[Discuss] Request for Comments: Digital DIY: Legal Challenges & Solutions Practised Report

Emilio Velis contacto at emiliovelis.com
Thu Sep 22 17:15:48 UTC 2016

I might want to chip in on the discussion, since there is a lot of acid
thrown into copyright alongside a lot of misconceptions.

First, copyright is a legal term which is embraced by all countries that
sign the Berne Convention. Although this thread is right in stating that it
was a concept developed in England and it complied with common law, the
Berne Convention is not completely in agreement with common law, i.e. in
terms of moral rights.

Now, having said this, there are different theories of copyright. Copyright
is philosophically based on the notion of private property, which is a
concept existing in all countries as far as I know, and is developed based
on different theories, so the fact of the matter here is that you can't
just come and say that 1. Copyright is an exclusive term for common law, or
that 2. Copyright is slavery without admitting that all forms of private
property are also akin to slavery to some degree.

I think we ought to chill this thread and value the contributions that are
being made within the community without these kinds of nonsense.

On 22 September 2016 at 08:27, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Technically, you've always needed a "design file" for any kind of
> non-trivial fabrication. Modern digital tools don't change that. There have
> always been drawings and instructions "fixed in a tangible medium" that
> could get copyright protection.
> This definition was already stretched when digital medium(s) were
> invented, since they aren't particularly tangible, but the concept is the
> same, so for the purposes of copyright we think of digital files as
> tangible.
> So I agree that making copies or derivative works of a "tangible" (i.e.
> digital) file falls under copyright. If you take a screenshot of a
> blueprint that screenshot should count as a derivative work. If you cut
> away pieces of a 3D file the resulting 3D file should be a derivative work.
> I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that 3D printing a 3D file is a
> derivative work, but on balance it mostly makes sense, particularly since
> the whole point of digital fabrication is to remove any creative or
> crafting aspect, thus making fabrication easier and more predictable.
> The thing is that copyright still only covers non-functional aspects of
> the design. You can't copyright a napkin holder but you can copyright a
> decorative design applied to a napkin holder. There's gray area, but that's
> the gist of it. http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/05/29/
> protecting-3d-printing-designs-and-objects/#522f071b7ddd
> I don't think the Open Source Hardware community cares about the
> non-functional aspects of objects. That's definitely not the focus of the
> existing community. There is concern about identification in the
> marketplace, but that's already covered by trademark.
> So if someone makes a little model of an Easter Bunny, and applies an OSHW
> license to it, and wants to assert that anyone who 3D prints the Easter
> Bunny model needs to comply with the terms of their OSHW license, I'd
> suggest that they don't waste their time. They can just use a normal
> copyright license and get exactly the same protection.
> OSHW is far more concerned with how things work than with how they look.
> Extending copyright to functional, utilitarian aspects of objects would be
> an unreasonable leap. That would be the exact opposite of how copyright
> works.
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Wouter Tebbens <wouter at freeknowledge.eu>
> wrote:
>> Philosophically I would be fully against any form of "intellectual
>> monopoly", but as you say, there'd be no copyleft without copyright (or
>> droit d'auteur). And this helps us agree on the rules that we operate on
>> in our community.
>> Regarding your statement on copyleft hardware, let me challenge you to
>> say that there are good reasons to work on copyleft hardware and that
>> the current legal systems do help us. Please read section 4.3
>> "Non-exclusive Public Licensing" in the report.
>> In sum, copyleft for hardware designs works like this:
>> 1) hardware design files can easily be protected under copyright law,
>> considering that copyright law protects “pictorial, graphic and
>> sculptural works”, which include “two-dimensional and three-dimensional
>> works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art
>> reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical
>> drawings, including architectural plans”.
>> 2) Considering the design files needed for digital fabrication, the
>> copyright holder has the exclusive right over the reproduction of the
>> work, and any derivatives made of it. This should be a sufficiently
>> strong basis for the open source licenses (Greenbaum 2013).
>> 3) For determining the legal status of producing physical products based
>> on a freely licensed digital blueprint (e.g., a CAD file), three main
>> scenarios can be distinguished (Margoni 2013, p.240).
>> 4) When there's dentity between the realised product and the digital
>> blueprint, which is typically the case for digital fabrication
>> processes, there is an act of reproduction.
>> 5) When the intellectual creation as present in the original blueprint
>> is identifiable in the final result in a way that may constitute
>> copyright infringement, we deal with a derived work.
>> 6) Based on the exclusive rights conveyed by the copyright system, the
>> original author can mandate a copyleft license and that should set the
>> rules for acts like 4) and 5).
>> Several legal scholars have agreed on this to be true. Looking forward
>> to your comments.
>> best,
>> Wouter
>> On 22-09-16 09:33, Matt Maier wrote:
>> > Yeah, copyright doesn't force people to do anything; worst case is it
>> > forbids people from doing things.
>> >
>> > And it's weird to rail against copyright from a libre perspective
>> > because copyleft, the legal precedent that allows for free/libre in the
>> > first place, wouldn't exist without copyright.
>> >
>> > It's the courts enforcing the terms of copyleft that gives free/libre
>> > power. If you want to get rid of copyright then you'll also lose
>> copyleft.
>> >
>> > That's the exact challenge we have in hardware! There isn't any
>> > copyright for hardware (functional objects) so we can't use copyleft to
>> > enforce hardware licenses.
>> >
>> > The absence of copyleft makes a domain open source by default. It's only
>> > with copyleft that free/libre can exist. You have to have the ability to
>> > get a court to issue an injunction against someone that wants to use
>> > your free/libre stuff in violation of the terms that require sharing.
>> > Without the option of getting the courts to side with you there isn't
>> > any way to enforce free/libre.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Brennen Bearnes <bbearnes at gmail.com
>> > <mailto:bbearnes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     Various parties wrote:
>> >
>> >     > > 2. Alert:
>> >     > > Please, please, please, do not call you 3.1. section
>> >     > > "copyright", please, oh please, let stop this, please really
>> >     > > please Wouter, not for a european paper, please please please
>> >     > > Wouter.  Please find an other term like "right of authorship",
>> >     > > or "right of intellectual property",
>> >     >
>> >     > NO.  the concept of "intelligence as property" is both fake,
>> >     > misleading, and utterly arrogant.  how DARE you claim that you can
>> >     > ENSLAVE ME through OWNERSHIP of the intelligence within MY mind
>> >     > that is my BIRTHRIGHT.
>> >
>> >     It kind of seems like this rhetorical mode might not be doing us
>> >     any favors.
>> >
>> >     -- bpb
>> >     _______________________________________________
>> >     discuss mailing list
>> >     discuss at lists.oshwa.org <mailto:discuss at lists.oshwa.org>
>> >     http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>> >     <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/20160922/5a225535/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list