One problem for writers like me is that when you publish a digital copy of your work, virtually anyone can copy it and use those words or run those words through derivative software and steal it. That is why DRM or Digital Rights Management software was created. Many believe that such a strategy can be used for 3D code printing, which gives the designer or the company that owns this product, a royalty guarantee in the production of their parts.
You may already see problems. In writing, anyone can take a book, scan it, then make it digital, and then get it, which means he can strip it up, steal it completely, or modify it enough to avoid detection by copyright checking software. Well, what if someone uses a 3D scanner to scan a part or object, thus digitizing it, and after digitizing just sells the code to others for 3D printing, essentially they stole the design. This cannot be prevented and this leads to all sorts of dilemmas in quality, brand reputation, loss of income for the designer or patent owner.
Police management of this problem is about as difficult as the police behind counterfeit clothing with a fake label, see this item. However, many thinkers are now busy working on this problem, let’s discuss one of the possible solutions considered so far?
There was an interesting article in Manufacturing News that discussed issues with hackers and counterfeit thieves who steal code on 3D-printed parts, allowing others to steal those parts without paying royalties. The new concept is to make flaws in the code to prevent counterfeiting that the faulty code will be removed before printing, but only under a certain set of conditions will counterfeiters make the item flawed but make it useless and the user then spend the material. with defective part.
Wow, this is a pretty interesting and perhaps good strategy, however it can also wreak havoc on an important part of a fraudulent client. What if an item is an important part, say, for a car, part of a brake system, then what if someone buys that item believing it to be genuine, then that item will fail, leading to an accident, and passengers will get sur ‘injuries or even die? Then one could say that the original parts manufacturer knew about the flaw and sabotaged the hackers of its code, knowing that this part could fail.
Who is to blame now? Of course, there are several culprits: a hacker, a manufacturer of a counterfeit product, a seller of counterfeit goods, and the original designer and / or producer of code for 3D printing for a product with a targeted and malicious flaw in the code.
Will national defense companies start doing this, and our copying opponents will have their high-tech fighters, missiles, smart ammunition and helicopters crash? Will they, in turn, try to introduce malicious code into our 3D parts they have already started? Will 3D printing providers need to adopt a cryptocurrency-type strategy to ensure the authenticity of the pre-print part to counter hackers – the stakes are high and so they will have to do something about it.
Suffice it to say; the future of production becomes very interesting if you ask me? And, I know you don’t, but thank you for reading this article anyway.