Legal Clarification

[Shawn]

I am hoping I understand this correctly...

The models on Thingiverse are under an open license. Most seem to be
Creative Commons - Share/Share Alike. I take this to mean that I am
free to make use of the models to print physical objects as long as I
ensure others have access to the model.

But, what is the legality of printing an object for commercial gain when
the model is CC-S/SA? In other words, can I use someone's model to
print things to sell? Do the copyright issues end at the production of
the physical object?

I've seen a similar situation with Linux and GPL licensed products. I
can legally sell a CD/DVD with Linux on it, as I am selling the media
and the cost to produce that media, yet the contents on the disk are not
mine to copyright. This *seems* similar to the physical models, or am I
wrong?

(The right answer I know is to ask MY lawyer, and answers vary depending
on the law of the different locales. I'm just trying to get my head
around the issues in a broad sense.)

Thanks for your input.

Shawn

[Andrew Dawes]

>
> But, what is the legality of printing an object for commercial gain when the model is CC-S/SA? In other words, can I use someone's model to print things to sell? Do the copyright issues end at the production of the physical object?

Not sure what CC-S/SA is referring to. There are combinations of BY (attribution), SA (share alike), NC (non-commercial), and ND (no-derivatives).

You can sell it as long as it isn't an NC license. Be aware of the requirements of BY and/or SA though.

I usually use BY-SA so that I get credit for my work, and that even derivative works are open.

Best,
Andy

[AKron]

This is a good topic because I thought it would be good to throw up a
table at the local farmers market this year, and offer trinkets for
people to purchase to introduce them to home 3D printing. I would want
to display attribution to promote a sense of the open source
community, too, but I see some designs on Thingiverse with the NC $
sign slash which would lead me to believe I couldn't sell those models
without permission.
This Monday will mark the 8th week of pensive waiting for the
Replicator!

[Shawn]

This is exactly why I'm asking. I was lucky enough to score some table
space at the Calgary Enterainment Expo this weekend (swing by the
Solarbotics booth and say hi!). We are demoing the Replicator and
Ultimaker, but we are being asked if we can sell some of the prints. I
want to make sure I'm doing the right thing, but wasn't really prepped
to shift into sales mode. The legal issues are the only remaining point
I need to worry about - I think.

[Theron Trowbridge]

Yes, you would need to ask permission to sell any things labelled by-nc.  The motivation to use a non-commercial license varies by person (and thing) so that's a thing-by-thing conversation.  It doesn't hurt to ask - in many cases, there may be no issue at all.

You would need to explicitly attribute the designer of anything licensed under any Creative Commons license (they're all "by" by default).

I'm not sure how in this case a share-alike license would impact things. A link to the Thingiverse page would probably be enough to provide both attribution and the source.  You could do this with Whosawhatsis's thing tags: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:8195 (which are CC Public Domain, so there are no restrictions on their use).

The definitive source of information on the CC licenses is the Creative Commons web site.  Each license on Thingiverse has a link to the license page, and they have both human- and lawyer-readable versions.

-Theron

^

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.

[Richard]

I ordered mine March 5 and recently emailed to check. It sound like it
will be more like 10 weeks, so don't hold your breath for 8 weeks.

[Richard]

As noted by others, it depends on the license.

I AM NOT A LAWYER, THIS IS JUST MY VIEW.

If it says NC, you can't sell the design, but it is not clear that you
can't sell a product printed from the design. Fine point, I know. In
other words you can't set up a website that has copies of designs that
are labeled NC and sell them nor can you put them on a DVD and sell
them.

That being said, you could probably slightly change the design.

There is a similar thing with patents. There are utility patents and
design patents. Utility patents patent what it does, so to speak.
Design patents patent how it looks, i.e., the unique dimensions and
shape of button and form on an Apple keyboard for instance. You can
change them slightly and get around the design patent.

Back to the license issues. If you were printing out things, you
could have a document printed for people to look at that had the
license info for each design if they were interested but you would not
need to print this info on the item.

If you were really concerned about the NC license you could always
sell a photo of the item for $ and give them one for free. Or give
the item and ask for donations.

This might sound a little slimey but it would probably work.

[Whosawhatsis]

I would be shocked and appalled if a single word of the previous message stood up to a legal challenge.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.

To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Jack Coats]

That's why the guy put a disclaimer. He spoke from his logic, not
from a 'legal' perspective.

When I took a class in computer law back when, the prof/lawyer reminded us all,
'we have a legal system, not a justice system'. If we are lucky the
implementation
of the legal system comes out with justice but there is not guarantee.

[Rob Myers]

On 04/29/2012 07:40 PM, Whosawhatsis wrote:
> I would be shocked and appalled if a single word of the previous message
> stood up to a legal challenge.

It depends whether the print is a copyrightable object or not.

(IMHO, IANAL, TINLA etc.)

- Rob.

[Whosawhatsis]

I would think that, at least in the case of a 3d file designed and distributed for the express purpose of being 3d printed, printing copies and distributing them would be equivalent to doing the same with a digital copy of a book. While it's true that this has not been tested in court, I think that it is fair to say that that's how we should all treat the license statements. I think it's pretty clear how the authors intend these licenses to be applied, and even if someone can legally violate that interpretation, that doesn't mean it's not a dick move.

[Hugh Johnson]

I think this is more of a moral issue then a legal one. Personally I think like my Grandma who used to say: "It's better to ask forgiveness, then beg for permission". If your only selling a few, no one is ever going to know, and if they do their only recourse is to ask you to stop. In order for them to sue you they'd have to prove you've damaged them somehow (taking profits, ruining their reputation, and such).

You could of course ask for permission from the author. But often the person who published a thing on thingiverse isn't the one who holds the copyright of the thing, like the Yoda incense burner, or Darth Vader keychain, both of which I personally have sold.

Then again I'm a doctor not a lawyer.

[Rob Myers]

On 04/29/2012 09:35 PM, Whosawhatsis wrote:
> I would think that, at least in the case of a 3d file designed and
> distributed for the express purpose of being 3d printed, printing copies
> and distributing them would be equivalent to doing the same with a
> digital copy of a book.

Only if the printed object is itself copyrightable.

The CC licenses are (currently) copyright licenses, they govern the use
of copyrighted works. If a physical object results from the use of that
work and the physical object is not a copyrighted work in itself, the CC
license does not affect it. For example if the resulting object is
purely functional, or is a re-creation of a sculpture in the public domain.

(IANAL, TINLA.)

> While it's true that this has not been tested in
> court, I think that it is fair to say that that's how we should all
> treat the license statements. I think it's pretty clear how the authors
> intend these licenses to be applied, and even if someone can legally
> violate that interpretation, that doesn't mean it's not a dick move.

The problem with community norms are that they give the advantage to
people willing to ignore them.

All that said I agree that the safe and respectful thing to do is indeed
not to sell prints of NC files.

- Rob.

[Z LeHericy]

Very true, and plus, ITS REALLY NOT THAT HARD TO ASK!

I list many of my designs as NC, BUT, I'm generally more than happy to let other makerbotters/reprappers/etc print and sell my designs, BUT, I use the NC license so that people have to ask, that way i can limit how many people are printing my stuff for profit.

EVEN ON PARTS NOT LISTED AS NON-COMERCIAL, it's a good practice to still ask permission before selling prints of ANY parts designed by someone else!

\end rant\

just my $.02
-Zeno LeHericy

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

[AKron]

On Apr 29, 11:32 am, Richard <mrrab...@gmail.com> wrote:
...so don't hold your breath for 8 weeks.
Can I stomp my feet a little?

[JohnA.]

Where's Andrew when we need him?   I know he's super knowledgeable on the licensing front.   Paging Andrew!

JohnA.

[Andrew Plumb]

Heh.  I'm guessing that was directed at me.?. 

I'm cc'ing Michael Weinberg for his take on things (perhaps blog-post material by him?) since this is more up his alley.  The full thread is at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/makerbot/Pt-MTB05g5U

My non-lawyer take on all this licensing stuff is that (technically/legally) the only entity that Thingiverse Thing CC-* licenses apply to are the documents/files themselves. If a thing-entry is marked "NC" (No Commercial), then the files as uploaded cannot be sold, only freely given.  If something is marked "ND" (No Derivatives) then you are not permitted to alter that document; you can only reproduce it (the document/file) as-is.  These are only the instructions for building something that are being licensed, not the end thing itself.

I think of it as I would a "How to Build a Replica Sports Car" book.  If I buy the book (or perhaps obtain a CC-licensed version), there is nothing about the book purchase copyright-license that permits (or limits) me to (not) build that replica sports car.  There *may* be aspects of the car design and mechanisms that are protected by different IP mechanisms (functional and design patents, trademark logos and text, etc); the book's license is not to my knowledge that mechanism.

In that same manner there is nothing in a Thingiverse thing's document's license that restricts (or permits for that matter) what you might do with the fabjects once you've printed them.  That said, it's still a fuzzy line in my mind because a lot of art (paintings and statues) are covered by Copyright; think of galleries where photography of private/visiting collections is not permitted.

As a courtesy, do attribute what you've printed or displayed (and perhaps sold) back to the original designer and/or Thingiverse entry.   It is considered poor form to reproduce someone's Thingiverse works and pass them off as your own (and/or not give credit where it's due), as was done by a certain company present (that shall remain nameless) at MF:NYC 2011 of Skimbal's Gothic Cathedral Play Set: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2030

If you've created a thing-entry's files from scratch by reverse engineering someone else's physical object (not by copying their files) then things get fuzzy.  Think of all those *wonderful* DMCA notices that have been lobbed Thingiverse's way over the past couple of years!  Are you prepared to set that legal precedent.?.

All that said, there may still be patents on the function of a given fabject that exist independent of the design docs.  If patents happen to apply to something you've printed, it is up to you (the printer/reproducer) to obtain permission/license to use them as intended.  There are exceptions related to R&D - where in order to make something better than what's patented you can investigate that which is patented - and some right-to-repair instances (think 1-to-1 car replacement parts) but technically you're not supposed to use or sell the existing (non-expired) patented function without license.

In some jurisdictions an exact object-design (be it a lamp, purse or piece of furniture) may be covered by design patents (US) or be registered as Industrial Designs (Canada), again independent of the design docs.

I think the sale of many costume/replica-type designs (think Storm Trooper armour) are restricted in some jurisdictions (US) and permitted in others (UK), but only in special cases where the person selling the replica created and owns the original tooling used to manufacture the movie props.  I don't know of anything that restricts you from making your own props for personal use at 'cons and the like; only exchanges of a monetary nature seem to complicate things.

Then there are trademarks.  Don't call your stackable construction brick variants "LEGO"; I would even avoid "LYGO" if I were Studio Mango.  I think it's ok to say something is "LEGO-compatible", but don't quote me on that and it's usually safer to leave compatibility implicit or show a part mating with an authentic LEGO™ piece.

You might download the (GPL'd) source for a MakerBot Thing-O-Matic and make your own from scratch, but if you decide to sell these versions then you should at the very least be scrubbing all the trademark features (cloning) so there is no mistaking it for a (counterfeit) machine from MakerBot Industries.  Ditto for Adafruit or Arduino electronics; at least scrub the text and logos; see Phil's recent clone vs counterfeit blog post on the topic: http://blog.makezine.com/2012/04/18/soapbox-counterfeit-open-source-hardware-knock-offs-101/  

If someone chooses to make a thing available under a CC-By-NC/ND with any kind of text and/or logos on/in it, you would have four choices in my mind:

Choice 1:  Ask for permission to to make and sell what you've made.  If they say yes then great!

Choice 2:  Print it off and keep it for yourself as (likely) intended.  You could sell it but I would question the designer's motives and look very closely for patented and/or trademarked features. It's a trap! http://www.thinkgeek.com/interests/looflirpa/ee06/?cpg=yt

Choice 3:  Print it off then take measurements and reproduce your own version from your reverse engineering of it, making sure you don't copy any patented, trademarked or design patent protected aspects of it.

Choice 4:  Walk away.

Clear as mud, eh? ;-)

Andrew.

On 2012-04-29, at 6:45 PM, JohnA. wrote:

Where's Andrew when we need him?   I know he's super knowledgeable on the licensing front.   Paging Andrew!

JohnA.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/makerbot/-/4ZWub4RTNAoJ.

To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.

--

"The future is already here.  It's just not very evenly distributed" -- William Gibson

Me: http://clothbot.com/wiki/

[Theron Trowbridge]

Creative Commons licenses apply to anything that you can copyright.  Can you copyright a 3D print?  If the answer is yes, then the design file would be considered a work and the print would be considered an adaptation of that work, and explicitly covered by the license.

I'm sure the answer to that question is not at all settled legally.  But from a community perspective, I bet the majority of Thingiverse contributors would consider printing and selling things licensed under a non-commercial CC license without permission would be a violation of the spirit of the licensing.

Creative Commons did a survey a few years ago on what licensors considered to be a non-commercial use of works.  They're taking the results of the survey into account on the 4.0 licenses.  The report can be read here:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial

-Theron

^

[Michael Weinberg]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Michael Weinberg <mwei...@publicknowledge.org> wrote:

This is a great question.  As a matter of fact, my goal for this summer is to put together a whitepaper that should help to address many of these issues. 

Unfortunately, there is not a simple answer of general applicability.  Part of the problem is that you can't license what you don't own, so in some (many?) cases the CC-* licenses for objects (and potentially even designs) on Thingiverse will not have any legal weight at all.  That does not make them valueless - they still serve as an important clue as to the designer's intention when she uploaded the file - but they may have limited legal enforceability.

Instead of getting bogged down in the legal details (at least for now), I would say to follow the "be cool" rule.  If the designer has tried to lay down some ground rules regarding their design, it is still pretty easy to reach out to them and see if what you are doing is cool with them.  If they have dedicated it to the public domain you don't need to bother them, but if they have some sort of restrictions try your best to play nice.  Just because someone can't sue you for going against their wishes does not mean that there is not a reason to respect them.  This is probably doubly true if you are going to try and use the design to make some money.

-michael

--
Michael Weinberg
Staff Attorney
Public Knowledge
@mweinbergPK

1818 N Street, NW, Suite 410
Washington, DC 20036
202-861-0020
Washington, D.C.  20009
www.publicknowledge.org

--
Michael Weinberg
Staff Attorney
Public Knowledge
@mweinbergPK

1818 N Street, NW, Suite 410
Washington, DC 20036
202-861-0020
Washington, D.C.  20009
www.publicknowledge.org

[Richard]

Well in reading this thread and Andrew's response it sounds like my
opinions were pretty much validated by someone who seems to have much
more legal knowledge than me.

My prior response was really in the spirit of throwing some thoughts
out there, not advocating for one or the other. Heck, I don't even
have a printer yet! Still waiting on Makerbot's "8-52" week lead-
time.

Someone made a comment about this being like copying an electronic
book and printing it out and selling copies. It's not. The contents
of the book are protected by Copyright law. Just as what I am typing
here is protected simply by me typing it. I do not have to register a
copyright or claim it at the end of my email. Also on the ebook, the
acting of printing the book is just changing the format of what is
presented electronically and can be enjoyed by looking at it in the
screen and has no real change in content when it is printed. For a
design file, the file provides computer instructions for producing a
physical object. If you look at the code or even at the image, you do
not get the same use of the object as you do with a physical object.
There is a big difference from an ebook.

Someone also commented about museums and photos of artwork. The main
reason they do that is to prevent damage from flashes, it is not a
copyright issue. Well, what about no flash? Museums find it hard to
police flash vs no flash and many people do not know how to reliably
turn off there flashes so museums that are concerned generally have a
blanket rule. Interestingly, I was in a very famous museum in England
about two years ago and was surprised that people were taking photos
like crazy, it turned out they allowed it.

Here is a good example of the issue at hand, it is the Free Universal
Construction Kit. This is a set of connectors that let people connect
different building sets with each other.
http://fffff.at/free-universal-construction-kit/#considerations. It
has an NC license and specifically state that you can not make and
sell the kits. It does say however that people can have them made for
their own private use by using a third party, i.e., Shapeways, Pinoko,
or someone local like you with a printer. Obviously, Shapeways,
Pinoko, or you can charge to print these things, you just can not
charge for the objects, themselves. As I read it, you could not
print up lots of copies and package them for sale, but it looks like
you could get paid by someone for printing them.

This is another interesting article. It states that the CC licensing
scheme is problematic as it stands for 3D printed objects. 3D printed
objects, as opposed to something written, filmed, sung, etc., are
functional and the various options don't really address the physical
object itself at this time. You can't copyright a physical thing.
http://www.geomagic.com/en/community/beyond-the-box/the-call-for-a-harmonized-community-license-for-3d-content.-part1/

On Apr 28, 1:13 am, Shawn <sgro...@open2space.com> wrote:

[Whosawhatsis]

On Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Richard wrote:

... For a

design file, the file provides computer instructions for producing a

physical object. If you look at the code or even at the image, you do

not get the same use of the object as you do with a physical object.

There is a big difference from an ebook.

By that logic, software doesn't qualify as intellectual property and the term "software piracy" is meaningless, because looking at the source code doesn't give you the same benefit as running the compiled program. 

[Rob Myers]

Not at all. It's more the difference between a computer program and its
output.

It's perfectly possible to have a copyrighted program output an
un-copyrighted form. e.g. a public domain text or image, or a simple sphere.

Or a functional object rather than a copyrighted work.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/3d-printing-settlers-catan-probably-not-illeg

- Rob.

[Whosawhatsis]

Not if the printed object is a functional item like a machine part. In that case, the physical object = software is the only analogy that makes sense. If the object is an artistic item, then a printed copy is either a copy (in that the original was designed to be a physical object, and the STL file is an intermediate form, like the data stored in the RAM of a photocopier making copies of a document) or a derivative work (in the sense of a photograph of a painting). This, btw, is why I use a GPL license for my functional items and a CC-BY-SA (my preferred flavor) license for non-functional items.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.

[Shawn]

I think it was mentioned before, but this resonated with me. If I buy a
"How to build a widget" book, the book itself is copyrighted. But the
widget I build is not - it is mine to do with what I want. I see the
STL files as the book in this case, and the final product as um, not the
book. So it would seem that the STL file may be copyrighted, but not
the physical object resulting from the object. So, if I make use of the
STL file, or try to sell the STL file, I run afoul of the CC terms, or
at the very least need to consider them. BUT, if I sell the physical
object printed from those instructions, I'm *probably* ok. Ethically,
the smart thing to do is to get explicit permission. But legally, I
think this is still a grey area the courts need to address.

More, if I print out a Star Trek related object (say a comm badge), and
use the term "Star Trek" to describe it, then I would probably need a
license to make use of the terms. But if I just called my object "a
comm badge", instead of a "Star Trek Comm badge", I don't think I'd run
into the same licensing issues. But a lawyer would have the best answer
here.

In short, it seems that if I want to sell printed objects, it is best if
I design the model myself, and avoid naming my models after the
movies/games they may be based on. Unfortunately this slows down the
innovative process, having to recreate things from scratch every time
for fear of being sued into oblivion.

Thanks for the great discussion thus far.

>> To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com (mailto:make...@googlegroups.com).
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com (mailto:makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com).

[Martin Galese]

This is definitely a fascinating thread, and I wanted to make a few observations.  But first, I should make clear that  I'm not your lawyer and this is not legal advice that you should rely upon.

Functional things can be covered by copyright, just not the functional aspects of that item.  For example, the functional aspects of a belt buckle could not typically be protected by copyright, but the design of those items could well be.  (http://www.ipo.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Calendar&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15912  )  

If someone were to upload a particular design of a belt buckle, and you were to print it, I suspect most courts would not have a difficult time viewing that as a derivative copyright work -- just as the movie of a book would be a derivative copyright work.  

And copyright is just one kind of protection that a design could have.  The decorations on this hypothetical belt buckle could also be protected by a design patent -- or indeed the function of the new-and-improved belt buckle could be covered by a utility patent (the type of patent most people think about).  

And that's just an incomplete list of potentially implicated issues, just in the U.S.  I'm not sure, but I don't think there's any language in the Creative Commons licenses, or otherwise on Thingiverse, that would suggest that you automatically gets patent rights to the make a copy of the design.  It might be interesting to compare that to the GPL v3 which, I believe, does include language to encompass that. 

It's really important both to get a lawyer involved with the particular facts if you need to know for sure, because these multiple layers can get complicated quickly.  Take the hypothetical example of calling a "comm badge" a Star Trek "comm badge" vs. a generic "comm badge."  Whether you call it a Star Trek badge or not has very little bearing on the copyright question -- that's a trademark issue.  A replica that you create of an on-screen item may well be covered by copyright no matter what you call it: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110630/03133214920/prop-wars-can-paramount-prevent-people-offering-up-plans-to-3d-print-movie-props.shtml

It sucks, but even if it isn't actually an infringement, the cost of hiring a lawyer to fight that is often prohibitive.  Good IP lawyers aren't cheap.  There are organizations that do help  pro bono(check out http://www.vlany.org/), but it can be tough.

To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com (mailto:makerbot@googlegroups.com).
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com (mailto:makerbot+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com).

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.

To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.

--
Martin Galese

[Owen M Collins]

You can experience the computer file of a 3d object, but you can also change the format into an analog physical copy as well to experience it's shape. In this case not words on paper but shapes in plastic. I see a similarity, not a big difference. 

[rbisping]

Ok, this subject gets brought up quite a bit and I finaly decided i
would pipe in with both observations and information.

the strong legal precedent is that copyright cannot be applied to a
physical object of a utility nature. (artistic works are a seperate
issue i may comment on at the end)

This is a GOOD thing. patents have a very short period of exclusivity
(17 years aprox) after which the invention becomes public domain.
whereas copywritten items have a duration of life +80 years. if you
could copyright inventions then there would still be only one company
that could make lightbulbs. one company that could make telephones.
one company that could make computers/microprocessors etc.

this does not mean that you shouldnt post your items using a open
source copyright model it just means that it has no legal status. what
it does do is place the idea into the general knowledge archive
preventing someone from applying for a patent on the idea after the
fact (not that they couldnt apply and posibly even recieve the patent,
they just wouldnt be able to enforce it since the proof of publication
would show the prior art)

as to the artistic patent. they are extremely specific as to material,
dimentions, markings etc therefore any (even minor) change to the
object is not the object.
trademarks on the other hand have a much stronger protection (i.e.
disney's protection of the mouse)

> > There is a big difference from an ebook.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Shawn]

Sorry for reviving an old thread... But I came across this article
tonight that I think is related.

http://www.wired.com/design/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law

While it is light on detail, it is helping to get the issue talked about.

Shawn

[Jack Coats]

The article just brings to mind that the only thing copyrights and
patents give the copyright holders is the power to sue.

It is that threat from 'deep pockets' organizations that keeps 'little
guys' in line.

Big boys, like Oracle, Google, IBM, AT&T, etc do a lot of legal
posturing, but eventually settle or like the kids in the playground go
to the 'teacher' (court) and have the 'authority' decide. Even then
if they don't like the answer, appeals ensue and the game starts
again.

As a little guy, I give up and go do something different. At one
time, Yahoo!, Google, AOL, Oracle, Kodak, Polaroid, were all
'different'

[TSDF-3D]

Here's another interesting Wired article:
http://www.scoop.it/t/3d-print-tech/p/1875735381/3d-printing-s-forthcoming-legal-morass-wired-uk

ts

[technophobe]

A thorough perspective is provided by Michael Weinberg's white paper at Public Knowledge, "it will be awesome if they don't screw it up":
http://www.publicknowledge.org/it-will-be-awesome-if-they-dont-screw-it-up

[Travis]

If/when copyright laws make it legally impossible to create and share, I'll long for the shores of the free world: China

[Cymon]

On Saturday, June 9, 2012 12:33:03 AM UTC-6, Travis wrote:

If/when copyright laws make it legally impossible to create and share, I'll long for the shores of the free world: China

That is the most quote worthy thing I've seen in a long time. In fact with credit to your name and quotes around it that is still tweetable.