4 ms·
As well as the problems mentioned in other comments, this idea suffers from a massive "analog hole" just as with audio. If you can print an object, it would be
by ajenner 14y ago
As well as the problems mentioned in other comments, this idea suffers from a massive "analog hole" just as with audio. If you can print an object, it would be extremely easy to sample the pulses sent to the stepper motors and run a "virtual 3D printer" algorithm on those waveforms to turn it back into an unencrypted 3D model suitable for unlimited printing on any printer. The only way around this would be to forbid 3D printers from printing unsigned objects, and forbid people from making their own (unencumbered) 3D printers. Given how many people have made their own repraps, that's already a non-starter.
- nooneelse 14y agoThe DRM could embed something analogous to a watermark in unseen parts/layers of the physical structure printed, like in the particular path used to fill in some layers. A recording of the stepper motor commands would still have that information encoded in it.
- duskwuff 14y agoIf someone came up with a specific method of embedding a physical watermark in infills which was easily detectable via nondestructive methods (i.e, without sawing the object in half -- perhaps something that would leave a pattern on X-ray or ultrasound?), but which didn't significantly affect the model's density, that would be nifty and likely patent-worthy. (In the best possible way: it'd necessarily be innovative, and would only cover the specific method described.) The method described in the patent, on the other hand, is largely uninnovative -- it simply describes a "phone-home" licensing scheme. It doesn't even appear to describe the "object code" as being encrypted, which would make it rather trivial to bypass.