Author Topic: 3D Printing Under Attack (Read 48,871 times)

SeraphimLabs · « **Reply #25 on:** October 14, 2012, 12:45 PM »

But at close range it doesn't matter.

I'm confident enough in my marksmanship that when I do go shoot something, I only ever put one bullet in the gun.

My logic follows that if you can't with certainty destroy the target with a single shot, you should not take that shot.

Other than when practicing to reach that level anyway.

But with most 3d printers unable to print metal at this time, the odds are that the chamber would explode on all but the smallest possible ammo types. It would be more effective as a grenade or flashbang than as a gun for that reason.

Also, they can't sanely IP everything. In hundreds of years, there have been millions of designs. Just pick a design that predates copyright law, and it's grandfathered without a copyright- you can make all the copies of it you want. Even without having a design to follow, they were invented once before by men with a mere hammer and anvil, modern technology makes that kind of innovation even more accessible than ever. Someone else might invent an entirely new variation.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #26 on:** October 14, 2012, 01:06 PM »

Quote from: 40hz on October 14, 2012, 10:41 AM

Quote from: Renegade on October 14, 2012, 08:57 AM
3D printed guns right now aren't comparable to hundreds of years of gunsmith engineering. So 3D gun plans & printing really have no significant effect on anything.

Really? A cheap untraceable gun suitable for use at close range doesn't inspire all sorts of creative thinking?

+1 - Totally nailed it! Remember the statistics...a typical shooting happens at less than 20'. That doesn't require a great deal of accuracy or skill...just the compunction/desperation to pull the trigger.

40hz · « **Reply #27 on:** October 14, 2012, 03:43 PM »

Quote from: SeraphimLabs on October 14, 2012, 12:45 PM

the odds are that the chamber would explode on all but the smallest possible ammo types. It would be more effective as a grenade or flashbang than as a gun for that reason.

To be sure. But weren't there people making "liners" or barrel inserts for flare guns that allowed you to fire a 'real' ammo round. I seem to recall the AFT or some similar agency talking about that a while back? The guns did fail after a few uses. But AFAIR they all got at least one .38 shot off before they became totally "too dangerous" to use. IMHO it's pretty dumb to do it even once (other than as a proof-of-concept) but whatcha gonna do? These are yahoos we're talking about who'd try this in a street setting.

Oooo baby! You just gotta love Google sometimes! Here it is.

Renegade · « **Reply #28 on:** October 14, 2012, 03:59 PM »

Quote from: 40hz on October 14, 2012, 03:43 PM

Oooo baby! You just gotta love Google sometimes! Here it is.

Yeah... Ya just gotta love the fine art of sanity~!

Quote

It is the determination of FTB that if these inserts are installed in a flare launcher or are possessed with a flare launcher they would be classified as an “Any Other Weapon,” which is a firearm subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) states that it is unlawful to receive or possess an NFA firearm which is not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. Violation of the cited section by an individual is a felony subject to a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $250,000. In the case of a violation by an organization, the maximum penalty is a $500,000 fine.

40hz · « **Reply #29 on:** October 14, 2012, 04:15 PM »

^Oh gosh! It's illegal? Really? We'll...I guess it won't be a problem then, just so long as everybody is made aware it's against the law.

40hz · « **Reply #30 on:** October 14, 2012, 04:33 PM »

Well, it didn't take long for the people with political agendas to get in on this topic. This from the Huffington Post. In it Josh Horowitz (Executive Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence), adds this piquant mix of flag waving, hysteria, half-truth and posturing to the discussion...

(Note: it's best read with The Battle Hymn of the Republic playing softly in the background. )

Quote

The Huffington Post and other major media outlets have been abuzz lately with discussion of "3D printing's next frontier": guns. Specifically, the focus has been on a University of Texas law school student who had the 3D printer he leased reclaimed after announcing he would begin printing "Wiki weapons" (i.e., receivers for assault rifles and crude handguns) and freely distributing the plans for these firearms over the Internet. Desktop manufacturing company Stratsys felt that the student in question, Cody Wilson, was flouting existing federal firearms laws and stated that it is not its policy to "knowingly allow its printers to be used for illegal purposes." Wilson was also booted off Indiegogo, where he tried to fundraise for the project.

Much of the coverage focused on the aspect of the exciting new technology involved, which "promises to revolutionize manufacturing" in the United States. Less-discussed was the stated motivation behind the project and the radical political views of its founder.

Much of the coverage focused on the aspect of the exciting new technology involved, which "promises to revolutionize manufacturing" in the United States. Less-discussed was the stated motivation behind the project and the radical political views of its founder.
.
.
.
Let's be clear. The Wiki Weapon project is not the work of a dispassionate techie seeking to push the outer limits of modern technology. Instead it is a blatant, undisguised attempt to radically alter our system of government. We don't know if the project will be producing serviceable handguns and assault rifles anytime soon, but if it does--and if these weapons avoid regulation--political violence could one day replace political dialogue as the hallmark of our democratic system. For more than two centuries, the U.S. Constitution and its amendments have secured the blessings of liberty for Americans. If extremists like Cody Wilson have their way, "the guys with the [printed] guns" will make new rules for the future.

Sometimes I don't know which side is worse when it comes to gun related news and topics. $:-\$

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #31 on:** October 14, 2012, 04:40 PM »

Quote

political violence could one day replace political dialogue as the hallmark of our democratic system.

Sounds like government fearing its people to me (downside == 0).

Quote

For more than two centuries, the U.S. Constitution and its amendments have secured the blessings of liberty for Americans. If extremists like Cody Wilson have their way, "the guys with the ~~[printed]~~ guns" will make ~~new~~ rules for the future.

Help me out on this...what changed??

Renegade · « **Reply #32 on:** October 14, 2012, 05:14 PM »

Quote from: 40hz on October 14, 2012, 04:33 PM

Well, it didn't take long for the people with political agendas to get in on this topic. This from the Huffington Post. In it Josh Horowitz (Executive Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence), adds this piquant mix of flag waving, hysteria, half-truth and posturing to the discussion...

I hate his nonsense. Badly. With only a few moments of time to peruse his drivel... I loathe his crap...

He is an evil person, and the world would be a better place without him.

I really mean that.

I despise his sickness.

He is a statist ****.

I have nothing non-profane/obscene to say about his drivel.

40hz · « **Reply #33 on:** October 14, 2012, 05:31 PM »

Quote from: Stoic Joker on October 14, 2012, 04:40 PM

Quote
For more than two centuries, the U.S. Constitution and its amendments have secured the blessings of liberty for Americans. If extremists like Cody Wilson have their way, "the guys with the ~~[printed]~~ guns" will make ~~new~~ rules for the future.

Help me out on this...what changed??

Exactly.

Guess they forgot to put us the distribution list for that memo. $:-\$

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #34 on:** October 14, 2012, 05:51 PM »

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Edvard · « **Reply #35 on:** October 15, 2012, 02:16 AM »

app103 · « **Reply #36 on:** October 15, 2012, 04:10 PM »

Quote from: 40hz on October 14, 2012, 10:41 AM

Really? A cheap untraceable gun suitable for use at close range doesn't inspire all sorts of creative thinking?

It doesn't even need to be durable. All it needs to do is be able to fire a single shot (or six) with a fair degree of reliability and voila - Disposable guns! One step better than the so-called 'Saturday Night Special.' Doesn't even need to be that accurate as long as it keeps fairly close to the direction it's pointed in. Look at the flare guns found on boats. Most are now made of plastic. And they perform for their intended use as well as the old-fashioned durable variety.

So much for even having (highly flawed) ballistic or manufacturer's data to fall back on for traceability when a weapon has no pedigree whatsoever. Especially if it's ground up and recycled (or even melted a bit and tossed) shortly after it's been used. It's almost like saying: "Imagine a gun."

You made me think of this again.

At one time, its inventor tried to get it classified as a medical device, with the possibility of Medicare picking up the costs for any elderly or disabled person that wanted one. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Company_hopes_to_gun_for_seniors_1208.html

FDA didn't buy his claims and rejected it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28116693

And that one resembles this one, which I am sure the patent has long since expired. I bet this one would be a perfect candidate for 3D printing (without the worry of DRM protected designs), if/when the technology does get to a point where guns could be printed.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #37 on:** October 15, 2012, 04:38 PM »

Quote from: app103 on October 15, 2012, 04:10 PM

And that one resembles this one, which I am sure the patent has long since expired. I bet this one would be a perfect candidate for 3D printing (without the worry of DRM protected designs), if/when the technology does get to a point where guns could be printed.

Interesting point. Just because you can't print a specific gun ... Doesn't mean you can't print a gun like device. Computers do tend to be horribly specific...and deviations can be filed off quite easily.

How about printing a plastic 38 revolver, and using a steel cylinder.

app103 · « **Reply #38 on:** October 15, 2012, 05:28 PM »

I always had issues with certain sci-fi stories that depict the future as rather steampunkish in appearance (I am looking at you, Firefly). I could never understand how we get from where we are now to a sort of backwards styled but advanced future. Now I know. Now it all makes sense. It's all due to DRM in 3D printing forcing people to use very old copyright/patent expired designs and building from there.

40hz · « **Reply #39 on:** October 15, 2012, 05:41 PM »

Quote from: Stoic Joker on October 15, 2012, 04:38 PM

How about printing a plastic 38 revolver, and using a steel cylinder.

Anything that has a barrel and some kind of receiver durable enough that it won't blow up in your hand when you fired it would do.

And if it's only a one-shot (or disposable) that shouldn't be too hard considering the number of improvised (but deadly firearms) that can be fabricated even without a fancy 3D printer. A quick Google will net you dozens of designs - so it's not as if 3D printing brought a new capability to the table. It just promises to make it easier for the technically challenged - and possibly spawn a bigger US 'cottage' armament industry.

Not that you even need for it to be a traditional firearm. There are lots of other projectile weapons that don't depend on a charge to do their work. Although the phrase "zip gun" has gone out of vogue, it hasn't removed them from the street. ANd with some of the new materials they're being made from, they've gotten a lot deadlier.. A friend of mine who is with our State Police showed me a homebrew "gun" that could punch a triangular wedge of sharpened scrap metal through a half-inch piece of solid core plywood at 10 yards. With no flash and hardly any sound either - so it doesn't need a silencer or muzzle flash arrestor for 'stealth' use. This was the real deal - a genuine man-killer - and one nasty piece of hardware. Even had a pretty little silver cross amateurishly embedded in the grip.

The only thing that caused a drop in the zip gun's market share was the influx of dirt cheap "real guns" which started appearing (in the US) in earnest during the 80s.

Sad truth is, weapons acquisition is driven by a need - real or perceived - to have a fallback in an emergency.

The only way they're ever going to get a handle the number of guns on the street is if the powers that be finally start addressing the root causes behind it. Most people I know prefer not to own or carry a gun. But I'm seeing and hearing of more and more people who used to be adamantly opposed to "having a weapon in the house" now seriously considering getting one and learning how to use it.

Maybe the time has come to drop the glittering generalities and propaganda and start some genuine dialog about why this is happening?

Hello? Washington? State Governments? Is there anybody out there?

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #40 on:** October 15, 2012, 07:18 PM »

Quote from: 40hz on October 15, 2012, 05:41 PM

Sad truth is, weapons acquisition is driven by a need - real or perceived - to have a fallback in an emergency.

The only way they're ever going to get a handle the number of guns on the street is if the powers that be finally start addressing the root causes behind it. Most people I know prefer not to own or carry a gun. But I'm seeing and hearing of more and more people who used to be adamantly opposed to "having a weapon in the house" now seriously considering getting one and learning how to use it.

Maybe the time has come to drop the glittering generalities and propaganda and start some genuine dialog about why this is happening?

(Desperate times/Desperate measures...) Amen to that.

Renegade · « **Reply #41 on:** October 21, 2012, 12:00 PM »

And the FSF steps into the foray:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/06533320729/free-software-foundation-certifies-3d-printer-why-that-matters.shtml

Quote

Free Software Foundation Certifies 3D Printer -- And Why That Matters

from the I'm-sorry,-Dave,-I'm-afraid-I-can't-do-that dept

Last week Mike wrote about a new patent from Intellectual Ventures that seeks to assert ownership of the idea of DRM for 3D printing. The article in Technology Review that Techdirt linked to explains how things would work:

"You load a file into your printer, then your printer checks to make sure it has the rights to make the object, to make it out of what material, how many times, and so on," says Michael Weinberg, a staff lawyer at the nonprofit Public Knowledge, who reviewed the patent at the request of Technology Review. "It’s a very broad patent."

That's a pretty obvious approach, which any halfway competent engineer would come up with, so it's hard to see how it was ever granted a patent. But leaving aside this familiar problem with the patent system, there's an important issue skated over in the above explanation. It assumes that the printer has the power to disobey you -- that is, to refuse to print out an object that you want, because of the DRM in the file describing it, or because it doesn't have DRM at all. This parallels the situation for computers, where DRM is based on the assumption that your computer is not fully under your control, and has the ability to ignore your commands. That's one of the reasons why free software is so important: it is predicated on the idea that the user is always in control.

Against the background of the new 3D-printing patent, this announcement from the Free Software Foundation (FSF) that it has recently certified a 3D printer made by Aleph Objects as "respecting the user's freedom", takes on a particular significance:

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) today awarded its first Respects Your Freedom (RYF) certification to the LulzBot AO-100 3D Printer sold by Aleph Objects, Inc. The RYF certification mark means that the product meets the FSF's standards in regard to users' freedom, control over the product, and privacy.

Here are the FSF's criteria for making the award:

The desire to own a computer or device and have full control over it, to know that you are not being spied on or tracked, to run any software you wish without asking permission, and to share with friends without worrying about Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) -- these are the desires of millions of people who care about the future of technology and our society. Unfortunately, hardware manufacturers have until now relied on close cooperation with proprietary software companies that demanded control over their users. As citizens and their customers, we need to promote our desires for a new class of hardware -- hardware that anyone can support because it respects your freedom.

That is, in making the award, the FSF has established that the LulzBot remains fully under the user's control.

Until now, that hasn't been an issue -- there's no practical way to stop someone from simply downloading a file and then printing it out on a compatible 3D printer. But the patent from Intellectual Ventures is the first step towards a time when users of 3D printers will be confronted with issues of control in exactly the same way that computer users are today.

Tinman57 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 22, 2012, 12:01 AM »

Quote from: Renegade on October 21, 2012, 12:00 PM

And the FSF steps into the foray:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/06533320729/free-software-foundation-certifies-3d-printer-why-that-matters.shtml

I knew the 3D printer was going to be targeted before it even made it to the mainstream. A lot of people don't know, but your regular printer prints a code into every graphic printed so your printer (and you) can be identified for DRM infractions and counterfeiting money. And how do they track it back to you? If you sent in a registration for the printer, or had it factory serviced. Some places like Best Buy actually scans in the printers serial number when you buy it, so it makes it into the records there as well..... And of course if you buy an extended warranty, they got you....

TaoPhoenix · « **Reply #43 on:** October 22, 2012, 01:32 AM »

Slashdot has a story about a (partially) 3d printed plane and it mostly went through, but the slashdot thread went all "over priced, meh". When you can't file the lawsuit, slam it in social media!

http://news.virginia.edu/content/student-engineers-design-build-fly-printed-airplane

Renegade · « **Reply #44 on:** October 22, 2012, 01:40 AM »

Quote from: TaoPhoenix on October 22, 2012, 01:32 AM

Slashdot has a story about a (partially) 3d printed plane and it mostly went through, but the slashdot thread went all "over priced, meh". When you can't file the lawsuit, slam it in social media!

http://news.virginia.edu/content/student-engineers-design-build-fly-printed-airplane

That was pretty cool!

It won't be overpriced for long, unless some idiotic legislation gets passed to tax 3D printing materials for "copyright" and "patent" infringement the way blank CDs are taxed.

Renegade · « **Reply #45 on:** November 25, 2012, 12:54 PM »

Well, 3D printing is under attack again. This time it's a proxy war... Why attack 3D printing, when you can attack whoever associates with it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/22/kickstarter-sued-formlabs-3d-printer_n_2174936.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Quote

Kickstarter has reportedly been sued for promoting a 3D printer which it is argued may violate another company's patent.

The crowdsource funding website enables businesses and individuals to gather funding in small increments for businesses, artistic projects and other endeavours.

But MIT-backed Formlabs' successful campaign to find $100,000 to build and sell a new 3D Printer is now the subject of a complicated legal battle.

Now, to be fair, these guys may have a point with their patent, but given how ridiculous the patent system is, it's probably a safer bet to be a bit skeptical.

But why attack Kickstarter? They're simply facilitating funding. They have no duty to vet every single aspect of every project that runs through their service. Seems like a big stretch there.

40hz · « **Reply #46 on:** November 25, 2012, 01:52 PM »

Quote from: Renegade on November 25, 2012, 12:54 PM

Seems like a big stretch there.

Big stretches of logic and flights of imagination are the stock-in-trade of the legal profession.

Are we surprised? In a world of engineers, scientists, teachers, doctors, laborers, farmers, fishermen, homemakers, businesspeople, and cooks - people who actually add value and make things - attorneys create nothing. They merely rearrange the deck chairs and fold napkins.

No wonder they're constantly trying to create a role and find some relevance for themselves in a world of doers.

Renegade · « **Reply #47 on:** November 25, 2012, 03:40 PM »

Quote from: 40hz on November 25, 2012, 01:52 PM

attorneys create... They merely rearrange the deck chairs and fold napkins.

I would call that a massive exaggeration of what they do... But... That's just me.

40hz · « **Reply #48 on:** November 25, 2012, 04:43 PM »

^OK. So maybe they do have their paralegals actually do it - but you get the idea.

Renegade · « **Reply #49 on:** November 26, 2012, 12:44 AM »

Quote from: 40hz on November 25, 2012, 04:43 PM

^OK. So maybe they do have their paralegals actually do it - but you get the idea.

Ah, yes! There are steps that you must go through in your descent through the lowerarchy of Hell.