remedies. Even so, an open hardware license that satisfies these 
> requirements can be built in the technological context of three-dimensional 
> printing."
>
> "The manufacture of a physical object in an automated three-dimensional 
> printing process, however, will infringe the copyright of the underlying 
> design file...the use of digital designs and automated manufacturing 
> creates a physical article that corresponds directly to the specifications 
> of the digital design, and which requires the copying and transformation of 
> the original digital file. As such, without a license, the use of the 
> design file in a three-dimensional printing process will infringe the 
> copyright in the design file."
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130426/0cfacbc1/attachment.html>