Patent Infringement (Stratasys)

Quote

I wonder if digital watermarks in 3D design files could be more robust than ordinary 2D graphical watermarks.

Unlikely. YOu can digitally watermark 2d images because the subtle changes that are made are not visible to the human eye. Design files don't have the sort of headroom needed for this kind of trick... certainly not anything that couldn't be destroyed by tiny alterations to the data.

Quote

I think major reasons for piracy are over-charging and lack of convenience

Some people will steal anything, regardless. But they're unlikely to buy it in the first place.

If you want to protect your designs, you'll need to write your own DRM capable firmware, and require that customers use it in order to use your files. And your designs and/or firmware better be pretty amazing before anyone is going to want to do that.

Ru Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if digital watermarks in 3D design files
> could be more robust than ordinary 2D graphical
> watermarks.
>
> Unlikely. YOu can digitally watermark 2d images
> because the subtle changes that are made are not
> visible to the human eye.

Wait, what about the spare infill of an object. If that is part of the design file, you'd have an invisible pattern on the inside that no one sees. On the other hand, it's probably the printing or pre-print software that does the step of creating the sparse pattern instead of the design software (because it depends on the machine, material and environment).

Don't start with DRM, if it doesn't fail I'll be amazed.

---

Regards,

Erik de Bruijn
[Ultimaker.com] - [blog.erikdebruijn.nl]

Quote

Wait, what about the spare infill of an object. If that is part of the design file,

It isn't. As you guessed, it gets calculated by the host software, Having to ship part files with infill paths in them would make them enormous.

You might be able to hide some data in the less significant digits of vertex coordinates. Given that slice'n'dice will quantise points to a .1mm grid (if I remember correctly), small changes in location (<.01mm) won't affect the part.

But you could easily write a script that will scramble those same digits with no loss of accuracy.

Quote

Don't start with DRM, if it doesn't fail I'll be amazed.

Quite. Any efforts to protect your intellectual property are futile... any chance to make money from creating parts files will be either a) from honest people (hah!) or b) from consulting or custom part design for individuals or organisations.

Quote

But you could easily write a script that will scramble those same digits with no loss of accuracy.

But a randomly generated code would be very unlikely to resemble a non random code. This could be detected as a signature of authenticity.

Like ErikDeBruijn suggested, creating products for personal use could be free, but if you want to resell them or use them for other commercial purposes you would need to pay. A watermark that could verify that a piece was used properly (ie paid for) would act as a deterrent (not a catch-all) to illegal use.

Quote

If you want to protect your designs, you'll need to write your own DRM capable firmware, and require that customers use it in order to use your files. And your designs and/or firmware better be pretty amazing before anyone is going to want to do that.

My main problem with DRM is that it usually effects legitimate users more than pirates, and in a negative way. If DRM could be made invisible to the end user, then I would be ok with it. But currently all the DRM systems I have heard of are a pain for legitimate users, where as pirates strip the DRM out of the system and use it without the problems it causes.

Quote

It isn't. As you guessed, it gets calculated by the host software, Having to ship part files with infill paths in them would make them enormous.

You might be able to hide some data in the less significant digits of vertex coordinates.

What if you built an object inside the work piece (and connected to the main piece so it doesn't move around). This small, internal object would be then capable of holding a watermark. It does, however, use a little more plastic and make it a little heavier (negative impacts on the end user), but it would not be a large effect (but still more than I would like).

Quote

Quite. Any efforts to protect your intellectual property are futile... any chance to make money from creating parts files will be either a) from honest people (hah!) or b) from consulting or custom part design for individuals or organisations.

I think 100% protection is futile, but enough protection to make the effort worthwhile (economically feasible) is certainly achievable.

You might even have a shareware style arrangement where you accept donations.

There have been other attempts to provide "free" products and still make money. Some musicians have released albums only after enough voluntary donations have been made (the contributors get some reward for their efforts too). Once the donations are received, they release the album for free. The artists make money, the community gets free product and those that contributed (donations) are acknowledged (names in the credits, hard copy rewards like t-Shirts or posters, etc).

Although that exact model is unlikely to be implemented, one based on it's principles could be implemented.

This blanket statement of futility, I think, is unfounded. A bit of creativity and the whole DRM business becomes obsolete, and profit can still be made.

Computers allowed us to easily copy data, so the data its self becomes cheap (virtually worthless). What is needed as far as data is concerned is a new business model that takes the emphasis of the data, and places it elsewhere.

RepRap, or other cheap, widely available 3D printers will do the same for physical objects. This will mean that the economic models that businesses are operating by will also have to change, just like it is necessary for data based businesses.

A Watermark is like a Certificate of Authenticity. If you an establish a prestige that goes along with it, then it makes copying that certificate undesirable (for the masses), especially if you offer the product for free without the watermark.

What if you have a watermarking system and you offer monetary contributors a watermarked object and the prestige that comes with it. But then after enough money has been made from contributors, you offer the product for free, but without the watermark.

Of course, the people who contributed, could offer their watermarked object file for free, but then this reduces the prestige of their contribution, and the object is going to be offered for free anyway, so they loose more than you if they "pirate".

Just think about how much more valuable something is if it has been signed by someone. Using the watermark this way would make pirating less likely, and it allows the wider public to get access to free content/objects.

... i'm not fond of DRM or such, better go the open-source way ...

Give the 3D-data away for free and 'mark' your fabbed objects: - when you want to build objects with a 'bullet-proof' tracer, then embedd some specific in the fabbing material.

I had to perform some tests with sensing and encoding 'color-tags' in coatings and plastic-objects - this are 100 cubicle-microns big cubes of stacked colour-slices with a specific order like a serial number coded in colour-orders.

This could be made even smaller, e.g. 10 microns in size or lower, so this colour-tags could be mixed with the filament- or paste-material ...

Viktor

Quote

But a randomly generated code would be very unlikely to resemble a non random code. This could be detected as a signature of authenticity.

Okay, so what does the signature demonstrate? The pirate does not care about authenticity. Their 'customers' might, but they will be more interested in paying less or or not at all.

It is of interest to customers who want legitimate products, or to producers who are interested in prosecuting thieves, or to people providing support for printed products and have no interest in providing assistance to owners of bootleg items.

So it comes down to making money from a) honesty, or b) from secondary activities, such as technical support, or being a lawyer.

Trying to associate 'prestige' with a product is going to be exceptionally difficult, and require you to be making something special. Luxury items, or bits of artwork... such things by their nature have a smaller market than less exciting but useful items. Desirable brands are very difficult things to establish!

Quote

If DRM could be made invisible to the end user, then I would be ok with it

DRM in firmware would result in a 'simple' refusal to print. However, you'd be restricted to approved firmware, which in turn is restricted to a certain subset of possible printing hardware.

Quote

What if you built an object inside the work piece (and connected to the main piece so it doesn't move around)

It's a nice idea, but these things could be found by visual inspection of the source file in a suitable editting program. They could then be removed or altered.

To *require* their presence you need a DRM capable printer.

Quote

But a randomly generated code would be very unlikely to resemble a non random code. This could be detected as a signature of authenticity.

Okay, so what does the signature demonstrate? The pirate does not care about authenticity. Their 'customers' might, but they will be more interested in paying less or or not at all.

It is of interest to customers who want legitimate products, or to producers who are interested in prosecuting thieves, or to people providing support for printed products and have no interest in providing assistance to owners of bootleg items.

So it comes down to making money from a) honesty, or b) from secondary activities, such as technical support, or being a lawyer.

Trying to associate 'prestige' with a product is going to be exceptionally difficult, and require you to be making something special. Luxury items, or bits of artwork... such things by their nature have a smaller market than less exciting but useful items. Desirable brands are very difficult things to establish!

Quote

If DRM could be made invisible to the end user, then I would be ok with it

DRM in firmware would result in a 'simple' refusal to print. However, you'd be restricted to approved firmware, which in turn is restricted to a certain subset of possible printing hardware.

Quote

What if you built an object inside the work piece (and connected to the main piece so it doesn't move around)

It's a nice idea, but these things could be found by visual inspection of the source file in a suitable editting program. They could then be removed or altered.

To *require* their presence you need a DRM capable printer.

Quote

when you want to build objects with a 'bullet-proof' tracer, then embedd some specific in the fabbing material

Suddenly, you are no longer trading in the realms of abstract data. By requiring people to obtain magic material, you're avoiding one of the most useful parts of reprap's functionality, and severely limiting your market to those who can obtain this magical material cheaply.

Quote

This blanket statement of futility, I think, is unfounded. A bit of creativity and the whole DRM business becomes obsolete, and profit can still be made.

Oh, no doubt. But when you must rely upon the honesty of the common man, its gonna be tricky

Quote

Trying to associate 'prestige' with a product is going to be exceptionally difficult, and require you to be making something special.

No. This is already being done for data files, even when all data files are identical.

There are bands that are releasing their works for free, but only after a certain amount of contribution (money) is acquired. Those that contribute monetarily have prestige associated with their contributions and this prestige encourages contributions.

The Open source movement is based on this. Each person contributing does so at their own expense (time in this case), they are then given prestige when their contributions are used in the final product.

The fact that they have contributed is prestige enough for them to commit their time to the projects. In the same vein, people who commit to the development of a printable object can be given a prestige reward.

Since modifying an object file is easy (which is why a denial type DRM system is doomed to fail as someone will just edit it out), then why not turn the Denial DRM system on its head. Offer to the contributors something that will make their objects special. If they then allow others to use their "signed" file, then it reduces the value of their objects. Especially when others can get an unsigned version for free, why would someone willingly devalue their own things.

The "watermark" or "signature" is there to give contributors some reward for contributing. An absence of a watermark/signature only means that the object was not owned by a contributor.

So instead of using a DRM system to stop people copying the data (we don't want to stop them copying the data), you use a DRM system to provide prestige.

If you had a copy of the "Lord of the Rings" it would be just like any other copy of the book. But if you had one signed by JRR Tolkien, then that book, evne though it is physically identical in all other ways to an identical book, is worth more because it is signed.

The system I am proposing is no different.

If Tolkien only offered signed books to people that had helped him in the writing of the book, those who might have helped pay for the time it took to write it and to publish it, then those copies, even if they could be copied on a photocopier (signature and all), would be worth more.

If they did make copies on a photo copier, then it would reduce the value of their own original.

As Tolkien would not get the money from the sales of a signed book (beyond the original sale price), then if someone devalues their own copy, then it is their loss, not Tolkien's.

With 3D printing, Tolkien would be the equivalent of the developer(s) that construct a particular item. Most items would not be worth signing. However, speciality items (maybe because they have put some artistic flare into it, that it is some new application of technology, or that the design team has some initial fame - or has someone famous to lend their name to the product) wo0uld benefit greatly from such a system.

The signature system could continue beyond the initial release as contribution does not have to stop at release. Something like the shareware model could be implemented except all that you do is pay for a "signature" (people already pay for famous signatures today).

I think that prestige is much easier to create than you might think.

Quote

If you had a copy of the "Lord of the Rings" it would be just like any other copy of the book. But if you had one signed by JRR Tolkien, then that book, evne though it is physically identical in all other ways to an identical book, is worth more because it is signed.

If I had signed by here, is it of any particular interest to you? Or to anyone else? A Tolkien book signed by the author is something of value because he is world famous. You can't just conjure that status out of thin air. But the book isn't any different from the tatty old unsigned paperback copy that someon else might have, that cost them 60p second hand.

*If* you can design some very good products and *if* they become popular *then* your watermark *might* be worth something to the sort of people who value watermarked products.

Quote

The signature system could continue beyond the initial release as contribution does not have to stop at release. Something like the shareware model could be implemented except all that you do is pay for a "signature"

This goes back to my original point: you are still relying on people being fundamentally honest and being willing to pay a premium for your branded product. My interest in branding only extends as far as the brand in question's reputation; a reputation that is difficult to build and ever so easy to lose.

When there is *zero difference* between a premium, branded item and a cheap (or free, bar the cost of material) unbranded, unwatermarked, unsigned, white box plain vanilla item, what are most people going to choose?

You have to make that brand worth something. And that is exceptionally difficult to do.

It depends what you mean by by "establish a brand". Yes it is hard to become the next Coke or GM. but Linux and Manolo Blahnik were both incredibly valuable brands in their limited fields before they became known to the general public. This is part of the "long tail" theory, that given a large enough (internet size) audience, a brand only needs to be valuable to a tiny segment (<1%)to provide a living to it's creator. If a designer can embed a unique signature in an object that guarantees it's authenticity and then the pirate can only produce copies of a valid object, this soon becomes obvious and the value of object x, serial # y falls; or the counterfeiter produces pseudo copies with invalid signatures which lose value even faster. Neal Stephenson had a proposal called "Veridian Green" which said that the way to make people use green technology was to make it cool and high tech and visible. In the same way if paying for your intellectual property produced a cool object that anyone could verify was cool and original and cheap copies were easily verifiable as such then people who want to be cool (in the group in question) will pay for their intellectual property. If you as a creator embed in your model something like a publicly visible pattern of colored dots that identifies it as both your design and copy #xxx and you post that information in a publicly available database that anybody with a camera-phone can search and the location and time of each searcher is recorded copies then frauds would quickly become apparent. Yes, this model only pays if you produce something that is markedly cool in some sense and in group, but why are we interested in rewarding mediocrity?

okay, say we have a pattern of dots. Designer: Rodrigo Phantasmo the first (RPI.)
item: Very cool unit (VCU) and a Serial Number (#237)
Nevermind how the pattern looks like, but let's estimate

.:..:
:...:
.::.:

Now, here comes the "bad replicator of valuable items"
He does an exact copy of Rodrigo's Masterpiece
and he adds exactly the same pattern to his just made falsification

.:..:
:...:
.::.:

Now we have TWO objekt with exactly the same pattern printed on or embedded in it.
How do you know which one is "the real thing" ?

You may track the first person who bought something, but you'll never know more for sure.
And since most items end up on ebay one day you're pretty nipped.

Oh yes, holograms, like on the cheap chinese nokia battery fakes ...
No matter what you do, you'll have copys you cannot spot as soon has you have something like a brand.

The third or fourth person with an item you made cannot be sure of the authenticity, because it was made with an equal machine and equal materials, having the same patterns and logos.

If you want protection, don't care about signs logos and stuff,
make sure you have something like a patent, and make sure you have enough money for a lawyer!

Everything else maybe fun to talk about, but not relevant for real life

'sid

Quote

If you want protection, don't care about signs logos and stuff,

There is probably mileage is creating trojan horse design files for seeding on torrent trackers and the like.

Thought it was one of my nice new widgets? WRONG. Congratulations. You just replicated yourself a brand new KneeBreakerBot (tm). Enjoy.

Everything can be copied easily. One way to prevent copying is adding value, making it unattractive to reverse engineer the original.

For example, you don't just sell a clothes hanger that anyone can copy, but you will mount it for the buyer.

I know that there is no market for that, but it should illustrate what I mean by added value. Anything that we can do on a RepRap, someone else can do faster an better (and cheaper - see China). So if one wants to reprap commercially, there would have to be an extra service.

One maybe not so silly example: offer a service to mount *any* phone in *any* car and *any* position. The client holds the phone how he prefers it, and you take a scanner, scan the back of the phone, the dash of the car, and the mounting position, and reprap a mount that matches the scans. Someone else can still copy one of your product, but there is no market for his copy because it is individually crafted.

... or individually fabbed shoes - a 3D-scanner and a reprap is the heart of any possible individualized RP-service ...

Viktor

The point of having an open database and showing searches is that duplicates become obvious (serial # xxx turns up in lots of places at once) so their value drops. This decreases the likelihood of casual copying (why decrease the value of what you just bought?) and decreases the incentive to mass copy for profit (each copy drives down the value and you become known as a purveyor of fakes). It is not foolproof (nothing is) but it provides a level of protection at very low cost. I agree that DRM is a lost cause, and that for my idea to work the community you are targeting must respect intellectual property/care about authenticity. In a way, what I'm talking about is a method of using such attitudes as part of the value added to the brand.

just to be clear, I doubt anyone will ever get rich creating fabber models, maybe someday folks will support themselves shareware style or by creating individualized items. I am only suggesting that there are techniques that make pirating less attractive without damaging anyone's rights.

Quote

Now we have TWO objekt with exactly the same pattern printed on or embedded in it.
How do you know which one is "the real thing" ?

If you look at the marks as a sign of authenticity, you're doomed. I'm more interested in the value of watermarking them as a way to track 'leaks' of your design.

If I hide the watermark in the model cleverly enough, it will not be easy to spot in the design file, or alter or remove, but it will be visible in the final result.

If I sell you the design for one of my devices, I might take the original, virgin STL and run it through a watermarking script to add the data 'Made by Ru for Sid'. Chances are, you'll never see, or care about the watermark.

If I suddenly see a whole bunch of people using what looks very much like my device, and I analyse it or their design files in some appropriate way and I see the watermark 'Made by Ru for Sid', I'll know that a) it is indeed a cheap knockoff of mine and b) that you've just violated my intellectual property rights. Cue lawyers.

The trick is making a resilient and cryptographically secure watermarking scheme... far, far easier said than done.

Hi Ru,

... any actual watermarking of image- or 3D-data is based on super-fine displacement of color-vaues or 3D-coordinates in a specific area, so the encoding-algorhythmus can extract this offset from the byte-stream.

With simply refiltering or resizing of your file this displacements are resampled and intermixed with random noise, so it's useless when someone skilled wants to vialate your properties - it's intended only for the 1:1 transfer of data and any resampling eliminates this type of watermarks.

So better look for 'material-branding' as i mentioned with colour-tags embedded in the filament.

The 3D-data of an object isn't really IP-safe - but a fabbed object could be mailed with ease too and here you have much more possibilities ...

Viktor

Quote

With simply refiltering or resizing of your file this displacements are resampled and intermixed with random noise, so it's useless when someone skilled wants to vialate your properties

I already said this

Quote

So better look for 'material-branding'

And as I may also have mentioned, restricting production in this way takes away the major benefit of the reprap.

But how are you going to stop people using common materials and the same design file, modified so it no longer requires your specially doctored filaments?

It goes back to the original arguments about honesty, and the sort of person who is willing to forgo the convenience of using materials already available and 'generic' design files in order to use a design approved by you, and purchase materials from what is likely to be an inconvenient and expensive source.

Hi Ru,

the idea with personalized fabbing materials isn't meant to stop someone of copying the design - i think it's not possible, because any halfway capable person can reconstruct (or simple scan and/or resample/reshape) any RP-object, if he/she wants to.

It's more to allow a 'value-added' service - e.g. better/stabler material, special fabbing- or tempering-conditions, so the parts last longer or didn't break apart when in continuous use.

On the other side it's a trace to the original source, if the specific part causes some damage or havoc.

So i would say: - forget IP for reprap, develop personalized services instead ...

Viktor

>
> So i would say: - forget IP for reprap, develop
> personalized services instead ...
>
Better yet, design and build something useful for a useful market that doesn't have the volume to justify somebody building a factory and conventional production line.

Ok, I can see that you all still can't grasp my idea. So instead of replying to each of you, I will restate my idea and try to explain it better.


We are currently in a Scarcity Economy. That is the main value of an object is due to its scarcity. It could be because it is difficult to manufacture, or that not many are actually made.

Art work is a good example. There is really only one copy of a piece of art, and it is this that gives it its value. It is valuable only[/i] because there are no other copies.

However, with technologies like RepRap, we enter into a Post Scarcity Economy.

In Post Scarcity Economies, as objects can be replicated with ease, we can no longer put value on an object because it is scarce as it will no longer be scarce.

This means we need to find another way of adding value to an item, or another form of scarcity.

The kind of scarcity that I am talking about we all know. Remember back to your childhood. I bet you had a favourite toy (mine was and still is my collection of Lego - and I still would not sell it). I also bet that there was no amount of money that could be give to you that would have made you sell your favourite toy.

It is this kind of scarcity that I am talking about: Personal Value

We can value an object, not because it is hard to make, or that not many were made, but because it has some kind of personal significance to us.

In a post scarcity world, we can make unlimited copies of an object for very little cost (raw materials and power to run the RepRap). But if an object has personal value, then it has a value that can not be copied.

The idea I am proposing is that we develop the tools and techniques (software) that allows someone to easily add a personal touch to an object. This might be in the form of a signature, or a little "thank you" mark on an object (the form it takes is not significant at all).

When someone designs an object, they release this for free to the world. However, if someone makes a donations to them, then the tools allow them to easily make a personalised mark on the object to thank the person that contributed to them.

Now, as this is a personalised make to the person who contributed, it means that this object now has a personal value to the owner (not the designer).

If the owner then give this file to someone else to print, it does not impact the designer at all as they have already released their design for free anyway, so this extra copy going around is not impacting them at all.

The only person that is impacted by these extra copies floating around was the person who got the object file by contributing to the designer.

Let me take you through an example:
Dave the designer creates a Dohicky. He then releases this for free download so that people with their RepRaps can print it.

However, Owen likes Dave's work and sends a small donation of $10.

Dave responds by using a signaturing tool to write "Thanks Owen for the donation. From Dave." on the Dohicky that he then sends to Owen.

Later Peter the Pirate, hacks into Owen's computer and makes his own copy of Owen's Dohicky file and releases this onto the internet for anyone to copy.

However, as it is Owen that places any value on that particular version of the Dohicky, any an unsigned version can be downloaded for free, Peter has not actually gained anything by making this particular file available, and neither Owen or Dave has actually lost anything by them doing so (although Owen might feel like he has lost something).

Because only Owen places personal[/] value on his version of the Dohicky, it is of no value to anyone else because there are other versions available, and it is of no consequence to Dave if the item is copied as he has already made it available to copy for free anyway.

You all seem to keep wanting to put value on an object due to scarcity. But in a Post Scarcity Economy this is not going to work. It won't matter how clever or how intricate a system you develop. one thing will always stop you: And that is that the value you are placing on the object is supposed to originate in scarcity, but in a post scarcity world the objects are not scarce so you have nothing to give the object value.

Edtharan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> This means we need to find another way of adding
> value to an item, or another form of scarcity.
>


Adding value to an item isn't the same thing as making it scarce. The question that I have in, however, not why you would want to add value to an item, but why you'd want to make it scarce?

> Adding value to an item isn't the same thing as
> making it scarce. The question that I have in,
> however, not why you would want to add value to an
> item, but why you'd want to make it scarce?

The way I consider this is simple; I'm not trying to make the final product scarce. I'm trying to approximate selling the scarce resource of my time by charging for a copy of the thingy, to avoid needing an elaborate organization to handle paying me money directly for resources I have a very finite amount of. Which also inclines me to not mind that much about some people cheating each other over paying their part of my fee, so long as I get a reasonable amount in for the time I invest.

Seems to me that it is pointless figuring out how you are going to get paid for something before you've created that something.

Quote

Adding value to an item isn't the same thing as making it scarce. The question that I have in, however, not why you would want to add value to an item, but why you'd want to make it scarce?

I am not wanting to make it scarce!

You are obviously not getting it.

Or maybe you are. You stated that "adding value is not the same as making it scarce". This is my point.

The whole idea is to have the owner add value to the item by giving them some, kind of personal value to the item.

A personalised, signed "thank you" embedded into the item (or even just as a little printable badge would do) would be all that is needed.

It doesn't even need to be an actualy physica object that gets printed. It could take the form of an Email thanking the person for their contribution.

Get it. It is not the object, or its scarcity that I am advocating for. I am advocating for ways in which we can add value to something that has nothing whatsoever to do with scarcity

Why is everybody thinking that I am trying to advocate making items have scarcity when I explicitly state that this is not my intention?

... here an example of inherent scarcity which wasn't intended:

For the last birthday of my older son i moulded some "Han Solo in Carbonite"-chocolate-bars (look here: [forums.reprap.org] ) as giveaways.

I didn't mention to give them some value, as it was only a sweety and they were a bit remelted (smoothed at the edges) as we were out and the choc-bars were some hours in the sun ...

When i last asked the parents of two of his friends, if the chocolate was tasty for their children (as i was testing with different types of couverture), they didn't know, because the children wants to keep the "Han's" safe in the refrigerator

I offered them to make new bars, but until now no one asked ...

Viktor

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2008 03:16AM by Viktor.

Edtharan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why is everybody thinking that I am trying to
> advocate making items have scarcity when I
> explicitly state that this is not my intention?
>
Because what you explicitly state and what you subsequently argue don't bear a lot of resemblance to each other.

You must admit that what you say seems to betray a rather obsessive interest in somehow indellibly marking some hypothetical innovative object as your own.

Quote

You must admit that what you say seems to betray a rather obsessive interest in somehow indellibly marking some hypothetical innovative object as your own.

But that is not the same as creating value of an object due to scarcity. That is giving a personal value to an object. It is completely different.

One is giving an object value because it is hard to come by, the other is nostalgia. How is nostalgia the same are rarity?

Are you are essentially telling me what I am supposed to be thinking because you didn't read my posts properly?

Go back and reread them. At the start I did discuss being able to watermark an item, but people assumed that I was asking that because I wanted to stop people from copying the items.

So it wasn't what I said that lead you down this path, but the comments made by others assuming something about me. I have no control over what someone else thinks, so if they make a comment about something I said, those comments are not what I said.

I made an query about whether or not is was possible to place a watermark in an object. I did not say that is was to restrict copying that object. I later explained that this was to make an object potentially unique so that a person would be better able to create a personal attachment (and hence value) to said object.

This is not stating that I want to make each object unique to add value to it because it is unique, just that it is potentially unique so that it makes it easier for an end user to form an emotional attachment to the object.

In fact it really doesn't matter is the object is unique or not. Making it personalised was just an easy way to use the abilities of 3D printing to create that emotional attachment. As I also said, you could just send them an E-Mail to thank them.

I only focused on watermarks because it was a method that would allow devices such as the RepRap to demonstrate their usefulness and that it highlighted how you could change scarcity economy thinking to work in a post scarcity economy. But perhaps I overestimated people here.

Edtharan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> But perhaps I overestimated people here.
>
Perhaps you did. Reprap is a place where the real players actually DO things and make things, not just spin stories about doing things or making things. It's the antithesis of RPG for the people who are actually working on the project.

cheers, Forest! You just made me feel better about the rapidly accumulating mass of failed RepRap prints piling up around my lab.