I know my response is late here, but I had something worth saying, so here I go:
It's an interesting conundrum, I certainly think there's a lot of merit to be had within the idea of "right to duplicate". I like what Cory writes a lot, both his fiction and his non-fiction. I think though, that we tend to villify the media industries because they work so hard to protect their property.
If you think about it in terms of something that you create, certainly you feel like your work deserves some compensation, whether it be monetary, or simply recognition for what you've done. In our culture we reward creation via exchange. In the end, we do this because everyone has to put bread on their table, and if there's someone who makes a particularly good thing (music, movie, song, computer, book) we are willing to exchange for that thing, just as we're willing to exchange for the bread that we want to put on the table.
When we face the future of 3D printing, the possibilities explode. Instead of copying a CD or a movie, you could potentially copy a computer, a music player, a car. All of these objects represent a significant amount of work by someone. Someone who has spent time, energy, and money, figuring out how to make such a thing. The culture behind copying tends to hold the motto "If I can, I should and I will." As much as I'd love to believe that people are willing to pay for something, I think given the choice and reasonable risk of consequences, people would choose not to exchange. If there's no gain to be had in making the music player, or the computer, people have no reason to do it. There will always be those who will do it for themselves, or the sake of the community, but again, they also need to put bread on their table.
I think PrintCrime is a scary reality that we may face in the not-too-distant future, but at the same time, I feel like if we don't have some standard to observe in what one is allowed to print, We'll suffer a tremendous loss in our culture.
