[Discuss] public files vs export control laws

Sun May 12 16:09:55 UTC 2013

I actually do not think the NRA will have a problem
with Defense Distributed -- and I happen to know that DD is banking on that
to be the case.

3D printed guns are not any threat, near or medium term, to the arms
manufacturing business; it still costs ~$100k to get a printer that takes
~20 hours to make one gun that can fire ~100 times before breaking, not
very accurately. That as opposed to the mature machine and metel
manufacturing processes that make (what, having never fired more than a
hunting rifle, I can only assume to be) high quality, inexpensive weapons,
fast. Even if suddenly everyone had a capable printer in their garage, it
would still be cheaper, faster, and more lethal to find even
an unlicensed weapon on the streets of any American city than to make one
yourself.

3D printing guns is only interesting to the NRA etc as a test case for gun
control legislation -- and you can be sure they are not changing their
stance just because some new technology is coming to bare.

Wilson has been trying to become a legal arms manufacturer, and has got the
local ATF permission. Normal "hobbyists" can only make two
lower receivers a year -- a NRA backed law that does support the arms
manufacturing business. Defense Distributed was trying to go around that by
becoming a licenced manufacturer themselves. Obviously, the State
Department has ideas of its own, and the issue has gone beyond normal
firearms manufacturing law.

The gun control issue is obviously huge and has billions of dollars on
either side of it. This 3D printing story could get picked up in that
larger debate, but I would be surprised if someone like Chuck Schumer went
after it. Its too new, and there are too many old, trusted tactics in this
fight. Politicians hate to try new things, unless they are obviously to
their advantage.

The debate I am more concerned with is the nacient but growing one around
digital fabrication and 3D printing. It is important to show that 3D
printing's disruptive potential is not limited to producing tools of
violence. There will soon be regulation in this area, and its important to
set the contours of debate now while they are still fluid, rather than have
to deal with inhospitable framing and miss-educated public when it comes
time to actually fighting for good regulation.

Wow, I thought that when I decided to become a maker and quit working for
Democrats I would get to leave all my political hackery behind me... But we
are reaching a point where politics is going to find us whether we like it
or not.

K9

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Andrew Malcolm Stanley <
a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:

> Will new regulation be required? I would think you could probably find
> some safety regs around durability and so on that would be challenging if
> not impossible to meet short term.
>
> That would allow them to reinforce their own brand position while
> fundamentally attacking their opposition...
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 11, 2013, at 22:43, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130512/58e1c5ed/attachment-0001.html>