Non-professionals use machines to convert binary numbers into objective objects to create a new manufacturing method-this is similar to the way personal computers destroy traditional computing methods, and may rewrite the rules of manufacturing. The problem is that this machine, a 3D printer, has been in the industry for many years. But its cost is between US $ 100,000 and US $ 1 million, and only a few individuals can afford it. However, like all digital products, their prices have fallen. Industrial 3D printers are now available for only $ 15,000, and the home version is only slightly over $ 1,000—or half-price for complete sets.
A worthy development, isn't it? But not everyone's answer is yes. Michael Weinberger, a member of an advocacy group "Public Knowledge" in Washington, is concerned that this fledgling technology will be flapped by traditional manufacturers who believe that this technology will threaten their livelihoods. Because 3D printers can perfectly copy all kinds of objects, manufacturers will try to classify it as a "piracy machine" and require additional measures to protect their traditional business methods. Mr. Weinberg worried that they might show more or less the same practices as the recording industry: when its own business model-based on selling expensive CD records to a very small number of music enthusiasts, instead of selling what they desire When it comes to cheap monophonic records-attacked by Napster and other file exchange networks.
Since the dawn of the industrial age, mature brands must fight piracy. In all regions that are close to Hong Kong, Bangkok and even Tokyo, there are cases of producing fake designer handbags, shoes and watches. Although copycats always use inferior materials and low-cost labor, they still need expensive manufacturing equipment to produce. To some extent, equipment problems limit the spread of counterfeit products. However, cheap 3D printers and laser scanners may increase the problem of counterfeiting.
Problems with the printer
The principle of a 3D printer is similar to that of an Inkjet Printer. The material is layered from the nozzle until a three-dimensional object is built. They can use thermoplastic materials such as acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), polylactic acid (PLA) or polycarbonate (PC), or metal powder, clay, or even living cells to make objects. This is much more efficient than cutting a piece of material away. And unlike injection molding, it does not require an assembly line.
As for intellectual property, the 3D printer itself is not a problem. But before it can start printing anything, it needs to consider a digital blueprint of the project in the form of a CAD (computer-aided design) document. This blueprint can be designed from scratch using a computer, or from an online resource library-for example, download it from the website Thingiverse or Fab @ Home, and then modify it as needed. Blueprints can also be generated from existing objects: use a scanner to record the three-dimensional dimensions of the object from different angles, and then import the resulting data into a CAD file.
This is the beginning of fear of infringement. Unless the object has no copyright restrictions, it is likely to use copyright law to protect rights. It has been found that some users of 3D printers copy popular products without any worries, but this is wrong. The punishment for intentionally infringing on the copyrights of others is correct, but if music is used as an example, the ability to copy and copy other people ’s works can be a source of formal expression or innovation. The question is where is the boundary.
The danger is that the Millennium Digital Copyright Act (DMCA) will be used to stifle free expression, endanger legitimate use, and hinder competition—for example, by preventing blueprints from being distributed to things like brake pads or toner cartridges Aftermarket replacement parts. Strict enforcement will reduce consumer choice and hinder the huge potential of 3D printing in terms of innovation incentives.
As with any disruptive technology—from printing presses to copiers and personal computers—3D printing is sure to disrupt existing manufacturing methods. Moreover, with the proliferation of 3D printing, current manufacturers are likely to demand protection against upstarts entering their businesses at low cost. They will even lobby the government to expand the scope of copyright protection to cover functional objects with design elements. Weinberg worried that "this will create a quasi-patent system that has no novel requirements or severely restricts the duration of protection."
The lesson learned from the copyright war between the record industry and file exchange is that it is costly and has a negative impact to pursue individual infringers. Therefore, unlike record companies, they lobby to extend copyright liability to not only individuals who infringe, but also those that promote infringement-Internet service providers (ISPs) and file exchange services. Now, whenever websites and Internet service providers receive notices of withdrawal from the Millennium Digital Copyright Law issued by copyright holders, they have to block or remove infringing content. The data shows that this happens usually justified. However, Google estimates that more than one-third of the notices of the "Millennium Digital Copyright Act" they have received over the years are originally forged statements. More than half came from companies, and they tried to use this to restrict the activities of competitors, not against offenders.
Mature manufacturers will also strive to include some extended "object copyright" laws before people get the benefit, in a way to weaken the personal manufacturing movement, to be included in the "promotion of infringement" rules. And being able to sue the host website as a 3D design document "heaven for piracy" will reduce the cost of trying to sue thousands of individuals who own 3D printers and make large numbers of copies at home.
All of this means that the current fledgling 3D printing community—only hiding in garages, basements, small workshops, and university laboratories—needs to pay close attention to the debates that arise when such policies emerge. "The legacy industry needs some kind of" Millennium Digital Copyright Act "for 3D printing that will exist for some time," Weinberg said. But if non-professionals wait to do that day, it will be too late.
Plain screen printer with servo system.
1) Replace the products onto the workbench;
2) Screen plate drop down, controlled by servo motor;
3) Rubber blade print from left to right, Controlled by servo motor;
4 Finish printing, Ink floor coating ink;
5) Screen plate lift up, controlled by servo motor.
5 Full programmer controller by PLC.
Servo Plain Screen Printing Machine
Servo Screen Printer, Servo Screen Printing Machine, Servo Silk Printer
KC Printing Machine (Group) Limited , http://www.kcautopm.com