[Discuss] public files vs export control laws

Matt Maier blueback09 at gmail.com
Sun May 12 02:43:16 UTC 2013


I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert on the subject, but I do have
an opinion that I am confident enough in to express.

The NRA, and a small ecology of similar organizations, does NOT represent
people's opinions. The vast majority of gun owners DO have nuanced
interpretations of the 2nd amendment. The NRA represents the gun industry.
A nuanced interpretation of the 2nd amendment is bad for business.

The gun industry is going to think it's bad enough that the additive
manufacturing industry is starting to provide people desktop 3D printers.
They are most definitely not going to be enamored of the idea that people
might get that capability on their own from hobbyist groups like the RepRap
project. And they are certainly not going to be supportive of the
additional scrutiny that self-made plastic guns are going to bring to their
industry. Remember, compromising the 2nd amendment is bad for business.
Defense Distributed is providing a powerful argument for increased, or
brand new, regulation.


On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Andrew Malcolm Stanley <
a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:

> Bear with me as I am confused by this assertion:
>
> Are not those same politicians helped along by traditional manufacturers
> of guns, via their trade association the NRA?
>
> Do we know that those manufacturers are supportive of this new technology
> which could be potentially disruptive to their marketplace?
>
> If not we may find their support of their interpretation of the 2nd
> amendment begins to display some nuance...
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 19:10, David Carrier <dcarrier at parallax.com> wrote:
>
> There may be a a plus side to this case being about guns.  Had the DoD
> taken down DIY Drones, which they could consider an ITAR controlled export,
> the only political support would be from the relatively small group of
> politicians and NPOs that are aware of, and interested in, open-source
> hardware.  There aren't many pro-drone politicians.
>
> Being that this involves guns too, there are many politicians and NPOs
> that strongly oppose restrictions on guns and will do everything they can
> to make sure Defense Distributed comes out on the winning side of the
> debate.  Regardless of any of our individual views on guns and gun control,
> Cody Wilson may be fighting ITAR restrictions on open-source hardware from
> an angle that is more likely to win.
>
> — David Carrier
>
>
> Tom Igoe wrote:
>
> I have a pretty good understanding of his tactics, I've been through a
> number of interviews and articles, and seen similar patterns before. I just
> think they are ill-advised. He's got two controversial topics in his
> actions:  weapons reform, and intellectual property reform. By doing what
> he's doing, he's tied the two together in many people's minds.  So now
> those same people will be less receptive to the idea that intellectual
> property regulation on its own is worth discussing.
>
>  Cody's chosen to take a radical stance. That's fine, but the consequence
> of that choose is that you alienate more people than you do than by taking
> a collaborative stance. He's got to live with that consequence, and
> unfortunately, now so do those of us who share his feelings about
> intellectual property reform.
>
>   t.
>
>  On May 10, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Will Canine <willcanine at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  I think that Wilson's point is that regulation can't stop the dispersion
> of disruptive designs via the Internet; he is not really looking for a
> waver or exemption or anything like that. His point is that now it's
> started, it can't be stopped, regulation be damned.
>
>  I'm as uninterested in guns as anyone here, but I do think it's worth
> looking at what he is doing more closely -- his tactics are worth learning
> from at the very least.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 10, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  I'd have to agree, Malcolm.
>
> malcolm stanley <a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> My experience with Export Control for encryption technologies used in
>> consumer devices, instantiated as DRM solutions for Video on Demand movies,
>> suggests to me that the exception being sought is somewhat ... unrealistic.
>>
>>  Weaponization of any technology is probably a poor strategy for
>> accomplishing the acheivement of a waiver from regulation.
>>
>> _________________________________________
>> malcolm stanley
>>
>> google.voice:  215.821.6252
>> Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
>> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
>> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
>> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
>> _________________________________________
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> This is a dilemma that's been building up for a while now. Open source
>>> is all about sharing ideas so that anyone who wants to build them, or build
>>> off of them, can do so. Export control is a legal regime that makes sharing
>>> of certain ideas with non-authorized entities a federal crime.
>>>
>>>  Those of you who were at the hardware documentation jam might remember
>>> the subject of legal constraints coming up, but at the time I didn't have a
>>> good example.
>>>
>>>  It would seem that we now have our test case. The State Department has
>>> ordered Defense Distributed to stop that whole "sharing guns" thing while
>>> they review whether or not making them internationally available violates
>>> International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/09/state-department-demands-takedown-of-3d-printable-gun-for-possible-export-control-violation/
>>>
>>>  Cody Wilson, a law student, says that what he's doing falls into a
>>> protected exception for non-profit public domain research. His argument is
>>> that the files are "stored in a library" in the sense that all libraries
>>> have internet access and there is a single bookstore in Austin providing
>>> the published plans.
>>>
>>>  Getting any kind of official exception to export control for open
>>> source technology development would be a huge win. It would pave the way
>>> for much more ambitious projects.
>>>
>>>  -Matt
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> discuss mailing listdiscuss at lists.oshwa.orghttp://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>  _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing listdiscuss at lists.oshwa.orghttp://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130512/38b10bed/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the discuss mailing list