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