Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Harvard Software 3D Prints Articulated Action Figures

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the there-goes-the-miniatures-industry dept.

Printer 75

An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from an article at Geek.com "A team of computer scientists at Harvard University have developed a piece of software that allows anyone to 3D print their own action figures at home. Not only will the models carry the likeness of the character, they will also be fully articulated. The software can take an animated 3D character and figure out where best to place its joints. In what is referred to as reverse rendering, the software first looks at an animated character's shape and movement and identifies the best joint points (original paper, paywalled). It then adjusts the size of the different parts of the model so as to allow a real joint to work once printed. Optimizations are then carried out to produce a model as close as possible to the on-screen version, but at the same time workable as an actual real-world, articulated 3D model." The bad news: Harvard is patenting everything and wants to commercialize it on a proprietary basis. The good news: An anonymous reader pointed toward the paper in full.

cancel ×

75 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Finally (4, Funny)

mblase (200735) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855153)

My very own Evil Wil Wheaton action figure can be a reality!

Re:Finally (4, Funny)

gagol (583737) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855173)

Is that you Sheldon Cooper?

Re:Finally (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855315)

Don't you mean your Wil Hweaton [wikia.com] figure?

Re:Finally (2)

SternisheFan (2529412) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855667)

My very own Evil Wil Wheaton action figure can be a reality!

Screw that, what about my fully articulated LIFE SIZE Seven of Nine dream doll??! ;-)

Re:Finally (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855875)

Seeing as "she" would be made from that hard printable plastic matrix and not, say, Fleshlight material, I'm thinking you might be a bit disappointed even if you COULD print "her" out.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856155)

Wouldn't printing Seven of Nine from hard plastic give you a more realistic doll?

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856185)

You could always print the mold instead and use that for it in silicone.

Re:Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40861731)

The outside of a fleshlight is already made from hard plastic, right? It's what's inside that matters. Just design a fleshlight-shaped cavity in the 3D model and install a fleshlight in the finished product.

Re:Finally (1)

Ramin_HAL9001 (1677134) | more than 2 years ago | (#40903103)

Who needs life size, I'd be happy with a Dead or Alive "Ayane" action figure with silicone boobs. I am tired of paying top yen for these figures.

The bad news (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855171)

"The bad news: Harvard is patenting everything and wants to commercialize it on a proprietary basis." So tired of this. I get it, but I'm tired of it.

Re:The bad news (2)

mblase (200735) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855193)

"The bad news: Harvard is patenting everything and wants to commercialize it on a proprietary basis." So tired of this. I get it, but I'm tired of it.

I don't think the poster meant that patenting and commercializing is inherently evil; I think he meant that he wouldn't be able to download it for free and use it himself for fun.

Re:The bad news (2)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855235)

I think he meant that he wouldn't be able to download it for free and use it himself for fun.

With his free, for-fun 3D printer.

Why do they call it 3D printing? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855361)

The plans are free, the software is free... they should call it free-printing [youtube.com] !

Re:The bad news (1)

gr3yh47 (2023310) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855257)

i think OP in this thread meant he's tired of people patenting things and commercializing them when they start with a technology like 3d printing that is designed for openness. But i could be wrong too

Re:The bad news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855335)

when they start with a technology like 3d printing that is designed for openness

Hate to break it to you but people have been patenting things related to 3d printing for years now. Your notion that it was "designed for openness" is extremely naive.

Re:The bad news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855459)

3D printing is no more "designed for openness" then printing or writing or singing. There have been 3D printers long before the reprap, and just because a part of the community thinks that no one except sellers of circuit-boards and metal pipes should be making a profit, doesn't mean that everyone else have to give up all hopes of generating a profit in 3D printing. They don't create stuff like this to make money, they however do need to make money to keep making stuff like this.

Re:The bad news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855267)

Look we saw what happened when Howard wolawitz took a cool invention home with him.

Re:The bad news (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855567)

I think he meant that he wouldn't be able to download it for free and use it himself for fun.

Until the torrent of the software comes out a day after it is released commercially.

Re:The bad news (1)

cfulton (543949) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855647)

I don't agree with software patents. I think they are unenforceable and generally for things that are beyond obvious (one click payment). But, this strikes me as more than that. They have done something non-obvious that creates something in the physical world and has value beyond just the source code. I think that should be patentable. I (or any moderately talented programmer) could create on click payment very quickly and easily. I could not just knock out automated fully articulated action 3d printable action figures. Now I understand that patents are not based on what is easy for me to do but, as a rough guide things that have value, are new to the world and rely on non-obvious original ideas should be patentable by their creators. Patents aren't bad, the serve a purpose. The crazy software patent wars are bad and stupid and server no purpose but to pay lawyers.

Re:The bad news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855879)

you miss the point. You copyright the code - no one can just steal and use it. But if someone else smarter
than you can do the same thing on their own they should be able to - but a patent would prevent that. Take your
example of "one click" you say it is easy for you so it shouldn't be patentable, but 99% of the population
couldn't do that.

Don't worry 'bout it LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856059)

This has been commercially available for a long, long time. Frankly, I fail to see how Harvard could legally hijack what the CAD/CAM/CAE segment has been doing for years. Shame on Harvard for riding on other people's coat tails and taking credit for.

I can do it to....I have this new invention I call the "weel". It's round and you put four of them on a vehicle so it can make go.

Harvard FAIL.

Re:The bad news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856431)

I read that as 'the good news: they patented it and in 20 years we all get it cheap'

Re:The bad news (1)

daid303 (843777) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856733)

Just about everything in 3D printed is patented. RepRap people just don't care about it. It's very hard to sue a community. Even the name for the most commonly used 3D printing method is trademarked. (Fused deposition modeling(tm) by Stratasys)

Legal analysis: fairly good news (2)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857077)

Here is a legal analysis of the situation:

The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing [ed.ac.uk]

It's somewhat long, but a one-line summary of what they concluded could be roughly:

At least in the UK and EU, there is no strong legal basis for constraints on non-commercial personal 3D printing.

It's worth reading the whole thing though, as it covers many different forms of legal restrictions on object replication. It certainly foresees problems ahead for commercial companies in this area, but provides legal opinion why personal printing is largely immune to it all.

Of course this means very little in the US legal system where anyone can sue anyone else for anything or for nothing.

Re:The bad news (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857163)

Just about everything in 3D printed is patented. RepRap people just don't care about it. It's very hard to sue a community. Even the name for the most commonly used 3D printing method is trademarked. (Fused deposition modeling(tm) by Stratasys)

Patents related to FDM-style printing have been expired for years. "Fused Deposition Modeling" is a trademark, but that's just a name for the technology, not the technology itself. An open name for describing the technology is "Fused Filament Fabrication" which sounds silly but it avoids that whole trademark business.

Re:The bad news (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856765)

Why? Do you think the countless hours and piles of money they sank into developing this came from the tooth fairy?

if you don't like this you are welcome to put together a team, come up with a product, put it on kickstarter, and see if you can get enough people interested to get it made. It has never been easier for those with a new idea to get that idea turned into reality in our entire history, but just because you want to give away your time and money doesn't mean other people have the same opinion.

Re:The bad news (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857145)

Why? Do you think the countless hours and piles of money they sank into developing this came from the tooth fairy?

While federal funding has been cut, they do receive federal funding. Until that reaches 0% of their income I am against them being able to patent their inventions, which should belong to The People, not used for profit so that they can overpay administrators.

Tax-subsidized reasearch should be freely usable (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40863661)

On that, from a decade ago: http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-funding-digital-public-works.html [pdfernhout.net]

Also by me, as a shorter version of the above:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html [pdfernhout.net]
"Foundations, other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars, and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research. In order to improve the effectiveness and collaborativeness of the non-profit sector overall, it is suggested these grantmaking organizations and donors move to requiring grantees to make any resulting copyrighted digital materials freely available on the internet, including free licenses granting the right for others to make and redistribute new derivative works without further permission. It is also suggested patents resulting from charitably subsidized research research also be made freely available for general use. The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission of helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at little cost by the internet) and a desire to maximize short term revenues through charging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights. In essence, with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible by the wide spread use of the internet, tax-exempt non-profits have become, perhaps unwittingly, caught up in a new form of "self-dealing", and it is up to donors and grantmakers (and eventually lawmakers) to prevent this by requiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants and donations. "

Project page with full paper (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855231)

http://www.baecher.info/fab_char_sig12.html

Printing articulated models isn't new... (1)

icebrain (944107) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855251)

I've printed (and designed) models that get sent to the 3D printer, and are articulated/movable fresh from build (after suitable cleanup), no post-printing assembly required.

The new idea is the "take a character and automatically place/design joints" part.

Re:Printing articulated models isn't new... (2)

Stele (9443) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856807)

So they're patenting some math.

DRM For Action Figures (2)

doubleplusungodly (1929514) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855261)

So how would the AFAA (Action Figure Association of America) implement some kind of DRM on action figures anyways? Would they try to force a blacklist of designs onto every 3d printer? Too bad for them the first thing I'm printing out is an army of pirates.

Re:DRM For Action Figures (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855709)

So now that we're past plastic plates, here we really go to Star Trek's Replicator. All that remains now is the ever growing list of "objects supported".

I'm just amazed that even as late as TNG/DS9/Voyager/Enterprise let's say less than five scripts out of _____ even mentioned property rights, let alone the kind of thing we're wrangling with now.

So for a 3D printable object, is the object covered by a patent because it's an object, or copyright because of the software that produces that object is essentially identical?

Re:DRM For Action Figures (1)

bigdavex (155746) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855763)

So now that we're past plastic plates, here we really go to Star Trek's Replicator. All that remains now is the ever growing list of "objects supported".

I'm waiting for Paramount to sue a person for printing pirate copies of a toy replicator.

Re:DRM For Action Figures (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856709)

So now that we're past plastic plates, here we really go to Star Trek's Replicator. All that remains now is the ever growing list of "objects supported".

I'm just amazed that even as late as TNG/DS9/Voyager/Enterprise let's say less than five scripts out of _____ even mentioned property rights, let alone the kind of thing we're wrangling with now.

So for a 3D printable object, is the object covered by a patent because it's an object, or copyright because of the software that produces that object is essentially identical?

The deal with the Star Trek universe is that humanity effectively gave up its need for greed and decided furthering humanity and knowledge was a far better goal.

It's why you also don't see them fighting over money and other things.

Unfortunately, it's pretty unrealistic, idealized view of the positive aspects of humanity. Nice to strive for, but ultimately impossible - greed is part and parcel of the human condition.

As for a 3D printable object, the file itself will be under copyright, while the object being printed out would be under patent laws (because patents cover physical manifestations - software patents have to do end runs because software doesn't have a physical manifestation other than a computer). Of course, patent trolls would love the new future as everyone will be a possible patent infringer.

And yes, DMCA requests have occurred to sites hosting 3D shape files.

Re:DRM For Action Figures (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856905)

Actually if you paid attention they DID have money in the Star Trek universe, it was just "credit slips" or in the case of Voyager they used replicator rations, which Paris always had a betting pool going with those as currency. If things were to progress like Star Trek most likely just as in ST it would be the things you can't replicate that are valued, such as latinum was prized over gold and diamonds precisely because you could replicate gold and diamonds but not latinum.

As for 3D printed objects I'd go with copyrights. After all you can print your own Star Trek shirts and DVDs now but you'll still get busted for piracy if you hawk them on a street corner and get a visit from a copyright troll if you try to download the vids. Most likely when this stuff gets cheap enough Joe Average can afford it and simple enough he can actually use it you'll get a DMCA style law passed along with plenty of DRM for the patterns that will have to be respected and recognized by the printer, no different than Blu Ray DRM, and just like any other DRM I'm sure you'll have pirates and copyright trolls no different than we have now.

Re:DRM For Action Figures (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857639)

"So for a 3D printable object, is the object covered by a patent because it's an object, or copyright because of the software that produces that object is essentially identical?"

The Chinese made a 3D copy of a whole Austrian village, albeit they didn't print it.

If you draw the Ringworld and print it out, I don't see what Niven could do about it as long as you don't begin to sell them.

Re:DRM For Action Figures (1)

citizenr (871508) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855713)

So how would the AFAA (Action Figure Association of America) implement some kind of DRM on action figures anyways? Would they try to force a blacklist of designs onto every 3d printer?

Fabrication Rights Management (FRM)

Re:DRM For Action Figures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855829)

Knew I had heard this before. Had to google to recall where.

The worse news (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855279)

cheaper action figures --> more crappy sequels to market them

Re:The worse news (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855689)

gives the term "direct to print" a whole new meaning

Anyone at home (2)

gsslay (807818) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855317)

"Anyone at home" is an interesting take on that. Just how many people have a 3D printer in their home? A tiny number I would think.

That's a serious question, how many?

Re:Anyone at home (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855797)

it's up in tens of thousands probably now if not hundrds if you count all.

I know I got mine on order...

Re:Anyone at home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40865155)

Oh, so the constant advertising on slashdot was successful. Congratulations then.

Re:Anyone at home (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 2 years ago | (#40859003)

Depends on the print resolution. The higher the resolution, the higher the printer price. Low resolution designs like MakerBot are cheap, and can be bought/built by almost anyone.

Also, with hackerspaces popping up all over the place, many people gain access to expensive tools like high end printers.
So you could design at home, and then go print it out. Like how we used Kinkos in the 90's.

Re:Anyone at home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40861305)

There are online services such as Shapeways:
  http://www.shapeways.com/.

Anyone has access to affordable printing on cutting edge 3D printers.

...the good news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855325)

The majority of people won't give a shit about "printing" their own action figures. And in any case, it's far cheaper, faster and better to just BUY a freaking doll in the store if the mood strikes. Really, this 3D printing nonsense has jumped the shark so hard, the shark is in orbit.

Re:...the good news (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855413)

Why would the shark be in orbit? It's the subject that jumps, not the shark.

Re:...the good news (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855449)

First of all, the shark doesn't do the jumping. Second, how do you buy action figures that aren't available for sale, like cartoon characters from obscure TV shows? Third, it's a nascent technology, so give it time to mature.

Re:...the good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855675)

Then I choose Jabberjaw as my action figure. And I'll print up a jet-pack accessory. That way, when it jumps the shark, it will indeed be an orbiting shark.

And a laser, must also print out a laser accessory. That's right: Orbiting Laser Shark!

Mwahahahaha!!!

Re:...the good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856399)

The shark is in orbit, you still have to jump over it. Duh.

Re:...the good news (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855461)

Really, this 3D printing nonsense has jumped the shark so hard, the shark is in orbit.

Oh crap, they've switched from lasers to nukes!

Jump the shark (1)

freeze128 (544774) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856011)

Yeah! Just like that Telephone thing. Really, if you want to talk to someone, just meet them face to face and talk with them. Sheesh!

And the Television. That's just a fad. It will never last.

And who would want to buy a car when you can raise your own horse?

Re:...the good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856569)

You underestimate the home market for 3D printing an action figure of your boss in order to perform voodoo rituals.

Re:...the good news (1)

Phasma Felis (582975) | more than 2 years ago | (#40861521)

Fast and cheap to buy a completely custom action figure? Yeah, I don't think they have those at Toys'R'Us.

One-step articulated toys have been my standard example of "really impressive shit 3D printing could someday do" for years. I just hope that Harvard's fucking patents don't prevent anyone else from doing it better and more affordably.

Prior Art (1)

Picass0 (147474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855505)

Anyone who actually goes to collector sites like One Sixth Warrior or Sideshow (Freaks) Collectors knows there are already people doing this. I've seen many zbrush sculpted, 3d printed custom head sculpts for high end collectables.

Re:Prior Art (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855577)

Again, the big deal is that this is AUTOMATIC. You don't need to do anything other than having the 3D animation model

Another high-paying job to be lost to automation (1)

WillAdams (45638) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855531)

Last time I checked, toy figure designers (requires 3D figure drawing skills, and a knowledge of plastics and manufacturing processes and mold-making) were paid quite well and were in high demand.

William

Re:Another high-paying job to be lost to automatio (2)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855585)

Or you could look at it as another labor-intensive job that humans don't have to do anymore. Unless they really want to.

Re:Another high-paying job to be lost to automatio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40855641)

Last time I checked, toy figure designers (requires 3D figure drawing skills, and a knowledge of plastics and manufacturing processes and mold-making) were paid quite well and were in high demand.

William

And that's BAD, how?

Really, you should work for RIAA/MPAA. The argument you make is essentially the same reason they're fighting against new technologies - protecting the status quo for no other reason than to protect the status quo.

Re:Another high-paying job to be lost to automatio (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40855787)

well now they can go on working on designs for better factories or higher end art.

why do you think it's good that talented material designers are tied up with toys?

(besides, it doesn't do that, they can still just make better stuff).

Re:Another high-paying job to be lost to automatio (1)

DynamoJoe (879038) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856663)

Or, it's good for the marketplace in that there will be more choice for consumers and lower prices all around, with a lower cost of entry to those who wish to produce. The industry will also have a larger, cheaper talent pool to select from, lowering their costs. Markets will open up for custom parts that didn't exist before. LOTS of money will change hands, stimulating the economy. Lawyers will benefit because this surely will be a hotly litigated subject for the next few decades.

Those who already work in the industry probably won't be supplanted by this anyway. Designing for a run of 10,000 is a different skillset than designing your own Iron Man Mark 1 action figure and hoping it doesn't crash your MakerBot.

Re:Another high-paying job to be lost to automatio (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857525)

iTunes will sell 3D models for downloading to your iCam?

Re:Another high-paying job to be lost to automatio (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40858489)

If you took a look at TFA. The output was done, in one color/transparent/translucent plastic.
Right now painting them is can still be done by a person.

Non-Profit? (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856077)

Harvard is supposed to be a non-profit entity and, unless I am mistaken, is tax exempt for this reason.

I think Universities should pay taxes right along with the rest of us. Fuck 'em. They should get deductions for scholarships but they should be paying tax on all their profits, just like any other greedy money hungry bunch o' sumbitches.

Re:Non-Profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40860201)

Non-profits are allowed to generate revenue.

Computerizing an innate human ability (1)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856309)

Humans have an innate ability to comprehend the spatial organization of an object and to replicate it in another medium, even to scale it automatically. Most of us are not expert sculptors and so we would do a rather poor job of it, but nevertheless, the ability is inherent in us all.

The so-called "reverse rendering" in the article is, again, just part of our innate object recognition ability. Without that ability, images would unrecognizable to us as 2D projections of 3D objects. The ability appears to be quite widespread throughout the animal kingdom too, it's certainly not limited just to us.

Improving this process by computerizing the object capture from 2D images and replicating the object through 3D printing is obviously very useful on a practical level, but hopefully the process is not being claimed to be something new. The process is quite obvious to us because we do it in our heads and with our hands as a natural ability, and it has thousands of years of prior art.

Doing it on a computer with a lot of maths doesn't change that. And maths isn't itself patentable, or at it least shouldn't be.

wow harvard actually does productive research? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40856407)

i thought they just cranked out assinine CEOs and douchebag bankers

Joint Choice (1)

Punko (784684) | more than 2 years ago | (#40856533)

I can see how they determine joint location, my question is whether or not the joint type selection is automatic. I.e. The knees didn't appear to be pure ball joints, but more like pinned joints. the tail and neck were obviously pure ball allowing multi-axis rotation, but the knees looked like single axis joints.

Re:Joint Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40859321)

Can 3D printers allow making joints that would be impracticle or cost prohibitive by other manufacturing techniques? If you can print a joint already connected (perhaps with the tiniest tab to hold in place but break away on use), then that - well would be cool.

Just how *big* are those figures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857489)

And could you partition the figures between joints, and print a life-sized droid... or human?

              mark "inquiring minds, and alla that""

3D Scanning / Modifying / Printing Action Figures (1)

Atmosphereum (1068854) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857751)

3D-printing action figures is something that I've wanted to do for a while. In case anyone with knowledge or expertise in printing action figures happens to read this, I'd like (1) to scan an existing, articulated action figure... somehow, perhaps using 123dapp Catch (123dapp.com), (2) to modify the resulting mesh using 3D modeling software such as Blender and (3) to make articulated 3D prints of the modified action figure. Please share any advice, recommendations or links that might be useful. Thanks in advance!

Toy companies will be the next RIAA (1)

Andrio (2580551) | more than 2 years ago | (#40857863)

I foresee within the next decade that we'll see a major explosion of piracy of 3D models of popular toys. Why buy that 10 dollar Batman figure for your kid when you can download the 3D model and print out your own? And of course toy companies will freak out much like the record labels did.

This is going to be pretty interesting. If I owned stock in a toy company or whatever, I'd be thinking about selling it.

Partial Misattribution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40857969)

Unfortunately the Harvard gazette article and the summary fail to mention that this was joint work with Cornell and TU Berlin. The professor from Cornell involved is Doug James, famous for great work in animation and sound rendering (for which he was singled out in a hilariously misguided way by you-cut-government: http://www.livescience.com/9108-scientists-call-citizen-review-funding-misleading.html).

Here comes the carbon credits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40861225)

Great, another cool tech way to generate useless stuff and toys.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>