Cory Doctorow has warned against moral panics being invoked in respect of 3D printing – focusing on such apocalyptic threats as piracy, organised crime, and terrorism.
The civil society group Public Knowledge, though, have become concerned that the technology of 3D printing will be the subject of lawsuits by intellectual property owners. The NGO recognises: “Because it allows people to create, copy, and modify objects, it will also have a large impact on our existing intellectual property laws.” The group has sought to discourage the United States Congress from passing laws that would restrict or curtail 3D printing.
Michael Weinberg of Public Knowledge commented: “Policymakers and judges will be asked to weigh concrete losses today against future benefits that will be hard to quantify and imagine.” He observed that “the community must work to educate policy makers and the public about the benefits of widespread access”.
Julie Samuels of the Electronic Frontier Foundation comments: “Open hardware printers have been used for rapid prototyping of new inventions, to print replacement parts for household objects and appliances, by DIY scientists to turn a power drill into a centrifuge, for a game in which you can engineer your own pieces, and for thousands of other purposes by makers of all stripes.” She has argued that there is a need to ensure that 3D printing is not stifled by intellectual property litigation.
Above: Makerbot Robots
There is a need to provide proper recognition of consumer rights under copyright law, so that they have the freedom to tinker and engage in remix culture and DIY design. Early adopter (and 14-year-old-student) Murray Rosenbaum observed: “The MakerBot opens up a world of opportunity for children, adults, creators, thinkers, and overall anybody who is interested in creating something that want to see physically.” In this context, there is a need to ensure that consumers experimenting with 3D printing are able to make fair uses of copyright work.
Spencer Thomson commented: “3D printing exists and, without an appropriate policy framework, we run the risks of repeating mistakes in dealing with online copyright and file-sharing that are only just now being addressed a decade on.”
{qtube vid:=1LsqKTqz3Dg}
The great hope is that the Australian Law Reform Commission will transcend the usual partisan politics of the “Copyright Wars”, and provide an independent, coherent blueprint for copyright law reform in Australia.
In Australia, the developers of 3D printing face certain risks and uncertainties in respect to litigation under Australian copyright law. Australia does not have a broad, open-ended, flexible defence of fair use, like the United States. Instead, Australia has the much more narrow defence of fair dealing. The permitted purposes for fair dealing include research and study; criticism and review; reporting the news; and parody and satire. The developers of 3D printing would struggle to obtain protection under the defence of fair dealing – outside educational applications within Australian universities.
As such, the developers behind 3D printing would be loath to establish their operations in Australia. They would be vulnerable to copyright law suits. Such entrepreneurs would be better off sheltering under the protection afforded by the defence of fair use in the United States. No wonder MakerBot and Solidoodle are based in Brooklyn, not Sydney.
Given our comparative disadvantage in the digital economy, with our strict and draconian copyright laws, Australia would be well-advised to revise its copyright laws and adopt a defence of fair use, which is flexible enough to accommodate the emergence of 3D printing.
Dr Matthew Rimmer is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, working on Intellectual Property and Climate Change. He is an associate professor at the ANU College of Law, an associate director of the Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture (ACIPA), and a member of the ANU Climate Change Institute. This article first appeared on The Conversation.
