1. 4
  1.  

  2. 7

    Copyright law would be about as effective at stopping distribution of 3d schematics for guns as it is effective in stopping software, music, and video piracy - that is to say, not at all.

    1. 4

      Between copyright, first amendment, free speech and guns I guess it’s really the most American story I’ve ever read 😬 The issue is interesting, too bad it about a friggin gun.

      1. 3

        A really interesting analysis on the ongoing Defense Distributed debacle, with an interesting twist on using copyright law and eminent domain to effectively silence speech. Interesting policy wonkery here.

        1. 2

          Copyright could be used to block this specific 3-D printed gun design. How many possible designs are there? Or somebody could make a piece of art out the design and call it a remix?

          1. 2

            When I read the headline, my immediate thought was “no, it should not”. Then when I read the article I was horrified that it is even legally possible for the government to seize the copyright of something a citizen produced that counts as intellectual property for the specific purpose of restricting the dissemination of that thing. I hope there’s a good legal argument why the courts wouldn’t allow the government to do this if they tried; and in any case, I’m glad that, practically-speaking, it’s basically impossible to actually prevent the piracy of copyrighted information.

            1. 1

              The article did go into a reason for the government to not start doing this, and, summarized, it was the slippery slope fallacy. I would of course remind everybody at this point of the fallacy fallacy.

              1. 2

                Using eminent domain of copyright as a way to prevent the dissemination of any information as an end-run around the first amendment is already really, really bad. If using eminent domain of copyright like that isn’t unconstitutional, it should be.

                1. 1

                  It’s 2018, people get very skittish around guns, and I can believe a court might try this.

            2. 2

              Yes I’m sure a single-fire plastic weapon that’s “accurate” out to about fifteen feet is going to contribute to mass shootings. Somebody please think of the children, etc.