Let the 3D printed "censorship" begin.... Object Non Grata

[crank]

I received an email from Makerbots & Thingiverse's corporate counsel on the removal of of few of my items on Thingiverse. A completely LEGAL 5 round AR-15 magazine, that lacked the critical spring component to make it functional and an AR-15 magazine follower that have been on there for over a year. No doubt it is related to the unfortunate and tragic event at Sandy Hook. However, it seems like the age of digital censorship of 3D printed designs has inched closer. Granted they have their right to display content to which they have changed the terms and conditions many times; however, it is a slippery slope for a site that claims "Digital designs for real physical objects. A Universe of Things!".

[Shawn]

with all the haters and "who's to blame" types finding the soap box
around the recent gun controversy (my condolences to the families and
victims), I would at the very least verify the message is genuine.

> --
>
>

[crank]

It is genuine message, I assure you. IMHO, they still have far worse objects on the site.  It just seems a little uneven and a knee-jerk reaction to extremely tragic event. I can't even access my files and photos related to those objects. 

[Doogiekr]

While personally I agree with you on this subject... I know that the TOS has included a catchall that they are probably using for this...

"3.3 Acceptable Use Policy. The following sets forth Company's "Acceptable Use Policy":
(a) You agree not to use the Site or Services to collect, upload, transmit, display, or distribute any User Content (i) that violates any third-party right, including any copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, moral right, privacy right, right of publicity, or any other intellectual property or proprietary right; (ii) that is unlawful, harassing, abusive, tortious, threatening, harmful, invasive of another's privacy, vulgar, defamatory, false, intentionally misleading, trade libelous, pornographic, sexually explicit, obscene, patently offensive, promotes racism, bigotry, hatred, or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual, promotes illegal activities or contributes to the creation of weapons, illegal materials or is otherwise objectionable; (iii) that is harmful to minors in any way; or (iv) that is in violation of any law, regulation, or obligations or restrictions imposed by any third party."

Specifically the "contributes to the creation of weapons" part...

but really, they have covered pretty much everything with the "or is otherwise objectionable" statement...

From what I remember, those statements have been in the TOS for quite a while, but I might be wrong...

[Bry]

My grip was removed as well (though the exact same file was left up in tbuser's version, but then again he's MBI staff). Surprised me because, you know, it's a *handle*

I suppose literally everything on Thingiverse could be used as a weapon, and most would be more effective than the handle, on account of its being designed specifically not to hurt.  Painful handles are not useful.  

I recommend using GrabCad.  It's like Thingiverse without the political opinions of any particular biased hardware manufacturers.

[Shawn]

it would be interesting to see if MBI staff has an opportunity to defend
their work that the rest of us do not. I mean no ill will to tbuser,
but if these policies are to be applied, they should be applied evenly
and fairly to everyone.

Sounds like there might be a "need" for a Thingiverse like site that
focuses on weapons. Afterall, to some, knives and swords are artwork,
to others they are weapons only. I'm sure the same applies to firearms.
I can easily see a legitimate/non-malicious intent in posting items
that could contribute to making a weapon. But I can see the other side
as well.

I think this is a case of MBI looking at the current happenings and
asking if they may be considered the bad guys if any Thingiverse model
is used in a bad event. Then reacting to minimize that possibility. I
see no fault in that. As long as it is a uniform/fair application of
the policy.

On 12-12-18 05:31 PM, Mark Cohen wrote:
> They probably missed that. Let them know.
>
> On Dec 18, 2012 7:06 PM, "Bry" <bry...@gmail.com

> <mailto:bry...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> My grip was removed as well (though the exact same file was left up
> in tbuser's version, but then again he's MBI staff). Surprised me
> because, you know, it's a *handle*
>
> I suppose literally everything on Thingiverse could be used as a
> weapon, and most would be more effective than the handle, on account
> of its being designed specifically not to hurt. Painful handles are
> not useful.
>
> I recommend using GrabCad. It's like Thingiverse without the
> political opinions of any particular biased hardware manufacturers.
>
> On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:24:28 PM UTC-6, crank wrote:
>
> I received an email from Makerbots & Thingiverse's corporate

> __counsel on the removal of of few of my items on Thingiverse. A

> completely LEGAL 5 round AR-15 magazine, that lacked the
> critical spring component to make it functional and an AR-15
> magazine follower that have been on there for over a year. No
> doubt it is related to the unfortunate and tragic event at Sandy
> Hook. However, it seems like the age of digital censorship of 3D
> printed designs has inched closer. Granted they have their right
> to display content to which they have changed the terms and
> conditions many times; however, it is a slippery slope for a
> site that claims "Digital designs for real physical objects. A
> Universe of Things!".
>
>

> --
>
>
> --
>
>

[Bry]

That's why I suggested Grabcad.  It's not a site that is focused on weapons; it's a site focused on Things...   weapons are things.  While I have seen a few things deleted there, it's been items that are demanded (loudly) by the community, like stolen for-pay models that were reposted without permission.  

Censorship is a one way road, and it will only get worse.  At no point does anyone ever say... "yeah, we went too far, lets go for less censorship."  

I predict the next thing to be censored will be mendel parts, or possibly Ultimaker first, since they're a more direct market threat to Thingiverse' parent corporation.  Before long, it's no more Makerbot upgrades allowed - you'll have to buy the newest one instead.  Works great for Apple.  

[Doogiekr]

It is also possible that this was not MBI digging through looking for files (as a quick search for "grip" turns up many "weapon" parts) but possibly a Thingiverse user hit the
 "Report as inappropriate" link and started the ball rolling. Not saying that its right, but just a possible answer as to why only a few items got targeted.


On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:48:40 AM UTC+9, Mark Cohen wrote:

Go thru the site find anything similiar and let them know. If it is
not pulled then cry foul.

> --
>
>

[Mark Cohen]

They probably just went looking for a sem-automatic type tag.

> --
>
>

[Mike Payson]

This is NOT censorship. This is you violating their terms of use.

They did not tell you that you cannot publish the item, only that they
are not willing to publish it for you. That is a fundamental
difference. They are free to set whatever limits on what they are
willing to publish that they want, and you are free to choose whether
you want to use Thingiverse or not. We live in a free country, and
part of that freedom is that other people are also free to choose what
they will help you do.

> --
>
>

[Bry]

Nope, it was a specific Thingiverse employee (I suspect Bre as he just started following me) that did this proactively.  I'd received a comment asking me to post the lower to my Grip's page.  I linked him to Haveblue's and Oryhara's.  Deletions began within the hour.

[Mark Cohen]

Well there is some software out there with which you can create your
own media type server. They had just added the 3D stuff. I forgot the
name.

> --
>
>

[hellphish]

Luckily, the worst way to hide something on the internet is to try to have it taken down. If you need help hosting your files, let me know :)

--
 
 

[Bottleworks]

I would like to get a copy of your files. Do you have them hosted elseware?

[Bry]

http://grabcad.com/library/censored-from-thingiverse

I'll add more as I find them; my 3d models volume isn't talking to my network at the moment so I'll have to go tackle that issue first, then see about getting the original posters to either up their models to Grabcad or give me the OK.

No pics - I never saved those.  Don't know why the photos were dangerous and scary, but it's a shame... there were some really nice prints in unique colors. 

[PropellerScience]

Thanks, I must have missed that file. I had downloaded the others
earlier thinking they might disappear someday.
I also see Instygram is having a copy write kerfuffle that sounds
amazingly like the Occupy Thingiverse thing.

[Bry]

It's amazing how "Your stuff is mine forever now, not yours!" does that to people.

[Doogiekr]

"It's amazing how "Your stuff is mine forever now, not yours!" does that to people."

+1!

[c f]

I'm pretty sure thingiverse has had a loosely-enforced 'no weapons or sex toys' policy since they began. May I suggest the pirate bay 'physibles' section?

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Doogiekr <doog...@gmail.com> wrote:

"It's amazing how "Your stuff is mine forever now, not yours!" does that to people."

+1!

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 11:18:44 AM UTC+9, Bry wrote:

It's amazing how "Your stuff is mine forever now, not yours!" does that to people.

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:08:57 PM UTC-6, PropellerScience wrote:

Thanks, I must have missed that file. I had downloaded the others
earlier thinking they might disappear someday.
I also see Instygram is having a copy write kerfuffle that sounds
amazingly like the Occupy Thingiverse thing.

--
 
 

[Cymon]

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:18:44 PM UTC-7, Bry wrote:

It's amazing how "Your stuff is mine forever now, not yours!" does that to people.

No. Stop this now. You don't own thingiverse. Your think you own thingiverse because you contribute to it, but that does not mean you get to dictate policy. MBI are the curators of Thingiverse and if they decide that something needs to be taken down it's their gallery.

Without question this is a controversial subject. Both sides have strong feelings. But no matter which side you fall on do not think you own thingiverse. They are spending their money and their time building, hosting, and maintaining this and asking for nothing in return. Despite whiners complaining about a term of service that allows them to do what they do MBI has yet to do anything evil with anyone's designs. If the worst thing they're going to do is choose to distance themselves from controversial models then you are free to take your ball and play elsewhere but please do so quietly.

[Shawn]

+1 for an objective stance.

> --
>
>

[Have Blue]

I received the same email regarding 2 files - my reinforced AR lower receiver and my AR trigger guard.  I then called the legal counsel that had sent me the message and noted that 1) I had uploaded the AR lower before the changes to the terms of service, and 2) that my trigger guard was hardly a weapon and could be used for paintball and airsoft. His response was essentially, 'our sandbox, our rules, and we can change the rules at any time'.

But apparently "Weapon - Victorian Knuckle" (http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:19036) is not actually a weapon, nor are the various other brass knuckles on the site considered weapons?  A curious dichotomy...

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:24:28 PM UTC-6, crank wrote:

[Have Blue]

Yes, MBI can do what they wish, but I'd just like to see some semblance of consistency - why was 7777773's AR grip removed, yet Caboose's remains?  I admit, I never cared for the index finger bump on the standard AR grip myself, but is that truly enough reason for deletion?

[crank]

I agree there appears to be an selective, knee-jerk, application of the terms of service agreement to certain things. I have a sneeking suspicion that any tagged AR or AR-15 got removed in light of the tragic events at Sandy Hook.  

[neoteric]

 Thingiverse has had a long policy of no weapons.  They have every right to enforce it.  Perhaps their sympathy for recent events led them to want to take a stand.  I am OK with it.

[Bry]

I suspect selective application of the TOS, and retroactive application of those terms to things that predate them, is just the beginning.  We were already told the company line that the TOS never changed, they were just rewritten differently.  Now we are seeing that they really did change.  We've been told that Makerbot's move to a Closed and proprietary business model doesn't really change anything...  and I guess so far it doesn't, but eventually there will be profit in removing bot upgrades that violate the TOS. 

Makerbot is a company that needs to profit.  Thingiverse is a source of that profit.  We'll gradually see more of Thingiverse disappear as other things are eventually percieved as a threat to profit.  

[fredhag]

In general, I prefer low restrictions and would rather prevail on people's senses of right and wrong, but this is their sandbox, and I love the constructive nature of the site and community too much to want to see it change.  Not a true universe of things?  I can live without some of the things that could be shared.

As a vet who's seen too much (although one ___ is too much) and with recent catastrophic events, I am willing for the U.S. to try something as dramatic as the U.K.'s tight control.

Specifically, the things that licensed manufacturers had done to skirt the control measures decades ago suggests to me that leaving out one component is a worthless measure.

[Z LeHericy]

+1 to that as well, I've been debating if i should contribute to this trread, but you put it more clearly and succinctly than I ever could. Thanks!

-Zeno LeHericy

//((=:Z:=))\\
INVENTIONS
Technologies
zinventions.com

--

[Cymon]

I will agree that a little consistency would be appreciated.

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:08:07 AM UTC-7, Mark Cohen wrote:

You should really take this to the Thingiverse google group.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Mark Cohen <markc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did not see anything on his objects today.
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:50 PM, HelpingHands <concern...@me.com> wrote:
>> I doubt it, and doesn't TBuser work from out-of-office for them? He does not
>> have a house in NY anyway.
>> Don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence
>> (or in this case, just oversight).
>> The take-down process does not seem automatic at all, it's probably one of
>> their Thingiverse admins manually deleting from the control panel, rather
>> than a "NUKE" button on Bre's version of the site.
>>
>> --
>>
>>

[Arnold Martin]

With respect to everyone on the thread, I am rather new to this group and I have enjoyed all of the help I have received so far and the in depth conversation about the operation of maker bots. I love to shoot and hunt and I have a small firearms collection, mostly antiques from my grandfathers, as well. And honestly folks, this is a non-issue no matter how you slice it (pardon the lingo). The terms are pretty clear on thingiverse that they do not want anything that is or could be made into a weapon or even part of a weapon. It is right there in plain english, not even the legalize we are used to when reading EULAs and the like. It is not censorship, uneven enforcement perhaps, but certainly not censorship. It is the folks at MBI taking a stand with what they can to say "we don't need assault weapons." We can debate the merits and dis-merits of an armed society equipped with the latest lethalities all day long but the bottom line is they own the site and they get to say what it contains. And beyond that I wouldn't feed a single round into a firearm with a gadget made by one of these things: material that melts and burns at low temps? can delaminate if not printed properly? <rant> Unreliable parts, even just a magazine, trigger guard, or pistol grip, in or near a firearm is a recipe for disaster. I am also an artist and understand that censorship is a delicate line when you are trying to create objects that speak to a culture as complicated as ours. And though it may contain some art, this is not an art issue of stifling free speech, thingiverse is more of a design venue with a large portion of the objects it serves bearing some functionality and when that functionality is potentially lethal or dangerous, to their users or anyone else, it is just plain common sense that the operators of the site will want to distance themselves from those objects and the potential liability they bring along. That said, if you want to make these kinds of things available no one is stopping you and playing the victim because MBI decided to enforce written policy on you is a cop-out and frankly a whiny excuse when you could post these along with anything else you want on your own personal website. Now if the FBI or ATFE takes exception to those things because you are not a licensed firearms maker or distributor it is your personal liability to bear, you are not passing it off on the good folks at MBI and you can deal with the consequences. But don't live under thingiverse's roof and expect them not to enforce the house rules and take that responsibility on themselves, there is no sense in it. </rant>

[Have Blue]

Arnold, I understand your position, but please understand my underlying concern.  Crank, myself, and others uploaded our models before there was any mention of weapons in the TOS.  Thingiverse then changed the terms of service later on.  In short, Thingiverse gets to re-write the rules at will.  What is to prevent them from barring other content in the future?  (I can only imagine the furor if somebody were to upload a statuette of the prophet Muhammad).  This should be a warning to others to not make Thingiverse your sole outlet for designs.

In addition, I'm confused as to why they removed the trigger guard I uploaded, as it has uses in paintball and airsoft - or are these also verboten?  In short, we're back at the 'what constitutes a weapon' quagmire that plagued discussion previously.

You may not call it censorship, yet the ACLU would disagree: "Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others."  Yes, Thingiverse is certainly within their rights to remove whatever content they wish.  But it is still censorship.

[crank]

Arnold, the Magazine was on the site for about one and a half years and the magazine follower almost two years and in those two years the EULA and TOS have changed to make so that the parts could be held in violation, at the time when they were posted they were NOT IN VIOLATION of the EULA and TOS. My problem is not that it was taken off, again it is their "sandbox" but the uneven application of the EULA and TOS is what disturbs me. The files and pictures are all gone a  "Thing Non Grata" . I will say this I don't think that I have whined, cop-out or anything of that nature, I simply made a posted on a forum about a possible uneven application of a EULA, TOS, and the slippery slope that CAN lead to digital censorship. The email came from MBI. However, I am fine with moving this to a Thingiverse google post.  I am amazed at how polarized this has become and how loosely people begin to ranting at people, we need less rants and more constructive conversations.

[PropellerScience]

I haven't liked what's been happening to Makerbot these past months,
and I really don't have any reason to continue with Makerbot,
Thingiverse, or this Makerbot sponsored blog. I feel like they sold me
an open source community, and shut the door just as I tried to enter.
If I could find the "remove group" button here I would click it now,
but I think I will take Cymon's advise, and just go quietly.

[Matt Westervelt]

Its pretty non-amazing that this is polarizing actually.   You're trolling, and you have been from the start.

-mattw

--
 
 

[crank]

I do find it interesting by using that language... "contributes to the creation of weapons" could be interpreted that even the Replicators, TOM, & Cupcakes could be banned. Since, where can these weapons be printed? Well on a a Replicators, TOM, & Cupcakes and that contributes to the creation of weapons.  Of course that won't happen and we can use commonsense and realize just like anything else, cars, etc... bad can come from relatively good things when done with evil intentions.

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:57:28 PM UTC-7, Doogiekr wrote:

While personally I agree with you on this subject... I know that the TOS has included a catchall that they are probably using for this...

"3.3 Acceptable Use Policy. The following sets forth Company's "Acceptable Use Policy":
(a) You agree not to use the Site or Services to collect, upload, transmit, display, or distribute any User Content (i) that violates any third-party right, including any copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, moral right, privacy right, right of publicity, or any other intellectual property or proprietary right; (ii) that is unlawful, harassing, abusive, tortious, threatening, harmful, invasive of another's privacy, vulgar, defamatory, false, intentionally misleading, trade libelous, pornographic, sexually explicit, obscene, patently offensive, promotes racism, bigotry, hatred, or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual, promotes illegal activities or contributes to the creation of weapons, illegal materials or is otherwise objectionable; (iii) that is harmful to minors in any way; or (iv) that is in violation of any law, regulation, or obligations or restrictions imposed by any third party."

Specifically the "contributes to the creation of weapons" part...

but really, they have covered pretty much everything with the "or is otherwise objectionable" statement...

From what I remember, those statements have been in the TOS for quite a while, but I might be wrong...

[Damien]

On 12/19/2012 10:01 AM, crank wrote:

I do find it interesting by using that language... "contributes to the creation of weapons" could be interpreted that even the Replicators, TOM, & Cupcakes could be banned. Since, where can these weapons be printed? Well on a a Replicators, TOM, & Cupcakes and that contributes to the creation of weapons.  Of course that won't happen and we can use commonsense and realize just like anything else, cars, etc... bad can come from relatively good things when done with evil intentions.

That thinking is what allowed the morons to sue cattle farms for producing the cow-crap that was used to make the bomb that they made in Oklahoma.
So, we're supposed to stop crapping next?

Who knew...

[crank]

You can believe what you want; however, I have tried to be constructive in conversations and discussions please see my posts. I have to admit MBI is dealing with some pretty complex overall policy issues with there EULA and TOS on who is ultimately/partially responsible for printed designs? After all these can be multiple entities, you could have a designer, a printer operator, and a end user. Now that is simplified, throw in multiple print operators and end users and even multiple designers(derived parts) and it becomes really complicated. There is no precedent for this and other similar issues. All I ask, is how is it that an uneven application, no matter what the Thing is, of an EULA and TOS, to one of the leading open design, etc... sites, not concerning to people? This could happen to any part, not necessarily a firearm related one.  

[Mike Payson]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 9:38 AM, crank <cmra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Arnold, the Magazine was on the site for about one and a half years and the magazine follower almost two years and in those two years the EULA and TOS have changed to make so that the parts could be held in violation, at the time when they were posted they were NOT IN VIOLATION of the EULA and TOS. My problem is not that it was taken off, again it is their "sandbox" but the uneven application of the EULA and TOS is what disturbs me. The files and pictures are all gone a  "Thing Non Grata" . I will say this I don't think that I have whined, cop-out or anything of that nature, I simply made a posted on a forum about a possible uneven application of a EULA, TOS, and the slippery slope that CAN lead to digital censorship. The email came from MBI. However, I am fine with moving this to a Thingiverse google post.  I am amazed at how polarized this has become and how loosely people begin to ranting at people, we need less rants and more constructive conversations.

This argument is absolutely irrelavent. The terms can change at anytime, and they apply retroactively. This is not a criminal or civil legal issue where you are somehow being "punished", so changing the terms retroactively is perfectly reasonable and legal. Like I and many others have said, it is their site, if you do not like their policies you are welcome to not use it. 

And once again, This is NOT censorship. Being a gun enthusiast, I assume you are someone who is proud of your freedom. Everytime you make an argument that this is censorship, what you are really saying is "I deserve my freedom, but MBI does not have the same rights". It doesn't work that way. They did not say you cannot publish your files, only that they will not publish them for you, that is perfectly within their rights.

 

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:53:31 AM UTC-7, Arnold Martin wrote:

With respect to everyone on the thread, I am rather new to this group and I have enjoyed all of the help I have received so far and the in depth conversation about the operation of maker bots. I love to shoot and hunt and I have a small firearms collection, mostly antiques from my grandfathers, as well. And honestly folks, this is a non-issue no matter how you slice it (pardon the lingo). The terms are pretty clear on thingiverse that they do not want anything that is or could be made into a weapon or even part of a weapon. It is right there in plain english, not even the legalize we are used to when reading EULAs and the like. It is not censorship, uneven enforcement perhaps, but certainly not censorship. It is the folks at MBI taking a stand with what they can to say "we don't need assault weapons." We can debate the merits and dis-merits of an armed society equipped with the latest lethalities all day long but the bottom line is they own the site and they get to say what it contains. And beyond that I wouldn't feed a single round into a firearm with a gadget made by one of these things: material that melts and burns at low temps? can delaminate if not printed properly? <rant> Unreliable parts, even just a magazine, trigger guard, or pistol grip, in or near a firearm is a recipe for disaster. I am also an artist and understand that censorship is a delicate line when you are trying to create objects that speak to a culture as complicated as ours. And though it may contain some art, this is not an art issue of stifling free speech, thingiverse is more of a design venue with a large portion of the objects it serves bearing some functionality and when that functionality is potentially lethal or dangerous, to their users or anyone else, it is just plain common sense that the operators of the site will want to distance themselves from those objects and the potential liability they bring along. That said, if you want to make these kinds of things available no one is stopping you and playing the victim because MBI decided to enforce written policy on you is a cop-out and frankly a whiny excuse when you could post these along with anything else you want on your own personal website. Now if the FBI or ATFE takes exception to those things because you are not a licensed firearms maker or distributor it is your personal liability to bear, you are not passing it off on the good folks at MBI and you can deal with the consequences. But don't live under thingiverse's roof and expect them not to enforce the house rules and take that responsibility on themselves, there is no sense in it. </rant>


On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:24:28 PM UTC-8, crank wrote:

I received an email from Makerbots & Thingiverse's corporate counsel on the removal of of few of my items on Thingiverse. A completely LEGAL 5 round AR-15 magazine, that lacked the critical spring component to make it functional and an AR-15 magazine follower that have been on there for over a year. No doubt it is related to the unfortunate and tragic event at Sandy Hook. However, it seems like the age of digital censorship of 3D printed designs has inched closer. Granted they have their right to display content to which they have changed the terms and conditions many times; however, it is a slippery slope for a site that claims "Digital designs for real physical objects. A Universe of Things!".

--
 
 

[Arnold Martin]

Crank, I understand your position as well, especially about the changing of EULA and TOS on the fly. It is written in the contract though that terms can change at will and we all agree by creating an account etc so buy the ticket, take the ride. But I would caution against reliance on slippy slope arguments. While our political figures may use these arguments on a regular basis they constitute a logical fallacy. They can be neither proven nor dis-proven and are based on probability fallacy. For example I could say that MBI is completely reasonable in this case because allowing people to 3D print firearms or even their parts is a slippery slope to unfettered and unregulated access to guns putting them in the hands of people who may, for good reason, be barred from owning or possessing them, a veritable anarchy. But that argument is null because the slippery slope it paints is essentially a dystopian fantasy and has an extremely low probability in the face of reality which is that there are already 300 million perfectly functional firearms legal and otherwise in our country. The same is true on the other side of the slope because ostensibly MBI is trying to run a site to share open licensed objects so the idea that they would just "take offense" to something and ban it willy-nilly from the site is a very low probability as it would ultimately damage their credibility among their user base.

There are already limits imposed by MBI on the process including sex toys and "graphic images" which I may find vague, restrictive and not entirely agree with but as you said: I don't rely on thingiverse as the only place to share my work with the world. I also have a personal website where I can post whatever I want unless it violates someone else's IP rights or local, state and federal law. The difference is that MBI must at least attempt to take some responsibility for the things posted on their web sites and they are perfectly free to restrict those things as they see fit to limit their own liability. What if someone prints an open source ar-15 magazine and takes it to the range and it causes some internal fault in the gun injuring the shooter or the people in the adjacent stalls? Even if MBI posts a limited liability statement this is a potential legal nightmare for them and any tort lawyer would agree. They provided the design warranted or not, a person used it and was injured and if that person so chose they could go after MBI as well as the original designer, the manufacturer of their 3D printer (which could be a double dip liability for MBI) and the manufacturer of the materials (now a triple threat). Do I agree with that kind of litigious BS? No, and I think individuals should be willing to take responsibility instead of suing everything they can. But law in a free society is about interpretation and representation and it is not "set in stone" and it is a reality that we live in a highly litigious culture. So it is well within reason for a company like MBI to limit their liability by making judgments about the potential legal perils of the sharing of certain types of objects through their services. This is not a slippery slope but a litigious and legal reality.

[Hammerhead]

Just thought I'd post a few thoughts.

@Crank, by way of credentials, I'm a gun owner, CCW holder, and I've been an RKBA advocate for over a decade, founded a leading gun rights group in NJ, and have relationships with NRA, GOA and SAF at the highest levels.

Much as I understand your visceral reaction, and sentiment that you've been singled out.  However, that's only because they haven't gotten around to the others just yet.  Yes, it's a kneejerk reaction, and yes I believe that it's heavy-handed.  Yes, I resent the hoplophobic nature of the response, but there's one thing that we (both) ought to keep in mind.

I believe and wholly support everyone's rights.  I support your right to keep and bear arms, and I support Makerbot's right to do as they please with their own assets and resources.  If any of us feel affronted by anything that appears or disappears from Thingiverse, we also have the right to register a domain name, and create our own websites to cater to whatever sorts of content that we want - or don't want.  In other words, we can put up, or shut up.

To get freedom for yourself, you need to allow it to your fellow Americans, too - even if you sometimes don't like what they do with it.



On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:24:28 PM UTC-5, crank wrote:

I received an email from Makerbots & Thingiverse's corporate counsel on the removal of of few of my items on Thingiverse...

[Mike Payson]

And let me ask you a question, Crank... I don't know anything about you personally, but for the sake of argument I am going to assume you are not an extraordinarily wealthy man. Let's say hypothetically someone downloads your gun part from Thingiverse and goes on a shooting spree and kills many people (this WILL happen, it is only a matter of when). Since you are not wealthy, WHO DO YOU THINK WILL GET SUED IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE?

There is this whole misdirected view that all the people who are up in arms here about that this issue is somehow about gun control, but it is not. It is about MBI not wanting to get sued for tens of millions of dollars. 

Yes, the terms were made more broad, but that was due to the results of HaveBlue's experiments. As the world evolves, so to does the need for different legal terms. This is all perfectly reasonable, and only Ideologues have problems understanding it.

--
 
 

[Mike Payson]

Thank you for saying this... Sometimes it frustrates me how few people seem to get that freedom applies to "the opposition" also.

--
 
 

[Have Blue]

Mike, I know this was a response to Crank's reply, but I'll jump in as I made the same points he did.

Yes, we understand that the terms can change at anytime, it's their sandbox, etc. etc.  However, I don't believe we've ever seen a case on Thingiverse where a mass removal of uploads was enabled by a retroactive change in the TOS.  I'd simply like to be the 'canary in the coal mine' and make other users aware that their objects are not safe on Thingiverse and what may pass today may not tomorrow.

I still disagree about it not being a case of censorship - I use the term 'censorship' to mean that Thingiverse has indeed censored the content.  I do not mean that my rights have been infringed by any means!  This is not the sort of vile government censorship that we tend to think of when confronted with the term, but internal (and perfectly legal and legitimate) censorship.  We can use a different term if you like, but the actions still fit the definition of the c-word.

[Big-E]

I'm pro-Article II, for sure

(Note: it's not the 2nd amendment folks, it's Article II of the Bill of rights; It's been in our law since the beginning, and was not an amendment added at a later date)

What shocks me about this thing is the mass-deletion of many STL's that aren't even objects that our own government classify as "weapons". for the record, the only part of an AR15 style rifle that can be legally classified as a gun is the lower receiver. every other part, be it the upper receiver, trigger group, magazines, stock, etc are NOT classified as weapons BY LAW. that's why you can buy any part of an AR except for the lower receiver without a license, legally.

As has been said, this is a knee-jerk reaction, and aside from 3D object censorship, the real issue is the matter is the Article II, which has been the cornerstone of the United States since our origin. If we, as a nation, allow our elected officials to take away our right to keep and bear arms, this country is no longer our country, it belongs to the government, the people will lose the last vestige of power and responsibility it has, and our system of checks and balances will be irrevocably broken. I feel we are on a slippery slope and once our nation crosses a certain threshold, we will never be able to recover.

Despite the recent tragedy, we may be about to experience a bigger tragedy, the death of the American way. Those outside Our country may not see it the same way, but then again, they weren't born here, and they wouldn't understand. Right now, people are reacting out of fear, and we have been doing this since 9/11. people need to apply common sense. Gun laws won't be respected by sickos, as evidenced by this most recent heinous act in Sandy Hook.

What is needed is for decent, law abiding citizens to retain their rights, and keep guns in the hands of the level-headed and civic people. Banning guns doesn't help, and in conclusion, think of this: What do mass school shootings and gun-free zones have in common? they both came into being around the same time. Put guns in the hands of the responsible, and give them the rights that were put in place regarding them, and you will see this sort of attrocity fade into memory.

Just my two cents. Sorry if you guys don't want to hear my opinion, but in times like these, it needed to be said.

-Big-E
 
 

[Big-E]

One last comment, and I'm done with this thread...

Thingiverse has every right to remove anything they want, it's a privately run site, but it doesn't mean I am required to like it.

In the future, if you design something that is marginally questionable to their TOS, you may be best off not posting it there.

I just wonder how long until things like the "ceramic cup knife sharpener" and the "Thwack hammer" are taken down, both can be used to make a weapon, and one can potentially be used as a weapon directly.

Sorry if I disturbed the thread everyone. BTW, thanks for sharing a good model with everyone, HaveBlue.

One final word, DefenseDistributed is still following their strategy from the looks of things. Don't expect the ongoing controversy to disappear any time soon.

[Arnold Martin]

Actually Big-E, and this is not a troll but an effort to set the record straight:

Article II outlines the executive branch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution

The bill of rights are the first ten amendments to the constitution which were put in place after the original framing and were not ratified until 1791 over three years after the ratification of the constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

And the second of those amendments outlines a right to keep and bear arms for the function of a militia and has been interpreted in various ways over the history of the country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The logic of the idea that an armed populace will protect itself is tempting but I always wonder why it is that we have so many of these shootings and never an armed vigilante stepping up to stop them... Sure the school is a gun free zone, but that example aside not all of these things happen in gun free zones. I get the argument that if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns but seriously we've never seen it happen where someone prevents one of these travesties and even just recently the mall in Colorado, the Aurora massacre in Colorado and the shooting of Gaberilla Giffords in Arizona occured in states with right to carry and liberal application of the second amendment in general. Not saying there is an easy solution like banning all guns, which is impossible here anyway, but more guns seems like throwing gasoline on a fire to me. Some reasonable restriction could be applied with due oversight. Like in Aurora a person undergoing psychiatric treatment orders thousands of rounds of ammo, tactical gear, smoke grenades etc. and not a single red flag was raised? Not an easy issue but at least we can talk about it.

[Melody Brandston]

Let's keep it on-topic, guys. Second Amendment rights are an interesting issue, for sure, but one that has only an indirect bearing on the subject of gun parts on Thingiverse.

Melody Brandston

Documentation
Makerbot Industries
melody.b...@makerbot.com

--
 
 

NOTICE: This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information or trade secrets. The contents of this email are intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges.

[Arnold Martin]

I love how withering the face of reality can be. Point out an egregious factual error concerning the history and framing of our constitution, throw in two cents and people start jumping ship... Free and open discourse is necessary for the operation of a free and democratic society but if we all huff off to our various corners every time someone points out you might be incorrect about a glaring fact of history we're doomed to constant stagnation.

[crank]

Mike, I will say this again. I believe MBI has the ability and the right to change the TOS and EULA as they want, after all it is their site. However, an EVEN application of the EULA and TOS to violations would be RIGHT thing to do. Again they can do as they please. Granted as somebody posted perhaps they have not quite completed the removal of things that violated the EULA or TOS, so time will tell if it was a selective application of the EULA and TOS or a overall broad policy change of "getting the house in order" to more inline with the EULA and TOS. But what is WRONG is the selectively choosing Things and not applying the EULA and TOS reasonably across the board.

Also If you look at my posts, I allude that this CAN lead to censorship, not that it is censorship. However, we are getting closer to it.

[Big-E]

Actually Arnold, It's a matter of opinion what you call it. I specified the Bill of Rights, and didn't specifically say article II of the US constitution. My statement was meant to imply that the bill of rights wasn't an afterthought. There's a reason we don't lump everything in the bill of rights under the rest of those amendments.

Argue semantics if you wish, but nothing changes the fact that it's my right. Not everyone's collective memory relies on Wikipedia. nor does common sense.

And Melody, I would say that gun-parts on thingiverse are 100% related to the US constitution, even though you might not see it this way.

as I said, I've spoken my mind. Sorry to derail the thread, but I'm sick of people changing the subject and diverting attention from what is, overall, a major issue. If you think these censored items have nothing to do with the "2nd ammendment" and "gun control" you are deluding yourselves. It's all just a small part of one big agenda.

and if you think Thingiverse will stop at "gun parts", I think you will be sorely mistaken in the times to come. it's only a matter of time until something else someone finds offensive is deleted. This, like other recent events, sets a precedent.

[Big-E]

BTW Arnold, I agree with your sentiments on open discourse, I have taken no offense on your clarification of the facts. Just trying to make a statement and get people to apply some objectivity. we definitely need to talk about these things, more now than ever. Perhaps not in this thread, but we need to bring it up none the less. I appreciate your participation here.

[Hammerhead]

The reason we don't hear about it is because it doesn't fit the media narrative.  Every day personally held firearms are used to thwart crime, but they typically go unreported to the police and absolutely unreported by the media.

Take, as only one example, the Oregon mall incident.  The press was all over this like white-on-rice, until it was learned that a CCW holder confronted - but didn't fire upon - the assailant.  He stopped dead in his tracks and elected 'option B'.  In an instant, the story was squelched because it didn't mesh with the agenda.


On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:18:28 PM UTC-5, Arnold Martin wrote:

...I always wonder why it is that we have so many of these shootings and never an armed vigilante stepping up to stop them...

[Mark Cohen]

"Put guns in the hands of the responsible, and give
them the rights that were put in place regarding them, and you will
see
this sort of attrocity fade into memory. "

I don't think anyone can disagree with you, but we call those the
police and military.

> * *<https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=7rQ&tbo=d&rls...>

[Doogiekr]

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33809_7-57560076/makerbot-purges-3d-printable-gun-parts-from-thingiverse/

[Hammerhead]

So, then where were the police and military when they were needed to prevent this?  When have you ever heard of a police officer arriving at the scene of a crime before it happens?  We, individually, are the 'first responders'.  You're welcome to be disarmed if you'd like, but I for one won't allow a criminal to dictate the terms.

[Big-E]

Surely you aren't saying that all civilians are irresponsible and not trustworthy. The police and military are fine, they have their roles in society. But as it's said, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away"

There's a little thing called posse commitatus that keeps the military out of domestic affairs.

It seems I'm not going to win over some folks on here, I've spoken my peace already so I'll refrain from commenting any longer.

By the way, who is "we"? Definitely isn't we the people. There are a lot of law abiding gun owners in this country, so if you don't like that fact, by all means, try to take their firearms away from them; You can throw your IPhone at them perhaps. And before you sick the cops or military on them, you should know the majority of them won't attempt such a thing to begin with.

Peace out,
Big-E

[Mike Payson]

This conversation has now gone totally off-topic. It was far enough off topic when debating Thingiverse's policies, but now we are debating guns themselves and that is clearly inappropriate for a list like this. Please take this part of the discussion offlist.

--

[Have Blue]

I believe this gentleman would beg to differ, but he could not be reached for comment: http://tinyurl.com/c5kwnpe

[Arnold Martin]

Wow, nice misuse of a holocaust reference. Way to fear monger. Good luck with that.

[Big-E]

Off topic, no, off the rails, yes.

I fail to see how Thingiverse pulling these designs isn't related to the topic of discussion. there is a lot of division in this country, and just because someone claims this discussion is off-topic doesn't make it so. Things are leading to a place and a subject I will NOT mention in this thread, but most of the folks on here who can follow my line of thinking already know what I'm talking about.

This removal of objects coincides with something that happened a few days back, and that is leading to the branching of this topic. slippery slope, man. that's all I'm gonna say. Thingiverse pulling the files in question, Sandy Hook shooting, 2nd Amendment...  all of it is related. Tell yourself otherwise if you want to live in fairytale land. Some of us (about half from what I see) think otherwise.

Mike, you know what's up!

I want to stop posting in this thread, but I can't help but be dragged back in. blame my moral compass.

[Have Blue]

Yes, it was improper of me to reference a tragic event in order to make a statement.  Thingiverse would never do that.  Oh, wait...

[Arnold Martin]

Can I just point out again that slippery slopes are not good arguments? They are bad arguments. Everything is a slippery slope, milk is a slippery slope to heart disease and beer is a slippery slope to heroine. Water is a slippery slope to drowning and listening to Sir David Attenborough narrate polar bear sex is a slippery slope to sex with a polar bear which is a slippery slope to MAN BEARS. MAN BEARS I TELL YOU!

Now back to the topic at hand, this is not, repeat after me, NOT A SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUE. MBI enforced written policy on their own PRIVATE website. They do not write laws for the whole country ERGO THIS IS NOT A SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUE.

And I am guilty here too but this board is about operating maker bots, not gun rights and subsequent propagandized and offensive holocaust references.

[Big-E]

I believe HaveBlue was trying to imply that we may end up like those poor people. Hitler took their firearms as well.

If Thingiverse didn't want the controversy, they should've just left the files up. They must've known this argument would be a probable consequence. I choose to deny ignorance.

Don't keep this argument going with me if you don't want me to post my opinion. if you reply, and counter what I post, I will defend my argument. you are as much to blame for the direction of this discussion as I. Saying it's off-topic won't work. I'm done rolling over for the sake of the politically correct.

By all means, keep me going in this thread. Discussion is the key to understanding, and I ain't hiding my head in the sand.

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:07:59 PM UTC-6, Arnold Martin wrote:

[Arnold Martin]

We all got the reference and inference. Thanks. You have no idea how angry a comparison of our great country to Nazi Germany makes me and this conversation is over.

[Bry]

This isn't a history discussion.  That said, Hitler banned Jews from owning guns in 1936 "to protect the children" ...   so, yes, slippery slope.  It's a phrase meaning things tend to escalate when you create an environment where escalation goes unchecked.  

Back to the topic:  My grip was reinstated, with an apology and a vague reference to its scary title as a possible cause of deletion.  From the sound of it, this was an emotionally driven decision to delete Things, and emotion is the opposite of logic.  

Thingiverse can't be compared to the nazis, as the worst thing they can do to you is cut off your warranty and close their site.  The motivation behind their recent actions, however, could be used by bad people in positions of power to do very bad things.  The post-911 emotional turmoil let to US laws allowing torture, and the current president is the only man to hold that position to ever openly admit to ordering the murder of an american.

Slippery slopes are bad.  Use logic, not emotion. 

[Big-E]

nobody wants to repeat you Arnold.

Okay, fine, back on topic. Thingiverse removed 3D Models (i.e. fictitious objects comprised of computer code) of "gun parts" just like a bunch of retailers are dropping certain guns, just like the politicians are promising sweeping changes in this country's gun laws. Nope, nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

What it has to do with is a bunch of PC, whiny, sissified people who pee themselves at the mere mention of guns.

never mind that you actually need to print the gun, and add real parts and real labor to turn it into a functional piece, that will fire for, what, 6 shots if you're lucky? paranoid much?

Ever hear of Sony vs universal? the famous betamax case? the one where a court ruled, according to everyone's favorite source, Wikipedia:

"The Court's 5-4 ruling to reverse the Ninth Circuit in favor of Sony hinged on the possibility that the technology in question had significant non-infringing uses, and that the plaintiffs were unable to prove otherwise."

You see, just because a technology, like a 3D printer, or a 3D MODEL of a lower receiver can be used for a nefarious purpose, if there are legitimate uses for such technology, they can NOT bar their use.  Since it's established that a 3D printed lower doesn't work as an actual gun very well, that only leaves it for things like use as a movie prop, or for test fitting pieces in development. lots of people have legitimate uses for such a non-functional part, like gunsmiths, prop-makers, artists, etc.

Fact: people in the USA need to stop being afraid of guns, they've existed for a LONG time now, we've managed to co-exist with them since the beginning of this country. Why is it all of a sudden such an issue with everyone? because so many are brainwashed to hate guns.

Bre hates guns

Thingiverse hates guns

stupid people who swallow what the media tells them hate guns.

many, many people disagree. and a lot of people get touchy when you don't hate them too.

Thingiverse is getting more restrictive as time goes by.
Hows that for being on topic

Today guns, tomorrow your desktop 3D printer.

BTW. slippery slopes are always an issue, especially if you slip on them and end up broken.

[Hammerhead]

Not that I disagree with BigE or Have Blue's sentiments in any way - we're all on the same page, but LOL.

[Shawn]

What a "great" discussion for your first week as moderator! sarcasm
intended! :) Talk about trial by fire. lol

Thank you Melody for not responding in a heavy handed manner. I'm not a
US citizen, so have generally opted out of this discussion. But
exploring freedoms with regards to 3D Printing is of interest to me.
So, I'd like to see where this discussion goes.

On 12-12-19 01:28 PM, Melody Brandston wrote:
> Let's keep it on-topic, guys. Second Amendment rights are an interesting
> issue, for sure, but one that has only an indirect bearing on the
> subject of gun parts on Thingiverse.
>
> Melody Brandston
>
> Documentation
> Makerbot Industries

> melody.b...@makerbot.com <mailto:melody.b...@makerbot.com>

> --
>
>

[Have Blue]

My intent was not to compare Thingiverse to the Nazis - I didn't want to Godwin the thread, but wanted to counter a statement about 'police and military' being the only groups responsible enough to have firearms.

Anyway, in hopes of returning to topic, Bry, did you ask them to reinstate the grip, or did they do that themselves after review?  I'd at least like to see my triger guard reinstated.

[Big-E]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:10:11 PM UTC-6, Have Blue wrote:

My intent was not to compare Thingiverse to the Nazis - I didn't want to Godwin the thread, but wanted to counter a statement about 'police and military' being the only groups responsible enough to have firearms.

That's what I got from it as well. I don't think anyone wants to compare the USA to nazi germany, or want it to go in that direction, which is why this issue tends to become so heated and emotional. Sorry if Arnold took offense, I'm not saying we are like Nazis in America, and it's the last thing that I'd want to happen. That said, those who don't learn from history... you know the rest.
 

Anyway, in hopes of returning to topic, Bry, did you ask them to reinstate the grip, or did they do that themselves after review?  I'd at least like to see my triger guard reinstated.

I concur; I would be interested to find out if some of those objects will be brought back as well

[Bry]

I contacted Rich yesterday and asked if there was a mistake.  He got back to me this evening.  It's possible that heads have cooled; that's the problem with emotion and why it should never color any decision.

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:10:11 PM UTC-6, Have Blue wrote:

[Arnold Martin]

Big-E you do realize you just called everyone on this board who disagrees with you stupid and brainwashed right? Because we couldn't possibly have any reason to want reasonable restrictions on firearms except for fear or stupidity even those of us who are actually gun owners who hunt and who shoot. Whiny? Sissified? Nothing like dick waving, fear mongering, and name calling to promote civil discourse.

[Have Blue]

Hopefully rational thinking has returned (I hope discourse on a national level does likewise).  When I spoke to Rich on the phone yesterday and asked about my trigger guard and how it was hardly a weapon by itself and was useful for paintball and airsoft, his response was essentially 'our site, our rules' (though stated in a much more lawyerly fashion).

If I have time I'll see if I can reach him tomorrow.

[crank]

Everybody... let's get back on topic. This is not the time or the place to debate US policy on guns and gun control. 

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:24:28 PM UTC-7, crank wrote:

I received an email from Makerbots & Thingiverse's corporate counsel on the removal of of few of my items on Thingiverse. A completely LEGAL 5 round AR-15 magazine, that lacked the critical spring component to make it functional and an AR-15 magazine follower that have been on there for over a year. No doubt it is related to the unfortunate and tragic event at Sandy Hook. However, it seems like the age of digital censorship of 3D printed designs has inched closer. Granted they have their right to display content to which they have changed the terms and conditions many times; however, it is a slippery slope for a site that claims "Digital designs for real physical objects. A Universe of Things!".

[Mike Payson]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Have Blue <haveb...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mike, I know this was a response to Crank's reply, but I'll jump in as I made the same points he did.

Yes, we understand that the terms can change at anytime, it's their sandbox, etc. etc.  However, I don't believe we've ever seen a case on Thingiverse where a mass removal of uploads was enabled by a retroactive change in the TOS.  I'd simply like to be the 'canary in the coal mine' and make other users aware that their objects are not safe on Thingiverse and what may pass today may not tomorrow.

I still disagree about it not being a case of censorship - I use the term 'censorship' to mean that Thingiverse has indeed censored the content.  I do not mean that my rights have been infringed by any means!  This is not the sort of vile government censorship that we tend to think of when confronted with the term, but internal (and perfectly legal and legitimate) censorship.  We can use a different term if you like, but the actions still fit the definition of the c-word.

The word "censorship" is a dangerous one. It is a rallying cry for people with an agenda. True censorship involves force, for example the government or another entity with a true authority saying you cannot publish these files. MBI did not say you cannot publish anything, they only said THEY will not publish them. 

Because of Thingivere's market dominance, it may seem like theey can excercise force, but that is not really true. Competing sites do exist, even if their market penetration is small, and there is no reason at all why you couldn't start "guniverse.com" devoted to nothing but sharing gun part files if you wanted to. That is your right, and other than possible trademark issues, MBI would do nothing to stop you.

This is not a gun issue at all, it is a freedom of speech issue. I am pretty close to a 1st Ammendment* absolutist, so I am not someone who argues in favor of censorship. But free speech goes both ways, and MBI does have the right to choose which speech they will sponsor. If you truly believe in Freedom, you MUST acknowledge that it does not just apply to you. 

You can complain about their uneven enforcement of the policy and you can complain about the policy itself all you want, I will ignore the debate but I will not be offended. But when you start using that word, you open up a whole different can of worms and I will very strongly disagree with you. 

Real censorship happens, and it is quite likely that sometime soon the government will try to regulate these parts you are making. THAT is when you start using the C word. Using it for this nonsense is just crying wolf.

* And yes, it is an amendment, Big-E. It is technically an article of the Bill of Rights Rights also, but since the Constitution and Bill Of Rights both have multiple articles, simply refering to it as "Article 2" could cause confusion. The Bill of Rights absolutely are ammendments to the constitution, ratified as law more than four years after the original constitution, so referring to it as the "Second Amendement" disambiguates it to avoid confusion. Virtually everyone on all sides of the political spectrum use this obvious nomeclature, so it seems a rather silly place to make a stand on semantics.

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 1:07:22 PM UTC-6, Mike wrote:

This argument is absolutely irrelavent. The terms can change at anytime, and they apply retroactively. This is not a criminal or civil legal issue where you are somehow being "punished", so changing the terms retroactively is perfectly reasonable and legal. Like I and many others have said, it is their site, if you do not like their policies you are welcome to not use it. 

And once again, This is NOT censorship. Being a gun enthusiast, I assume you are someone who is proud of your freedom. Everytime you make an argument that this is censorship, what you are really saying is "I deserve my freedom, but MBI does not have the same rights". It doesn't work that way. They did not say you cannot publish your files, only that they will not publish them for you, that is perfectly within their rights.

--
 
 

[Have Blue]

Agreed, we don't want to annoy Shawn or Melody (or invoke their wrath  :-)

Unfortunately, we're now right back to what Zach had warned of back when I very first broached the topic of uploading a 3D printed lower in August of last year:
"On a more practical note... it is an extremely hard and flamewar fraught process to draw the line between weapon and not-weapon.  We tried that once and it was a disaster."

So, where do we start discussion?  Sporks?  Or is this rather akin to the notion of "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it"?  I recall at one point it was proposed to have questionable/objectionable uploads still available, yet subject to an '18+' limitation.  I'd have far less objection to such a community-curated system (as opposed to mysterious figures simply banning items), as it would still make the content available and shareable, but subject to an age restriction.

[Big-E]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 6:33:43 PM UTC-6, Arnold Martin wrote:

Big-E you do realize you just called everyone on this board who disagrees with you stupid and brainwashed right?

No I didn't, I made a general statement regarding my personal opinion on the matter. If you personally identify with my statement, it's not my problem. Sorry if that's how you took it. You seem to be rather sensitive on stuff like this.

I could take your earlier statement as implying I'm a neo-nazi or something like that, but I don't.

Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
 

Because we couldn't possibly have any reason to want reasonable restrictions on firearms except for fear or stupidity even those of us who are actually gun owners who hunt and who shoot. Whiny? Sissified? Nothing like dick waving, fear mongering, and name calling to promote civil discourse.

In case you haven't noticed, we have plenty of resonable restrictions on firearms in this country, and every time there is an incident in the news like this, we're all expected to accept more "reasonable" restrictions on a god-given "right" that's supposedly "shall not be infringed" upon.
as I've said, if you don't want my f***ing opinion, don't provoke me into providing it for you.
 Hell, bath township michigan, 1929. look it up. wanna know what laws were changed back then because of that incident? I'll tell you... ZERO. and it killed more young school kids than any school shooting in history. something has slowly changed in this country over the years, and if you don't see it, you're blind.

So, do you identify with my statement? are you afraid of guns? if you are, than my statement applies to you, if not, quit telling lies, because it obviously doesn't apply.

I've lost friends to guns, I've personally had a gun shoved in my face, accompanied buy a threat to "splatter my brains on a wall", guess what? I'm still here, I'm still not afraid of guns, and I SUPPORT the right to keep and bear arms. so yea, people who freak out over guns are sissies. I stand by may statement.

I swore never to be a victim again, and I decided to learn about guns rather than fear them. In my opinion, they do just as much, if not more, good in the world as evil, and they are as inevitable as death, old age and taxes. you will never get rid of guns, until something more effective comes along. For the record, I've never pulled a gun on anyone, I've never shot anyone, and I have no intention to ever do so, just the same, I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than need a gun and not have one.

Now, before the moderator, and everyone else in this thread has a seizure because I'm beating a DEAD HORSE, please, please, please, for the love of god,  stop bringing this aspect of the conversation back up. There are better way to bring up the issue than in this thread, apparently.

so I'm sorry to everyone, I've been an opinionated human being. Excuse the hell out of me, I'm not worthy to breathe the gastric fumes of liberal BS slingers, apparently. I deserve to be shot, just like the president of the NRA. Hell maybe we should ban guns, if for nothing else than to protect us from those those who don't trust the rest of us with them.

seriously done now, unless it pertains to the status of the items themselves on thingiverse, or a status change or something comes along. And an earlier poster had it right, this should have been on Thingivere's google group in the first place.

-Big-E

[Have Blue]

Mike, I agree that the word "censorship" is often improperly waved about as a rallying cry, and I only used it here in a small-'c' sense (as previously noted, akin to that of a television station's censor, or perhaps more descriptively a network's standards and practices board).  I do not wish to imply that this is a first amendment issue (big-'C' sense) as it currently applies to Thingiverse.

I think we're on the same wavelength, but differ in what terminology should be applied - is there a term more akin to 'DMCA takedown' that we can use for what is happening rather than the c-word?

[Big-E]

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that Thingiverse has the right to censor the content they host. The question on everyone's mind is the justification for doing so. When does data become a weapon, as soon as it's coded? after it's printed?

It violated their policy for a while though, and it doesn't change the fact that they didn't remove the files until after the aforementioned events that took place.

So, here's a question, what if someone does something with said files, which were downloaded prior to the takedown. retroactively removing said files will not remove the liability. the damage has been done. Unlike the facts in news coverage and computer files, human memory can't be deleted, nor can tragedy.

Too late of a response on the part of thingiverse. It's ex post facto, both in posting the file to begin with, and removing it recently. They should have grandfathered those "things" in which complied with the TOS at the time of posting. Don't let people post new "gun stuff", but the things that were already on there should've been kept on.

[Bry]

It's an emotional response to the news that led to this censorship right now.  If someone at MBI loses a loved one to heart disease, or the news chooses to take a meat-is-murder hardcore vegan stance, does that mean we lose all of the nice BBQ helpers on thingiverse?  Heart disease kills more people than everything else...  and then there's the diabetes epidemic:  All of those cookie cutters will have to go.  One issue is the same as the next, the only difference between them is who is in power and how strong their emotional bias is to each issue.  

[John Foster]

While I'm prone to side with HaveBlue et al. in these arguments (and have been thoroughly impressed by his engineering prowess, btw), I tend to stay out of these discussions.  However, I've noticed over the past few days the national discourse has shifted from not just blaming guns for the recent tragedy, but also violent video games as well.  I can't speak to what the prevailing opinions have been on other sites, but on Slashdot (my favorite place to goof off during work) I noticed the very same people that shouted for gun control when the media blamed guns shriek in dismay when the media blamed violent video games.  Both arguments fail to address the root cause of the tragedy.  There are as many people who own guns that don't go on killing sprees as there are avid gamers that do not hack people into pieces with chainsaws after a weekend of hardcore gaming.  This seems to be much more a First Amendment issue than it is a Second Amendment issue - not in the sense that Thingiverse is censoring anything, but in the sense that the members of this forum are seeking to pass judgement on what is and what is not fit for public discourse.  The overriding goal of the Founding Fathers in the drafting of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was to place strict limits on what the government can tell you you cannot do.  Since 9/11 we've seen a steady erosion of these rights - not just the Second, but the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and the Tenth; I fear the media attention given to the most recent mass killings will only accelerate this erosion.  It is worth noting that neither the rate nor the severity of these killings has exceeded historical norms, and in fact overall violence in our society has been in steady decline for four decades now.

To both sides of this argument I leave this as a final thought:

"He that would make his own Liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; For if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent which will reach to himself."

-Thomas Paine

[Have Blue]

I agree fully - I would not have posted my lower had there been a 'no weapons' clause in the TOS at the time of uploading (I would have at least taken the step of inquiring whether or not it was by itself considered a weapon).

This is what rustles my jimmies the most - not the TOS takedowns themselves, but the ability for Thingiverse to retroactively modify their TOS.  What is to prevent them from banning cookie cutters via revising the TOS to disallow implements of obesity, to use Bry's example?  I understand Instagram is getting some flak for TOS changes as well, and I wonder if it has any parallels (I'm not an Instagram user, so that's an honest question, not rhetorical).

(Mike - is 'TOS takedowns' an acceptable terminology to you versus 'censorship'?)

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:40:58 PM UTC-6, Big-E wrote:

[Mike Payson]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Have Blue <haveb...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree fully - I would not have posted my lower had there been a 'no weapons' clause in the TOS at the time of uploading (I would have at least taken the step of inquiring whether or not it was by itself considered a weapon).

This is what rustles my jimmies the most - not the TOS takedowns themselves, but the ability for Thingiverse to retroactively modify their TOS.  What is to prevent them from banning cookie cutters via revising the TOS to disallow implements of obesity, to use Bry's example?  I understand Instagram is getting some flak for TOS changes as well, and I wonder if it has any parallels (I'm not an Instagram user, so that's an honest question, not rhetorical).

(Mike - is 'TOS takedowns' an acceptable terminology to you versus 'censorship'?)

Yes, absolutely. That is exactly what it is, so call it such.

A key point that I never really articulated well is that by using the word "censorship", you are fundamentally changing the nature of the debate. Instead of having a rational debate about the appropriateness of the takedowns and the validity of the policy, it became an emotionally charged "us vs. them" debate with various digressions into the proper terminology for the bill of rights, at least one guy resorting to name calling,  and various other silly wastes of time (today's debate was quite calm, I have seen these things get far worse far quicker). By calling things what they are, you keep the debate civil and on topic.

Censorship is a truly evil thing. It is almost antithetical to a free society. Because of that, it is important to use the word properly, or people begin to ignore it when real censorship starts happening.

 

 

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:40:58 PM UTC-6, Big-E wrote:

They should have grandfathered those "things" in which complied with the TOS at the time of posting.

--
 
 

[Z LeHericy]

Part of every single TOS that i've EVER read is a clause (usually at the end) that states that the company who wrote it can change it at any time for any reason, usually without having to notify the users.

If you don't like the fact that they can change the TOS, then you have the choice to not sign up

-Zeno LeHericy

//((=:Z:=))\\
INVENTIONS
Technologies
zinventions.com

--
 
 

[Shawn]

Maybe a self moderated approach something like what SlashDot does?
Everyone browses between the mid to top range of the scale.
Questionable stuff can be rated lower making it disappear for the casual
viewer, but still there for those who want it. But that discussion is
probably better suited for the thingiverse group.

An no "wrath" here. I've got my popcorn and am watching the laughs. :)
(and learning a little at the same time)

For me, I'd hate to print anything that would get my kid in trouble.
Simulation grenades/hand guns/knives, etc... But the printers are not
only owned/used by younger folks. So where do you draw the line?
Either you trust everyone to use brains and common sense, or you don't
trust anyone and lock it down for all. Not an easy dilemma - might be
easier to just not play. Perhaps a nice game of chess... :) (bonus
points to the older crowd if they get the movie reference)

> --
>
>

[Big-E]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:25:10 PM UTC-6, Shawn wrote:

Not an easy dilemma - might be
easier to just not play.  Perhaps a nice game of chess... :)  (bonus
points to the older crowd if they get the movie reference)

Wargames reference... nice!

Besides the arguing, this thread has been a good one. I think a lot of people have some food for thought over all the issues at hand. As a note, Instagram has rethought their recent change of their TOS, They are no longer planning to screw people out of their intellectual property. I was quite vocal about this subject elsewhere, and I'm sure the discussions pertaining to that subject helped influence their recent change of heart.

The point of discussing something, even if points raised are unpopular or abrasive, serve as more than a pressure valve, but also a barometer of popular opinion. Even though Thingiverse does not directly influence public policy, it does so indirectly through the court of public opinion, and can be influenced by the voices of it's users, just like government is inclined to do.

Discussion and debate, be it tepid and on-point or heated and off topic, does serve a purpose. Open discourse and parlay isn't always a pleasant experience. I think that we, as a culture, tend to forget this at times. Some may not like it, but it's sometimes the only way to effect change and policy.  Better here in a forum now, when it's open for debate, then in a courtroom down the road, when the consequences are more dire and the outcome more restrictive.

It may grate your nerves for a short time, but in the long run, it's a healthy thing to have discussions like these.

[Mike Payson]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Big-E <rav...@charter.net> wrote:

nobody wants to repeat you Arnold.

Okay, fine, back on topic. Thingiverse removed 3D Models (i.e. fictitious objects comprised of computer code) of "gun parts" just like a bunch of retailers are dropping certain guns, just like the politicians are promising sweeping changes in this country's gun laws. Nope, nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

What it has to do with is a bunch of PC, whiny, sissified people who pee themselves at the mere mention of guns.

Gotta love guys like you. You are losing an argument, so you resort to name calling. Yeah, yeah, I know... You weren't referring to US, just those other people you disagree with. 

Unless you are willing to admit that you do not believe in freedom of speech for anyone who does not agree with you, you are flat out wrong. There is no logical way to rectify your position with a belief in personal liberty.

 

Your Betamax reference is completely irrelevant. As has been pointed out repeatedly, MBI did not ban these models, they only refused to publish them You'll note that Universal in that case did not suddenly have to start publishing porn because the technology was deemed legal. The decision did not change in the slightest the rights of a publisher to choose what they publish. 

By your logic, Fox News should be required to broadcast Keith Olberman because, well because I insist. It is fairly safe to assume you would disagree with that reasoning, so why would you feel that you can insist on what MBI publishes? 

 

--
 
 

[Mike Payson]

Reread my message. As I said, the discussion of Thingiverse's policy was not completely off-topic (though it would be more appropriate on the Thingiverse list). However if you look at the message I replied to and if you read my message, I specifically said that "now we are debating guns themselves and that is clearly inappropriate for a list like this". I 100% stand by that comment. 

There are plenty of places to discuss guns and gun policy, this is not one of them.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Big-E <rav...@charter.net> wrote:

Off topic, no, off the rails, yes.

I fail to see how Thingiverse pulling these designs isn't related to the topic of discussion. there is a lot of division in this country, and just because someone claims this discussion is off-topic doesn't make it so. Things are leading to a place and a subject I will NOT mention in this thread, but most of the folks on here who can follow my line of thinking already know what I'm talking about.

This removal of objects coincides with something that happened a few days back, and that is leading to the branching of this topic. slippery slope, man. that's all I'm gonna say. Thingiverse pulling the files in question, Sandy Hook shooting, 2nd Amendment...  all of it is related. Tell yourself otherwise if you want to live in fairytale land. Some of us (about half from what I see) think otherwise.

Mike, you know what's up!

I want to stop posting in this thread, but I can't help but be dragged back in. blame my moral compass.

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 4:54:50 PM UTC-6, Mike wrote:

This conversation has now gone totally off-topic. It was far enough off topic when debating Thingiverse's policies, but now we are debating guns themselves and that is clearly inappropriate for a list like this. Please take this part of the discussion offlist.

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Big-E <rav...@charter.net> wrote:

Surely you aren't saying that all civilians are irresponsible and not trustworthy. The police and military are fine, they have their roles in society. But as it's said, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away"

There's a little thing called posse commitatus that keeps the military out of domestic affairs.

It seems I'm not going to win over some folks on here, I've spoken my peace already so I'll refrain from commenting any longer.

By the way, who is "we"? Definitely isn't we the people. There are a lot of law abiding gun owners in this country, so if you don't like that fact, by all means, try to take their firearms away from them; You can throw your IPhone at them perhaps. And before you sick the cops or military on them, you should know the majority of them won't attempt such a thing to begin with.

Peace out,
Big-E

--

--
 
 

[Have Blue]

I can't think of another case where a company re-wrote their TOS in order to remove content, though...

[Big-E]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:14:36 PM UTC-6, Mike wrote:

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Big-E <rav...@charter.net> wrote:

nobody wants to repeat you Arnold.

Okay, fine, back on topic. Thingiverse removed 3D Models (i.e. fictitious objects comprised of computer code) of "gun parts" just like a bunch of retailers are dropping certain guns, just like the politicians are promising sweeping changes in this country's gun laws. Nope, nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

What it has to do with is a bunch of PC, whiny, sissified people who pee themselves at the mere mention of guns.

Gotta love guys like you. You are losing an argument, so you resort to name calling. Yeah, yeah, I know... You weren't referring to US, just those other people you disagree with. 

Way to generalize, Mike. Show me WHO I called names here. I make a general statement, and I'm name-calling WHO exactly? I made a general statement, for the last time a general statement based on my personal experience. and I'm a name caller? unless you can directly cite a specific individual who this was directed at as name calling, then I called nobody any names. your imagination and false correlations are doing the only name calling.
 

Unless you are willing to admit that you do not believe in freedom of speech for anyone who does not agree with you, you are flat out wrong. There is no logical way to rectify your position with a belief in personal liberty.

Freedom of speech, what an interesting concept, you mean that freedom I was exercising in the post you referenced? Does free speech only apply if I don't offend anyone?
In no way did what I say prevent anyone from exercising their first amendment right, as evidenced by your own reply, so don't go there.
 

Your Betamax reference is completely irrelevant. As has been pointed out repeatedly, MBI did not ban these models, they only refused to publish them You'll note that Universal in that case did not suddenly have to start publishing porn because the technology was deemed legal. The decision did not change in the slightest the rights of a publisher to choose what they publish. 

 Fine, I'll concede that point.

By your logic, Fox News should be required to broadcast Keith Olberman because, well because I insist. It is fairly safe to assume you would disagree with that reasoning, so why would you feel that you can insist on what MBI publishes?

Because I'm not a program director for Fox news. I have, however, generated content for Thingiverse, like everyone else who uses it. a site that relies on the public for content generation shouldn't have such broad power to dictate what they create. If that were the case, they should only host content generated by those employees who are contracted and paid to do so. I have signed no contract, I have agreed to a casual ToS (non-binding). I didn't receive a dime for a single thing I've posted, everything I put up is a gratuity.

Beggars can't be choosers. If they rely on the community to provide content, they should accept what they're given, and not look a gift horse in the mouth.

And fox news suck, btw  Olberman was okay.

[Big-E]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 8:14:36 PM UTC-6, Mike wrote:

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Big-E <rav...@charter.net> wrote:

nobody wants to repeat you Arnold.

Your Betamax reference is completely irrelevant. As has been pointed out repeatedly, MBI did not ban these models, they only refused to publish them

This is also a lie, Thingiverse DID publish them. The decision to remove the files was retroactive. Human memory has no delete key. Your argument to the contrary will not revoke the fact that they DID in fact publish the files in question. The action they took was retroactive, and a knee jerk reaction to something they saw on the news.

So tell me, when will MBI be announcing the DRM-enabled features of the Replicator 3?

See if I ever buy another printer form them now. Any other argument on the part of MBI, Thingiverse, and those associated with them is irrelevant now.

My next printer will be from another manufacturer, thank you very much.