• Home
  • About DisCo
  • Topics
    • Competition
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy
    • Information Flow
  • FAQs
  • Contact Us

Disruptive Competition Project

Breaking News on Breaking Stuff

Hold Your Fire Before Freaking Out Over 3-D Printed Guns

by Rob Pegoraro on January 29, 2013

The ability to extrude a physical object out of the computer-controlled nozzle of a 3-D printer has usually been regarded as a good thing, but recent events offer a reminder that a 3-D printer — like many other sci-fi implements — can be both constructive and destructive.

The possibility of making parts of a gun with a 3-D printer isn’t new — it showed up on a CSI episode in late November — but the horror of the Newtown shootings has focused people’s mind on that prospect.

So in mid-December, MakerBot Industries, perhaps the best-known manufacturer of 3-D printers, started removing designs for printable gun components from its Thingiverse online library. Its terms of service ban weapons and “illegal materials,” but that prohibition had apparently been neglected.

The designs promptly appeared elsewhere online, as any stream of ones and zeroes will.

Let’s get a few things out of the way first:

* Cries of “censorship” have no place here. MakerBot is a private company and Thingiverse isn’t a public library: its house, its rules. (In a roundtable discussion in Las Vegas during CES, MakerBot founder Bre Pettis said he thought the controversy had since “blown over.”)

* While you might be able to 3-D print an ammunition magazine, it is seriously doubtful that you could build a reliable gun from parts printed on hobbyist-grade gear–plastic isn’t strong enough to absorb the repeated and intense force of gunfire. You’d do better to stick with boring old metalworking tools.

* I don’t know what real-world problem advocates of home-printed munitions are trying to solve. Do these people all think they’re John Connor? Sorry, but a) the Constitution doesn’t grant you a right to armed rebellion, and b) the military has tanks, aircraft carriers, fighter planes, drones and quite a few nukes, so good luck with one anyway.

But… if people can do something on the Internet, they will, even if the results are unreliable or outright dangerous to their users. Then what?

Banning posting designs for things we don’t like–whether they’re components of a firearm or potentially intellectual-property-infringing designs for kids’ stackable blocks–is tempting. But it won’t work.

We know because we’ve already run that experiment. Attempts to keep software off the Internet–the open-source Pretty Good Privacy encryption app in the 1990s, the DeCSS DVD-unlocking tool in the 2000s–were a consistent and complete failure. The near-zero costs to distribute data online ensured that.

It does not, however, follow that we’re then doomed to a dystopian future of commodity-printed firearms or firearms components.

How do we avoid that? There’s a phrase that gets thrown around a lot in discussions of the future of media–“sell the scarcity”–that may offer some insight on what we can do about obnoxious or downright dangerous uses of 3-D printing.

Money is one scarcity. If somebody is making a profit off some malicious online behavior, you can try to identify and intercept that stream of income. This happens to be one of the more effective strategies to counter the plagues of spam and malware.

Having to take something somewhere to use it is another. 3-D printing differs from the distribution of software online, since the item in question must emerge into the physical world at some point–and if possession of a particular object is illegal, you having made it yourself should not exempt you from the law.

And the same law-enforcement techniques we have or could permit to use against gun trafficking should apply to those two cases as well.

So while chasing bits around the Internet may and should look like a doomed errand, let’s not freak out over this just yet.

  • Joe

    People who don’t like and don’t own guns just shouldn’t write about them. 

    Every techie I know thinks bans on booze and drugs have been miserable failures. Same thing with tech. So why should a ban on guns work? Seriously, this is so dumb. 

    • Rob Pegoraro

      One: Where do you see any call for “a ban on guns” in my post? (I do think restricting the ownership of some kinds makes sense; if you disagree, you’re welcome to make the case for deregulating automatic weapons.) 
      Two: By your logic, I’m going to have to see proof that you write for a living before you critique my own prose. – RP

About DisCo

The Disruptive Competition Project (DisCo) is a project to promote disruptive innovation and competition to policymakers. DisCo brings together experts to explain how disruptive change in the modern economy promotes growth and advances our society.
Follow @DisCo_Project
MORE »

Contributors

  • Matt Schruers
    VP-Law & Policy @ CCIA; Adjunct Prof @ Georgetown; IP nerd.
    Follow @MSchruers
    MORE »
  • Ali Sternburg
    Senior Policy Counsel @ CCIA. Tweets for @DisCo_Project. singer/songwriter/lawyer.
    Follow @alisternburg
    MORE »
  • Marianela López-Galdos
    Director of Competition & Regulatory Policy @CCIA. Competition Policy in DC, Brussels & around the globe. Passport/Plane/Go!
    Follow @MLopezGaldos
    MORE »
  • Bijan Madhani
    Senior Policy Counsel @ CCIA. Likes talking about data, but not yours. Can't carry a tune.
    Follow @bijanm
    MORE »
  • Isabelle Styslinger
    Research Analyst @ CCIA. Catch me at @DisCo_Project. Let Bartlet Be Barlet
    Follow @i_styslinger
    MORE »
  • Rachael Stelly
    Embracing the geek within re: tech, trade policy @ccianet and mostly retweeting Star Wars takes on U.S. politics
    Follow @Rachael_Stelly
    MORE »
  • Jonathan Band
    Runs policybandwidth, a one-man IP policy band.
    Follow @BandJonathan
    MORE »
  • Glenn Manishin
    Managing Partner, ParadigmShift Law & Senior Legal Analyst @ DisCo. Long time technology lawyer and competition policy advisor. Inveterate blogger and Formula One motor racing enthusiast.
    Follow @glennm
    MORE »
  • Christian Borggreen
    Vice President & Head Of Office, @CCIAEurope. Currently on travel or planning next trip.
    Follow @Borggreen
    MORE »
  • Jakob Kucharczyk
    Vice President, Competition & EU Regulatory Policy @ CCIA Brussels. Covers e-commerce, IP, telecoms and competition. Football player and coach (i.e. soccer).
    Follow @CCIAEurope
    MORE »
  • Maud Sacquet
    Public Policy Manager @CCIA Europe. Covers audiovisual & copyright. Unapologetic bookworm.
    Follow @MaudSacquet
    MORE »
  • Frances Robinson
    Freelance Journalist, ex-Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg. Covers EU technology and telecoms, food and drink, and the Eurovision Song Contest.
    Follow @FMR_Brussels
    MORE »

Featured Post

ANTITRUST IN 60 SECONDS: DOES SIZE MATTER IN COMPETITION POLICY?
Recent commentary on competition law and policy might lead one to believe that size is all that matters in the competition policy sphere: big is bad; small is beautiful. However, an assessment of the evolution of modern competition law enforcement shows that size is just one element of a broader and more sophisticated analysis.
READ MORE »

Tweets by @DisCo_Project
Powered by CCIA

Copyright © 2012 - 2018

MENU
  • Home
  • About DisCo
  • Topics
    • Competition
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy
    • Information Flow
  • FAQs
  • Contact Us