@#$% you Denmark.

[yllus]

Isn't this sort of technology already inside scanners - they recognize dollar bills and resize them slightly so they can't be printed out as 100% replicas? I would have sworn that exists.

Edit: Dug something up...

HP Helps U.S. Clamp Down on Counterfeiting

To recommend how to best approach the problem, the R&D team first had to learn more about how currency was being counterfeited, then determine ways to prevent it. For example, it's possible to give a scanner the ability to detect when it's scanning a $20 bill. But it's also possible to find a high-quality, printable image of a $20 bill on the Internet, or to take a digital photograph of it, so just blocking the scanner won't totally eliminate counterfeiting.

 

[jpeyton]

Software is easily disabled.

 

[irishScott]

I don't really want to make guns with 3D printers. Also, although I oppose most gun control measures, it isn't really a matter of the pure principle of liberty either, because the invention of this software was not a government act and hence doesn't infringe any rights. Inventing the software is just free enterprise. You can complain all you want, but people will create any software they think they can sell.

It's not an infringing government act... yet. It is however the beginning of the infrastructure necessary for an infringing government act. Guns bring out the stupid in a solid majority of politicians, and in a few years or sooner I can easily see much stricter software (possibly even integrated into the hardware) than this being a legal mandate to sell 3D printers.

Personally I don't want to print my own guns either, except perhaps as a novelty. However, like it or not we're headed toward a world when anyone with a 3D printer can do exactly that; and likely much more as the tech continues to progress. We're going to have to learn to live with it eventually. Hell maybe in a couple of generations the government will actually start addressing the causes of crime over the symptoms.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

No one is forcing you to move to Denmark... it's not affecting you.

Your point is completely moot.

I don't have to move to Denmark for anti-2nd amendment politicians and their supporters in the US to jump on board with this software shove it down our throats.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Software is easily disabled.

Unless it is made to be mandatory (as in hard coded and embedded into hardware) and made a federal crime to disable it.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

I don't see a problem with this. We have laws that control the production and sale of guns for a reason. Basically, a 3D printer circumvents those rules.

Not very effective ones, there have been plans floating around for many years for building a full auto smg using $100 worth of parts that you can buy at any decent hardware store.

Unless is is made to be mandatory (as in hard coded and embedded into hardware) and made a federal crime to disable it.

It's a federal crime to remove the tag from your mattress, somehow I don't think an ATF swat team is going to storm your house as you are in the midst of removing said tag.

 

[Brainonska511]

It's a federal crime to remove the tag from your mattress

Right... you might want to check that again.

 

[momeNt]

Yes, the argument cuts both ways, but that is a false dichotomy. One can incentivize invention by granting the patent, but limiting its duration so as not to overly curtail other innovation. That is precisely how patents work. In some cases, perhaps the patent duration is too long. That is certainly debatable. But ending all IP?

Pharmaceutical research costs billions. No one is going to spend that kind of money without being able to patent the result. The only alternative is to have the state fund all the research and I'm pretty sure you don't want that.

And, in direct response to your statement about ideas not being scarce, that is true as far as it goes. But if the originator of the idea has no patent, he is being deprived of the value of the idea even if not the idea itself. If we're talking economics here, value is what matters, not the intrinsic thing in and of itself.

You again are trying to justify IP by bringing up an economic fallacy and a paradox. If nobody will research because their idea will just get stolen, that is pretty much the equivalent of the $20 bill on the ground, that if it were worth something, somebody else would have picked it up already.

There is profit incentive in treating and curing illnesses, a market could figure out how to coax researchers into researching. Insurance companies would have a direct incentive to provide their own research to limit their risk to their consumer's illnesses. When a patient is treated and cured, it lowers the risk that the insurance company has and allows them to pocket more of the premium as profit. Furthermore, insurance companies could agree that the research be funded with the contractual obligation that the insurance companies use their specific drug for a set amount of time. Giving the researchers the funding and protection that they desire. Without all the burdensome IP costs that drag down our economy.

 

[woolfe9998]

You again are trying to justify IP by bringing up an economic fallacy and a paradox. If nobody will research because their idea will just get stolen, that is pretty much the equivalent of the $20 bill on the ground, that if it were worth something, somebody else would have picked it up already.

There is profit incentive in treating and curing illnesses, a market could figure out how to coax researchers into researching. Insurance companies would have a direct incentive to provide their own research to limit their risk to their consumer's illnesses. When a patient is treated and cured, it lowers the risk that the insurance company has and allows them to pocket more of the premium as profit. Furthermore, insurance companies could agree that the research be funded with the contractual obligation that the insurance companies use their specific drug for a set amount of time. Giving the researchers the funding and protection that they desire. Without all the burdensome IP costs that drag down our economy.

That's pretty silly. Inventing new drugs doesn't limit an insurance company's exposure at all. It costs them additional money to pay for the drugs, and then may keep people alive longer to continue to claim on the insurance. New drugs don't on balance save insurance companies any money and they're not going to spend billions to develop them.

I'm afraid you've fallen victim to the disease of ideology here, where you just want government out of everything and then you have to loop back and create strained and implausible arguments to explain how things work perfectly well without government involvement. Sorry, but free markets don't solve every problem on their own.

 

[momeNt]

That's pretty silly. Inventing new drugs doesn't limit an insurance company's exposure at all. It costs them additional money to pay for the drugs, and then may keep people alive longer to continue to claim on the insurance. New drugs don't on balance save insurance companies any money and they're not going to spend billions to develop them.

I'm afraid you've fallen victim to the disease of ideology here, where you just want government out of everything and then you have to loop back and create strained and implausible arguments to explain how things work perfectly well without government involvement. Sorry, but free markets don't solve every problem on their own.

Is current patent law working well?

They are both ideologies, you are tricking yourself into thinking that "some" government makes you balanced...

 

[woolfe9998]

Is current patent law working well?

They are both ideologies, you are tricking yourself into thinking that "some" government makes you balanced...

I have no particular reason to conclude it is broken. There's certainly evidence that it needs improvement in some areas, particularly in the area of software, where they shouldn't grant so many patents, and with pharmaceuticals, where the duration should be shorter.

We've had this patent system since forever and we've lead the world in R&D and still do. I see no reason to take the radical step of getting rid of patents entirely.

 

[Zebo]

Dont worry when the muzzies take over denmark AK47 will be in every home like iraq.

things like this are cyclical

 

[Arkaign]

LOL

It's one holy hell of a lot easier to get a black market full-auto or semi-auto rifle than it is to print the stuff. Thanks to the cold war and very powerful organized crime groups in Eastern Europe, it's probably just as easy to pick one up over there as well for a few thousand Euro.

Cost of good 3d printer? Time to 'print' the components in question?

It's a cool project/idea, but it's not particularly worrisome to me. Print all the shit you want, fine with me.

 

[blankslate]

Your point is completely moot.

I don't have to move to Denmark for anti-2nd amendment politicians and their supporters in the US to jump on board with this software shove it down our throats.

Don't be a fuckhead. I know it's hard for you...

Even if printing guns is disabled by software. Clever people will find ways to circumvent it temporarily and in any case firearms bought from tranditional manufacturers will be superior for a long time to come.

*e2a* or if you wish as the poster above me stated the black market is available if you feel adventurous.

 

[Gintaras]

Why bother making laws at all? Criminals will just break them huh? Great logic there.

Ask that question to politicians...and politicians are the ones who break the laws they created...

And politicians kill way more people than some bum on the street....

 

[woolfe9998]

Dont worry when the muzzies take over denmark AK47 will be in every home like iraq.

things like this are cyclical

Muslims are 3.7% of Denmark's population. I'd say they have a long way to go.

 

[WackyDan]

I don't see a problem with this. We have laws that control the production and sale of guns for a reason. Basically, a 3D printer circumvents those rules.

No it doesn't. It is perfectly legal per the ATF to manufacture a firearm in your basement or garage provided you are doing so for personal use and register/assign a serial # to the firearm and tell the ATF what it is. It needs to comply with federal and state laws regarding design and function... ie; you can't legally make a full auto firearm.

 

[brycejones]

Living in the US no outrage at Denmark's decision found. They are a sovereign nation and can make their own choices.

 

[bigi]

@#$% = "I Love"

Right?

I Love Denmark too.