I thought he made some interesting points about how ultimately this type of legislation is just encouraging 3D printer manufacturers to just abandon open source, something they've been trying to do for years.

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

What if said manufacturers are funding this legislation so they can get it through as an opportunity to lock printers down? And what if this extends to 2D printers/scanners, and even software/devices in general?

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

they don't want us making parts and stuff at home to fix stuff.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Only one manufacturer is trying to abandon open source, and it's killing them.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The video specifically calls out Creality from a few years ago - and also the Bambu stuff recently.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

Creality is open. They listened. Bambu are fucked.

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 weeks ago

i mean, judging by their constant lawsuits, locking of their stuff and other assorted shenanigans, it's safe to say manufacturers would be bothered by us making our own replacement parts, or our own shit altogether.

i bet drm on 3d printers would ease their minds.

[–] EugeneNine@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

one could easily 3dprint lots of other types of "weapons"

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago

A Pikachu in the eye can blind someone.