Thingiverse from a Different Viewpoint

Before I start, I want to say I am just giving a different viewpoint on whats been happening recently... I dont want to upset anyone.

Ok, so we all know there is a lot of talk about thingiverse recently.

The "new" terms of use say stuff about irrovocably giving the company rights to your design. Yes this may be true, and some people are worried about thingiverse stealing your idea and profiting from it.

But think about it.

What is the chance that somehow tey'll become rich off your idea. Besides, everyone that uses thingiverse can make a derivitive of yours. So there is a lot of fuss more over the idea than an actual action of stealing and profiting of a design. If the people at thingiverse actually take somones idea and use it for profit, then fine, we can all go crazy and protest it.

For what we are all doing, thingiverse offers a very easy to use and convienient way for us to collaborate and share designs... and its free.

Also the terms changes in febuary. If this were such a big deal, why did no one bother to check it then?

I saw this article on a what may be a familar electronic supply website to some.
Consider the ideas in it and compare them to what is happening between some people and thingiverse.

Not trying to raise hairs, just offering a different viewpoint.

-Nick

the occupy thingiverse protest was more a matter of how they told us as opposed to what they told us,

a blog post isn't really adequate, in a lot of cases changes to a TOS should be announced via email then there is no excuse for missing it

Thing is nothing Thingiverse is doing can't be replicated and run by the community. It's just there hasn't been a motivation before, now there is.
I expect to see several viable Thingiverse alternatives within the next few weeks, with less restrictive TOS, so the choice will be clear.
The fact that it's "free" doesn't make up for a horrid TOS, I'm sure the community can come up with the 50-100USD a month it would cost to host an alternative.

So to conclude, It should be rather trivial to replace Thingiverse and I look forward to it!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2012 02:53PM by Kt.

Kt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thing is nothing Thingiverse is doing can't be
> replicated and run by the community. It's just
> there hasn't been a motivation before, now there
> is.
> I expect to see several viable Thingiverse
> alternatives within the next few weeks, with less
> restrictive TOS, so the choice will be clear.
> The fact that it's "free" doesn't make up for a
> horrid TOS, I'm sure the community can come up
> with the 50-100USD a month it would cost to host
> an alternative.
>
> So to conclude, It should be rather trivial to
> replace Thingiverse and I look forward to it!

Several alternitives... Great, now we have to look in Several more places for a specidic model than before.

50-100 USD a month.

That sucks for me (And probably many others). A sudent who looked to reprap for an affordable way to acess 3D printing, now cant acess "Open source" models because of money. Paying for information sure dosent seem very open source to me

-Nick

When Kt said 50-100 a month he ment that is roughly what it would cost the person, or group hosting the site. A community site should be able to pay for itself with advertisement if it is popular enough meaning the useres would probably not have to pay anything. It would cost less if someone ran it off their own server and just had to pay for a domain name, but speed would become an issue.

Oh, sorry, read that wrong.

But I still stand on how nice thingiverse is for being "Cental" if you will, and easy to use.

-Nick

@N314 - not sure if you've seen this.. Photos from the new Makerbot store in New York...

Heart Gears [medium] $249, Design By Emmet


Heart Gears [Giant] $749, Design By Emmet



Whilst I would be amazed at someone forking out $749 for a printed plastic heart it's quite obvious that the changes in the ToC allows them to print and sell any design in their shop without having to give anything to the original designer.

---

------------------------------------------
garyhodgson.com/reprap | reprap.development-tracker.info | thingtracker.net

I don't think they would have had to change the TOS to sell anything on thingiverse that had either a GPL or Creative Commons license.
As I read those licenses, anyone can make them and sell them.

I suspect the license change was a CYA related to hosting the material on the site, or some boilerplate that a lawyer added, given they tend to be very conservative.

Gary,

"Whilst I would be amazed at someone forking out $749 for a printed plastic heart it's quite obvious that the changes in the ToC allows them to print and sell any design in their shop without having to give anything to the original designer."

AFAIK, that's been the case for open source material since day one. Admittedly, it depends on the particular license under which a person submits their work, but in general, that's the way it works. Anyone can make whatever they choose from open work. If anyone is shocked, they really shouldn't be. It's spelled out quite clearly in a myriad of sources.

However, I can't say either way whether they are or aren't sharing profit with the ?artist? ?designer? who created the work. I would ask the person if that's the case before alleging (apriori) that it is as you say it is.

Nonetheless, if his design is open, I could do the same as you've accused Makerbot, as could you or any other person. That's the ultimate definition and outcome of "open source" No one owns anything, including their own unique creative ideas..

Of course you're quite correct. I had completely disregarded the fact that the primary license of each work may not necessarily be non-commercial, and therefore selling the piece is totally acceptable. My apologies, next time I'll try and think a bit more before posting.

---

------------------------------------------
garyhodgson.com/reprap | reprap.development-tracker.info | thingtracker.net

Thingiverse.com does indeed provide a service; a service that I enjoy very much.

Whatever arrangement that MakerBot chooses to arrange with the users of the site is fairly irrelevant. The trouble I see here is more about, trust, openness and the ethical fiber of the company.

If part of the deal of getting to use Thingiverse is that they get to co-own or use designs I post; that is fine, and not necessarily a good or evil action. Some people might even think this is a good deal for the services they get from Thingiverse --> But such an arrangement must be very clear and understood by all parties.

The ethical dilemma here is that MakerBot has a website which collects open-source ideas, while running a business that sells closed source products.

Does the closed-source MakerBot Replicator 2 contain open-source designs from users posted on Thingiverse? Yes/No/Maybe So

Has MakeBot positisoned themselves to sell closed source machines using open-source designs from users posted on Thingiverse? YES

Does that pit MakerBot against all that is righteous and virtuous? Yes/No/Maybe So

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2012 06:33PM by Idolcrasher.

AFAIK anyone can sell any printed thing regardless of the license. The license only covers the files, not what is produced from the file. So if you license something as NC it means that no one can sell the files, but anyone can use them to produce an object and sell it. Sure it will piss off the community and goes against the idea of the license but they are software licenses not patents.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

Kt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thing is nothing Thingiverse is doing can't be
> replicated and run by the community. It's just
> there hasn't been a motivation before, now there
> is.
> I expect to see several viable Thingiverse
> alternatives within the next few weeks, with less
> restrictive TOS, so the choice will be clear.
> The fact that it's "free" doesn't make up for a
> horrid TOS, I'm sure the community can come up
> with the 50-100USD a month it would cost to host
> an alternative.
>
> So to conclude, It should be rather trivial to
> replace Thingiverse and I look forward to it!

If person A uploads an object to a thingiverse-alternative what is to stop person B making a trivial change and posting it to Thingiverse using a compatible license?

Andy

Idolcrasher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The ethical dilemma here is that MakerBot has a
> website which collects open-source ideas, while
> running a business that sells closed source
> products.


This is the heart of the argument. Under the current ToS there is nothing preventing MBI from taking your content and patenting it.

Thingiverse is an IP vacuum. And one day, MBI will leverage that IP to make closed-source devices.

That would be pretty rich, wouldn't it? MBI sending cease and desist letters to all their competitors who had the misfortune of sharing their IP on Thingiverse. A coup-de-grace in fact.

And that is why I will not upload to Thingiverse until this gets straightened out.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Quote
alhlut
Under the current ToS there is nothing preventing MBI from taking your content and patenting it.

Is that likley? It takes years to get a patent, and like the article says... Think how much technology changes in a few years. The article also point out how patenting can ultimatly hurt the company. Read the article again and apply that tho your statment.

-Nick

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2012 08:04PM by N314.

>
> This is the heart of the argument. Under the
> current ToS there is nothing preventing MBI from
> taking your content and patenting it.

Actually they can't do that the simplest way to protect yourself from a patent is by publicly disclosing the design.
What they could possibly do, and I'm not sure even this is true, is bypass the viral part of the GPL.

> AFAIK anyone can sell any printed thing regardless
> of the license. The license only covers the files,
> not what is produced from the file. So if you
> license something as NC it means that no one can
> sell the files, but anyone can use them to produce
> an object and sell it. Sure it will piss off the
> community and goes against the idea of the license
> but they are software licenses not patents.

You're not protected even if you have a patent because unless you have a few million dollars wasting away in your bank account it's not like you can go after someone for patent infringement.

I use NC to show my intent with the license. That intent is.. Here I made this and maybe you'll find this useful, but I will not be happy if I see you selling it on ebay or whatever without contacting me first. The entire NC tainting dead-end argument is not useful IMO because 99.99999% of "things" ARE dead-ends even without it so why not show intent by adding the NC? I'd actually like to see some sort of license that had a "derivative contribution" clause or something meaning that if you actually do put work into make a proper derivative then sure go ahead and sell it.

I have read the sparkfun article.

I have read Nates articles many times before - he is an OSHW evangelist. I have a lot of respect for him and sparkfun - I shop there and point others to them whenever I can. But this is not one of his finest articles. It may in fact be the weakest. I have a question for you (and Nate) - If obtaining IP isn't worth it, why are google, apple, and the rest of the technology universe seeking to obtain as many patents as possible? To rest on their laurels? No.

Amassing IP is not bloat.

IP is a weapon.

The reason why this is being done is for defensive and offensive purposes. Defending your technology and attacking the underlying basis of competing technology.

e.g. Apple vs. Samsung.

IP lays the foundation for the next innovation, not the last. Look at Kodak. They took the IP for the digital camera and locked it away instead of using it to advance to the next innovation because it would have disrupted their existing business. That was their blunder - not leveraging their IP that everyone in the world now uses.

The true strength of OSHW is the speed of development due to the lack of the patent process. OSHW growth/variation is more organic/less rigid. And successes and failures are less costly - encouraging less risk aversion among OSHW producers.

MBI aren't idiots. Hell, they might be smarter than I gave them credit for. Publishing your IP on an alternative website with the appropriate licensing/disclaimers before posting to Thingiverse is a prudent move - Thank you Polygonhell. If you are unfortunate enough to publish direct to Thingiverse then I bet you are out of luck.

Maybe everything is in the timing.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

come to think of it why exactly is makerbot being crusified for selling printed objects off thingiverse? it's not like it's not being done right now... eg the reprap prusa? printrbot? rostock?

these parts are printed out and sold, i don't think even the likes of Josef Prusa have recieved a dollar from anyone making money printing parts? why exactly is makerbot any different?

imagine the progress he could make if everyone sent $1 from every set of prusa parts they print?

sure there' a bit of a different between a $80 set of prusa parts vs a $700 geared heart,

from what i hear they are going to seek permission from the author of an object and may get a percentage of the profits from it, before they go selling a printed object,

it would surprise me if in the not too distant future they start getting emailing people or putting some kind of mechanism on thingiverse of kind to allow you to receive a percentage of any profit they make on printing an object you create, i can already see everything that just came off thingiverse in anger going back up just as quick if not quicker

thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> come to think of it why exactly is makerbot being
> crusified for selling printed objects off
> thingiverse? it's not like it's not being done
> right now... eg the reprap prusa? printrbot?
> rostock?
>
> these parts are printed out and sold, i don't
> think even the likes of Josef Prusa have recieved
> a dollar from anyone making money printing parts?
> why exactly is makerbot any different?
>
> imagine the progress he could make if everyone
> sent $1 from every set of prusa parts they print?
>
> sure there' a bit of a different between a $80 set
> of prusa parts vs a $700 geared heart,
>
> from what i hear they are going to seek permission
> from the author of an object and may get a
> percentage of the profits from it, before they go
> selling a printed object,
>
> it would surprise me if in the not too distant
> future they start getting emailing people or
> putting some kind of mechanism on thingiverse of
> kind to allow you to receive a percentage of any
> profit they make on printing an object you create,
> i can already see everything that just came off
> thingiverse in anger going back up just as quick
> if not quicker
That 749 dollar heart gave 100 dollars to one of those makers or so he says.

Fact is not that people care about the printing and selling of items off of Thingiverse what they care about is that their design was stolen from them, or could be, while MBI profits from it simply because the originator used Thingiverse in good faith as a repository to share with others. MBI makes money and you don't but it was your work they used and they went against the CC license you chose.

Hi all,

Tough topic for 3d printer makers... how to keep paying the bills while staying open source?

I am from 3Dstuffmaker.com - having build Prusa's and other kits and ready to run 3D open source printers.

The idea of open source is that everyone has equal access to open source technology. This also means that no-one can grow to a big size, since everyone else can copy their designs and this keep the company size small- because sales are small... you get a few $ and you spend even more...that is the nature of any start-up company. It is no way to get rich quick!

Makerbot got a big $ injection and now has corporate aspirations. eg they want to be listed on the stock market- which is what $ investors expect. To do this they have to block competitors and look inward rather than open source. That is how the game is played once investors come on board.

So, they now have to keep some of their technology advances secret- so that their business can survive against every other backyard hobby operator.

For example: - The development of the extruder hot end - is extremely difficult.
I should know we have made over 100 designs before we nailed it...
...cause... if I make one for myself I can tweak it to work Ok- but if I sell it to techno-luddites, they won't put up with having to tweak things- they expect it to work out-of the box. And this costs mega $.
We have over 30 people working in our research / factory in India. 1/3 of them is doing development work to make reprap technologies work reliably.


See the problem with reprap- is that there are 100+ ways to do anything- but no critical feedback or Peer review mechanism. So you never know if a "great idea" on reprap is working or not.
From my own experience with reprapr, it is fair to say that reprap is failing members in this regard- because you never know if something works or not. Also reprap members largely do not use scientific evaluation methods- so most technology stuff is not verified by Peer review or even a simple XY listing of results... [ i guess the slap-dash approach is fun for some- but it is also hugely frustrating for others]

So- this brings me to Makerbot- 3Dstuffmaker and many other hopefuls that try to make a living form open source...

3Dstuffmaker say: eg our Prusa Explorer- is our version of a Prusa- with parts and tweaks that make it work better [that is not to say that anyone could not do the same with there own varient/version- but remember , we have to make the gear work for real customers that get cheesed off- if they have to tweak stuff. They expect perfection!].

So what happens it that many reprappers follow companies like Makerbot and 3Dstuffmaker's advances and then upgrade their own units gradually- because reprap.org can not sort great- from dead-end technology ideas.
So gradually, people get attached to one company or other, and get upset when that companies outgrows reprap... and goes closed source, to grow their business.

From my own experience, opensource is the right way to go... but it is a very fine line to walk... between advancing open source and failing to run it as a business... and if I fail to find a workable solution, 30 odd young Indian techo's loose their livelihoods. So the stakes for me are high because I regard giving people work, especially work that can help eliminate poverty trough open source technologies, as one of the most important things anyone can do.
I like the benefits that table-top manufacturing can bring to humanity. Check out my thoughts @ economicsatyagraha.com or economicsatyagraha- on wiser earth- if this social aspect interests you...

Our users have asked for a 3D community for some months and we have developed some solutions- which will roll out in the near future...

[3dstuffmaker.com] - this is our current test site.

3Dstuffshare community - almost works- bar a few tweaks...

Let's keep the ball rolling on open source discussions... and idea sharing...

Best regards
Rob
-o-o-
robioptic@yahoo.com

Hi all,

I too second the thoughts that

1) Of course should MBI, as anyone else, be allowed to print and sell my GPL'ed or CC'ed parts ... that is (one of) the point(s) that I use those licenses.

2) Of course should MBI not grab a GPL/CC'ed design and close source it into their machines. However, they reserve that right by dual-licensing the things we design.


I am not concerned with banishing MBI, but I just do not wish to support "big business" if possible. Which brings me to the point: Any good new places to replace Thingiverse, anyone?

I have looked at Cubehero but apparently many features are lacking. Still it is not associated with a company, is it? Maybe I could help out there?

I also looked at 3Dstuffshare, but there are no ToS, so I hardly see how that solves my problem.

All this got me thinking about all geeky users contributing a node to a distributed web-service. I just looked quickly at apache2 + distributed, but found nothing. Does anyone know of some FOSS that support a web application that this new 3D community design site could be developed, deployed, and hosted in a fully distributed manner? For sure I am not the first to consider this, but I have not heard about it before neither.