Why Does TechDirt Hate Musicians?
Old 15th April 2012
  #241
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
Allow every inane idea the content industry has to disrupt Internet communications to proceed uninhibited? I would have ZERO problems with copyright if copyright could actually be enforced. That is without it's enforcers suggesting things that genuinely disgust me and really should disgust anyone who has any respect what-so-ever for a free society.
But you are making a classic slight of hand.
You're characterizing web technologies as freedom loving people, and characterizing content creators as corporations bent on power.

In reality, web technology is controlled by huge financially powerful corporations hell bent on ultimate power.
And yes, entertainment media is also largely controlled by huge corporations.
Where you are wholly misguided is in thinking you are on the side of freedom and human rights by doing the bidding of one huge (web) corporation, and assuming that all entertainment is produced by evil corporations, and not by ordinary freedom loving individuals.
In short, you've bought, hook, line and sinker the dehumanizingpropaganda fed you by people who are profiteering off the back of ordinary musicians, film makers and journalists.
You think you don't have to feel guilty because you are hurting evil corporations, you aren't stomping on the rights and freedoms of ordinary creative people.
You're grossly wrong of course.
Old 15th April 2012
  #242
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post

Really, the best way to reduce piracy is simply provide a service that is competitive with piracy at a reasonable price. That means access to millions of songs with no restrictions. It's not impossible: Spotify is fairly close.
Except it's not, because it isn't available worldwide.
Old 15th April 2012
  #243
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
The reason for drug patents is pretty much the same as copyright. With drug patents, big pharma can make money that is reinvested in making more drugs. I see that as good overall. And it can be enforced sufficiently without spying on people's private Internet usage or other nasty effects.
With copyright musicians can make money that they invest in making more music, rather than having to waste their time flipping burgers or coding in a cubicle to support themselves. Same thing.

Record companies use their profits to discover and develop new young bands. Or they used to, before you pirates stole all the money. The way it works (worked) was that out of every 10 bands, one or two would hit. The (much publicized - the industry runs on glamor) profits from the 1 or 2 hit acts would subsidize the losses on the other 8 or 9. Occasionally one of those 8 or 9 would be a sleeper - an act that gains popularity over time and eventually becomes extremely influential (a good example would be Gram Parsons.) Some of the other acts would be like Bob Dylan, who was extremely influential among musicians and music insiders but did not actually sell enough records for Columbia to break even on him for his first half dozen or so albums. They kept him on because his presence attracted other artists that sold more records.

You don't see that any more because piracy has drained all the money that funded that kind of artist support and development. Result - no more Bob Dylans. If a record doesn't recoup in the first couple of months now, it doesn't recoup. And if you first record doesn't recoup you get dropped. That's why there are so many cookie cutter pop and rap acts now - the co9mpanies can't afford to take chances.

Thanks a lot....
Old 15th April 2012
  #244
Lives for gear
 
freetard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
The question of significant non-infringing use is a question for the courts and they tend to be pretty conservative on that front so I don't see any reason for concern there.
So all the people who used MegaUpload legitimately and lost their data, no big deal right?

Quote:
In nearly every category of web service you see sites that are largely infringing (youtube, megaupload) and sites that are nearly identical yet somehow consist of mainly non-infringing content (vimeo, dropbox).
I don't see any reason why Dropbox is any different from MegaUpload at a technical level. They are both cyberlockers that allow file sharing. I don't feel comfortable with websites being threatened out of existence based on "hunches" about what people use them for or the perceived character of their owners. I don't care if it is a court system that does it, judges aren't infallible and they will gladly become corrupt oppressors if you give them the power to be.

Quote:
Private communications are not important in terms of copyright enforcement. I agree that nobody will ever be able to stop me from personally emailing you an mp3.
Why are you so sure about that? Piracy has a tendency to shift technologies. P2P and large scale piracy via e-mail is not outside of the realm of possibility. It's fundamentally a communications medium for sharing arbitrary data.

Quote:
What's important are large online databases and search engines that make links to infringing content publicly available. So shutting those down would be a big start.
Like ... any search engine in existence? And we wonder why Google is so anti-content industry.
Old 15th April 2012
  #245
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
I would also add that no great scientific discovery was made without the benefit of creative thinking, and I think you would find that most great scientists and mathematicians have also been art lovers. By denying that whole side of human civilization and cutting it out of your life, you're not setting yourself up as some kind of purely rational scientific monk. You're simply turning yourself into a mindless technician. You surely won't ever do anything worthwhile for society.
Einstein (who as it happens was a friend of my father's) was a violinist and a pretty good one, too!
Old 15th April 2012
  #246
Lives for gear
 
freetard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Except it's not, because it isn't available worldwide.
Is it surprising that some of the largest protests of copyright measures come from countries where content isn't easily available legally (see: Poland)? It's no coincidence.
Old 15th April 2012
  #247
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Yes, we know. Already been through that. I was probably aware of the technology before you were - I've known about it for years. As I just said, it's not and never will be a Star Trek Replicator - and if you actually knew anything about the technologies involved in the various types of 3D printers and gave any real thought to the problem you'd know that.

You're not going to be able to print up a working car. Not even a working model slot car. Not even a functional computer mouse. Sorry.
John, I've seen you "bash" 3D printing on numerous occasions -- every time it's mentioned in any context on these boards, it seems. I'd say it's almost like you have a vendetta against the concept or the technology, but I can't ascribe any motive that would explain it. From one technologist to another, all I can say is that only a fool would bet against the future.

What's the angle with the denialism, here? We won't see a 3D printer in every household within your lifetime, but I wouldn't bet against it for our grandchildren. Think back 60 years ago to when a computer was as big as a room and filled with vaccuum tubes -- would your grandfather have ever been able to imagine they would now exist in people's pockets, and could communicate to each other from across the world within mere milliseconds? It seems futile to me, to spend effort trying to dampen the inevitable.
Old 15th April 2012
  #248
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
Mass monitoring people's private communications is a violation of civil liberties. Shutting down and censoring content websites based on vague standards of "scumbag" is a violation of civil liberties. You can't enforce copyright on the Internet in a free society. It just isn't workable.
What a load of rubbish. Copyright infringement is clearly defined in the federal statutes and has been like that for decades before there was even an internet. There is nothing vague about it. It's only vague to ignorant people that have no idea what they are talking about and get their info from techdirt and torrenfreak.

If anyone is mass monitoring peoples private communications it's tech companies like Google and Facebook and Apple not entertainment companies or content creators.
Old 15th April 2012
  #249
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
That's great. Stop trying to regulate the Internet, and we will "stop interfering" with art.
You don't get it.

Nobody's trying to "regulate the internet."

That's not what it's about.

What it's about is regulating human behavior ON the internet.

Saying it's about "regulating the internet" is like saying that laws against drunk driving are about "regulating the street."

There are things that do regulate the street - stop signs and traffic lights - but drunk driving laws don't regulate the street, the regulate the drivers.

Piracy enforcement doesn't "regulate the internet" it regulates the PEOPLE WHO USE THE INTERNET.

And that's what law is for - regulating the various individuals and groups of people so they don't harm each other. Because without that you have mob rule and the biggest bully gets his way.

Quote:
I question the legality of that under the current patent system. You can't "sit" on an invention and patent it at your leisure. I'm pretty sure the grace period is one year.
Well, if there ever was any doubt I'd say that shows that you really don't know anything about the patent system. And don't really think very clearly about how corporations are able to manipulate it.

Quote:
It's not that they aren't allowed to profit. Entertainers have yet to find a business model that doesn't involve trampling on fundamental civil liberties.
"civil liberties" such as the "right to steal"?

Because that's the only "right" I see being trampled on here.
Old 15th April 2012
  #250
Lives for gear
 
initialsBB's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
So all the people who used MegaUpload legitimately and lost their data, no big deal right?
No, not really a big deal at all. Sorry. Caveat emptor. That sort of thing happens all the time. Companies go out of business, are found guilty of criminal behavior and go bankrupt, etc. and the customers lose out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
I don't see any reason why Dropbox is any different from MegaUpload at a technical level.
At a technical level there's not, that's my whole point! So why is it that one was clearly a hotbed of pirated content and the other isn't? Why is only one of them still in business?

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
I don't feel comfortable with websites being threatened out of existence based on "hunches" about what people use them for or the perceived character of their owners.
Megaupload wasn't "threatened out of existence based on hunches." They face criminal indictments based on evidence gathered by law enforcement!

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
I don't care if it is a court system that does it, judges aren't infallible and they will gladly become corrupt oppressors if you give them the power to be.
Right I get it, you're a libertarian. It's not just copyright that you want to abolish, but all laws and regulations apart from some kind of minimal protection of your own private property.


Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
Why are you so sure about that? Piracy has a tendency to shift technologies. P2P and large scale piracy via e-mail is not outside of the realm of possibility. It's fundamentally a communications medium for sharing arbitrary data.
I'm not sure how email piracy scales to the level of megaupload. I can ask my friends if they can send me a copy of a certain album but I'm not sure how I can search my email for "led zeppelin rar" and access everyone in the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
Like ... any search engine in existence? And we wonder why Google is so anti-content industry.
No, I actually disagree with holding google responsible for that. But for example the Pirate Bay. Or if Megaupload is supposedly a valid place to store your personal, non-infringing files, then what's the use of having those file names be publicly indexed by google? I have all sorts of files up on dropbox that you can't search for publicly.
Old 15th April 2012
  #251
Lives for gear
 
freetard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
John, I've seen you "bash" 3D printing on numerous occasions -- every time it's mentioned in any context on these boards, it seems. I'd say it's almost like you have a vendetta against the concept or the technology, but I can't ascribe any motive that would explain it.
I think it comes down the standard quip to MPAA's anti-piracy ads:

Narrator: "You wouldn't download a car!"
Pirate: "F**k you! I would if I could!"

Of course printing cars is a long ways away, but 3D printing makes a silent mockery of the "piracy is theft" mantra.

3D Printing, Crowdsourcing ("Kickstarter" especially), Web 2.0, Creative Commons, Free Culture, Social Media. Although legal, these are the bad ideas. For the similar reasons. Either they invalidate some important argument related to copyright, are competition to the idea of artificial scarcity, or promote the idea of information sharing. So not surprising.
Old 15th April 2012
  #252
Lives for gear
 
initialsBB's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Einstein (who as it happens was a friend of my father's)
wow! did you ever meet him?
Old 15th April 2012
  #253
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
So all the people who used MegaUpload legitimately and lost their data, no big deal right?



I don't see any reason why Dropbox is any different from MegaUpload at a technical level. They are both cyberlockers that allow file sharing. I don't feel comfortable with websites being threatened out of existence based on "hunches" about what people use them for or the perceived character of their owners. I don't care if it is a court system that does it, judges aren't infallible and they will gladly become corrupt oppressors if you give them the power to be.



Why are you so sure about that? Piracy has a tendency to shift technologies. P2P and large scale piracy via e-mail is not outside of the realm of possibility. It's fundamentally a communications medium for sharing arbitrary data.



Like ... any search engine in existence? And we wonder why Google is so anti-content industry.

The difference between Megaupload and Dropbox is that Megaupload was purposely courting and allowing infringing content to be shared. That was their business model. Dropbox are very vigilant about infringing and their business model is based on people paying a monthly subscription for space.
Old 15th April 2012
  #254
Lives for gear
 
freetard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
At a technical level there's not, that's my whole point! So why is it that one was clearly a hotbed of pirated content and the other isn't? Why is only one of them still in business?
You sure about this? Are you involved in piracy, or do you audit Dropbox in some way to ensure people aren't using it for piracy? Because lets just say I have a hunch that you don't really know what many people use Dropbox for these days.
Old 15th April 2012
  #255
Lives for gear
 
initialsBB's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
You sure about this? Are you involved in piracy, or do you audit Dropbox in some way to ensure people aren't using it for piracy? Because lets just say I have a hunch that you don't really know what many people use Dropbox for these days.
No. I tried to search google to find pirated music on dropbox right now and am not having any luck, but maybe I just don't know what I'm doing. I haven't seen any mp3 blogs sharing dropbox links. Maybe dropbox is just lucky that they're a little newer than the rest and they've avoided scrutiny so far?

But maybe you're talking about a more personal sharing among friends or on forums or something like that. That's a far cry from the ease of mass p2p and google indexed cyberlockers.
Old 15th April 2012
  #256
Lives for gear
 
freetard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
No. I tried to search google to find pirated music on dropbox right now and am not having any luck, but maybe I just don't know what I'm doing. I haven't seen any mp3 blogs sharing dropbox links. Maybe dropbox is just lucky that they're a little newer than the rest and they've avoided scrutiny so far?

But maybe you're talking about a more personal sharing among friends or on forums or something like that. That's a far cry from the ease of mass p2p and google indexed cyberlockers.
So if Google indexes you, that is what makes you a criminal?

Quote:
No, I actually disagree with holding google responsible for that. But for example the Pirate Bay. Or if Megaupload is supposedly a valid place to store your personal, non-infringing files, then what's the use of having those file names be publicly indexed by google? I have all sorts of files up on dropbox that you can't search for publicly.
So if I make a cyberlocker that gives you the option of keeping things "private", I am not longer a "scumbag site"?
Old 15th April 2012
  #257
Lives for gear
 
initialsBB's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
So if Google indexes you, that is what makes you a criminal?
Uh no, this is what will get you indicted.

But a site can choose whether or not it's indexed by google. I would say that the significant non-infringing use of a cyberlocker is for an individual to store his private files and potentially share them with personal friends or colleagues through privately emailed links. What megaupload built was more of a mass publishing and distribution platform. Which in and of itself is nothing wrong either. All of this is basically beside the point because it's not why megaupload was investigated and indicted.
Old 15th April 2012
  #258
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by initialsBB View Post
Uh no, this is what will get you indicted.

But a site can choose whether or not it's indexed by google. I would say that the significant non-infringing use of a cyberlocker is for an individual to store his private files and potentially share them with personal friends or colleagues through privately emailed links. What megaupload built was more of a mass publishing and distribution platform. Which in and of itself is nothing wrong either. All of this is basically beside the point because it's not why megaupload was investigated and indicted.
Freetard is being purposely obtuse.
Old 15th April 2012
  #259
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld View Post
But I do have to object to this repeated characterization of views as "[comfortable|cozy|] middle class." This seems deeply disrespectful to me on a very base level. I don't think the circumstances of someone's upbringing have any place in any debate. Make your case against their words, not their character. I'll leave it here.
Why? I don't see it as being disrespectful at all - it's merely an observation that he's had everything handed to him with little real effort and has never really had to fend for himself in the real world. That lack of experience means that he's not qualified to make the kind of pronouncements and judgements he's expounding.

The ancient Greeks had a word for it - "sophomore". It means "wise fool".
Old 15th April 2012
  #260
Gear Guru
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
So all the people who used MegaUpload legitimately and lost their data, no big deal right?
so I lost all my rights 13 years ago, no big deal right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
Like ... any search engine in existence? And we wonder why Google is so anti-content industry.
google is anti-content industry for one reason, it's more profitably to monetize content they don't have to pay to produce.

tech companies are the most greedy on earth right now, probably tied with banks and oil. musicians and artists just want to get paid when their work is consumed so that they can live a middle class existence. talk about david and goliath, but at least we know how that story ends.
Old 15th April 2012
  #261
Gear Guru
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianb007 View Post
Freetard is being purposely obtuse.
wouldn't you be if you didn't have a leg to stand on?
Old 15th April 2012
  #262
Gear Guru
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
You sure about this? Are you involved in piracy, or do you audit Dropbox in some way to ensure people aren't using it for piracy? Because lets just say I have a hunch that you don't really know what many people use Dropbox for these days.
people may use dropbox for piracy in the same way they use email for piracy, it's nothing like p2p or the megaupload model. private sharing is private. public sharing is public. public is the problem.
Old 15th April 2012
  #263
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
you've drank the kool-aid like many others, but it's going to leave a bitter aftertaste...
Yeah, but the taste doesn't linger long.... or he won't be tasting it, anyway...
Old 15th April 2012
  #264
Gear Guru
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
Either they invalidate some important argument related to copyright, are competition to the idea of artificial scarcity, or promote the idea of information sharing. So not surprising.
there's always room for more models, if rights are protected. every mass production product is a false scarcity. one more time, even Google's own Chief Economist knows that your arguments are completely false.

Quote:
"John Perry Barlow asserted that "Intellectual property law cannot be patched, retrofitted, or expanded to contain digitized expression... We will need to develop an entirely new set of methods as befits this entirely new set of circumstances." Is Barlow right? Is copyright law hopelessly outdated? We think not.

"Bitlegging" can't be ignored: there's no doubt that it can be a significant drag on profits.

Bitleggers have the same problem that any other sellers of contraband material have: they have to pet potential customers know how to find them. But if they advertise their location to potential customers, they also advertise their location to law enforcement authorities. In the contraband business it pays to advertise... but not too much.

This puts a natural limit on the size of for-profit illegal activities: the bigger they get, the more likely they are to get caught. Digital piracy can't be eliminated, any more than any other kind of illegal activity, but it can be kept under control. All that is required is the political will to enforce intellectual property rights. "

Information Rules - Hal A Varian - Chief Economist Google
Old 15th April 2012
  #265
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
I did not realize IP was an absolute, either you support everything about it (including SOPA/PIPA) or you can't support it at all. My apologies.
Ah, wondered when you were going to get around to that.

Did you ever actually READ SOPA or PIPA or are you merely going by the propaganda fed you by the pro-piracy tech blogs?

Right.

Didn't think so.

Well, contrary to what the propagandists had you believe there wasn't actually anything in either of those bills that would have trampled on any of your internet freedoms in the slightest. Unless, of course, you regard freedom to steal without even minimal interference to be a "right".....
Old 15th April 2012
  #266
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Just a couple of final things....

Going back to the opening post, 'Why Does Techdirt hate Musicians?', what we have exampled by 'Freetard' is at least someone who doesn't give a s**t about musicians.

Secondly, we often have these debates about this or that law, this or that corporation behaving badly, but what Freetard doesn't seem to accept is any personal responsibility. "When are you going to become a mensch?", one of my favourite lines from The Apartment.
Mensch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure you can couch piracy in terms of a corporate struggle, and freedom of information. You can say it's too easy to pirate since the internet, and too hard to stop it. But pirating is still a personal decision.
It's never been easier to cheat on your girlfriend with the internet. Multiple Facebook accounts protected by password, Twitter etc, etc...
Do we celebrate serial cheaters?
No, because we have empathy for the person being cheated on.
Several forum members have legitimate concerns about freedom issues to do with new laws to counteract IP infringement.
But Freetard is into it way more than that. Freetard is actually pro piracy. It has created a global entertainment library in his view.
Freetard is bullshitting us, and more importantly bullshitting himself.
Piracy isn't victimless. It isn't a freedom fighter's struggle against evil corporations.
It's one person saving some money by ripping off another person.
Old 15th April 2012
  #267
Gear Guru
 

Thread Starter
freetard has answered the OP...

Q: why does tech dirt hate musicians
A: because they don't care about musicians, they care about personal greed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Freetard is bullshitting us, and more importantly bullshitting himself.
Piracy isn't victimless. It isn't a freedom fighter's struggle against evil corporations.
It's one person saving some money by ripping off another person.
or one company ripping off another, or a bunch of companies ripping off individuals.

it's all just nonsense. freetard does what all pro-piracy defenders do when there is no defensible way to justify their behavior... they hide behind the fallacy of free speech which is losing weight everyday. in july, despite his protest, freetard will (most likely) be subject to the copyright alert system if he lives in the USA.

the sopa blackout got Washington's attention, that cuts both ways, and now a lot of questions are being asked, that were not being asked before...

freetard is a 20 something who still believes he is participating in a revolution, but like all revolutionaries before him, he will find out the truth.

the only revolution going on is for the people who profit from it.



Quote:
"What would I say to the people that are sitting in front of their computers--believing in revolution--I would tell them that they are subjects or victims of false consciousness, that they're wrong--- that they’re believing in something that doesn't really exist--that they're dupes--they're exploited, particularly those that give away their labor for free so that young men in Silicone Valley can become infinitely rich." - Andrew Keen
freetard has also avoided answering any question to which he can't reasonably respond to do to it conflicting his own views.

oh... and when one of the biggest offenders does a full stop 180... it's time to watch out...
http://torrentfreak.com/russia-moves...haring-120410/
http://www.vedomosti.ru/tech/news/16...fajl_kak_ulika

uh oh...
Old 15th April 2012
  #268
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
Mass monitoring people's private communications is a violation of civil liberties. Shutting down and censoring content websites based on vague standards of "scumbag" is a violation of civil liberties. You can't enforce copyright on the Internet in a free society. It just isn't workable.
There was nothing about mass monitoring of private communications in either bill.

However, if you're really worried about it I'd seriously advise you to get rid of your computer and you cell phone NOW because guess what, Sparky? Everything you say and do is already monitored, by the government and by countless private corporations. EVERYTHING. We're living in a f*cking fishbowl, kid, and the only thing you can do about it is dump all your tech and move to the woods like Ted Kaczynski.

Blocking (NOT "SHUTTING DOWN") of sites would have been performed only after a judicial review to make certain that very specific criteria were met for illegal behavior - contrary to what the scaremongers told you it would not have been possible for any person or company to get a site blocked without very good cause.

Of course you don't know that because you never read either bill.

And the truth is that the blocking could have been circumvented by any moderately determined hacker who wanted to access the site. It would really have only served to keep the general public out and to block DNS based search engines.
Old 15th April 2012
  #269
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
I think it comes down the standard quip to MPAA's anti-piracy ads:

Narrator: "You wouldn't download a car!"
Pirate: "F**k you! I would if I could!"

Of course printing cars is a long ways away, but 3D printing makes a silent mockery of the "piracy is theft" mantra.

3D Printing, Crowdsourcing ("Kickstarter" especially), Web 2.0, Creative Commons, Free Culture, Social Media. Although legal, these are the bad ideas. For the similar reasons. Either they invalidate some important argument related to copyright, are competition to the idea of artificial scarcity, or promote the idea of information sharing. So not surprising.
But that's not really what John has always tried to suggest about 3D printing. From what I recall of the position he professes on the matter, politics or copyright hardly even enter into it. He instead claims that it will never happen; that the technology will never advance to the point where it can produce useful or complex items. That what so vexes me about his stance, in combine with the way he rarely misses an opportunity to denigrate it. It's very puzzling to see someone so adamant in his insistence that a technology -- which by all accounts is poised to continue developing unabated -- will languish.
Old 15th April 2012
  #270
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freetard View Post
As I said, it's still early. Most hobbyist 3D printers these days use fused filament fabrication.
I take it you're not an engineering student.

It is not possible to use a 3D printer to create complex devices made of multiple materials that contain things like motors or electronic circuitry.

It is not possible for any type of 3D printer that will be available for home use within the next 50 or so years to create integrated circuits. They simply don't have the resolution. And if such a device was made - you'd have a chip fab. Chip fabs are expensive for a reason - there's a lot of very precise, very expensive technology involved. And they're not found in the USA for another reason - environmental toxins. NOT something you'd want in you home.

As it happens I've done a bit of reading on most of the various 3D printing technologies. The big problem with a "universal" 3D printer is that different technologies are required for different classes of materials and many of those technologies are mutually incompatible within the same device.
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
mahler007 / So much gear, so little time!
26
Chad Sterling / The Moan Zone
107
AlexLakis / Music Business
306
Deleted User / So much gear, so little time!
1
camitchell / The Moan Zone
0

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.