The future of fabrication is here: Shapeways announces stainless steel printing
crunchgear.com
crunchgear.com
If you think the RIAA an MPAA were a problem, wait until it’s Walmart and Costco.
On the other hand, I don’t think that tyranny (prosecute everyone) or anarchy (copy anything for free, designers get $0 for their effort) is going to be the optimal solution.
Once we achieve workable computer vision, automation is going to rapidly replace all non-creative human labor. And that's a lot closer than the technology required to make even an at-home lab* capable of turning out a copy of, say, an mp3 player. (* Allowing for separate machines that print circuits, build cases, etc)
Less complex/capable 'replicators' that turn out spare parts won't be that disruptive. The first world doesn't fix modern goods much as-is. When we do, we're tend to pay disproportionately more for the knowledge than the parts.
Physical Goods creators need to eat too!
Seems to me that online copying only happens when it's easier than buying content legitimately.
http://www.bathsheba.com/sculpt/
and
Anyone who thinks car parts will be made this doesn't understand the process. Thinking of it as a computer, rapid prototyping have a cost that is basically O(n). Molding/stamping have a cost that is O(1) + O(n), where the O(1) cost is HUGE and the O(n) part is tiny. At some point the mold/stamp makes a lot more sense. Cars are one application where this will NEVER EVER make sense - except for non functional prototypes.
On the other hand the jewelery idea is probably a good one, strength properties don't matter too much.
You are right that it is all about the situation, but I see too many people that think 3D printing is somehow going to revolutionize the manufacture of physical things, its not. It may work in really specific instances, but thats about it, and if I had to buy 1 manufacturing machine for my home/business it would be a CNC controlled mill not a 3D printer.
For those of you who have never built a process plant or oil refinery, the piping in the plant is almost always fabricated off-site by specialist piping fabricators, who assemble "spools" from individual piping components like flanges, pipe and elbows. The size of these spools are usually limited by the transport envelope - i.e. how big a spool can be transported (say in a 40ft container).
Every spool is different, so it is quite labor-intensive to prepare the individual components, weld them together, check all the welds (via x-ray, or ultrasonic testing), and them ship the spool to site. Being able to "print" a spool from a big bath of steel powder could potentially reduce costs significantly.
(Consider also, the benefits of being able to use custom-made parts in the piping spools: while a pipe carrying water might only require a standard thickness of elbow, a pipe carrying an erosive slurry would require a much thicker section of metal on the outside of the bends, where the slurry tends to wear away the pipe. The way this is currently dealt with is by making the _entire_ pipeline (not just the elbow) out of thicker materials).
This will be a long-time coming, as the current standards for process plant pipe (based on piping made of sections and fittings welded together) are extremely well proven, and exceptionally safe. But in 20 or 30 years......
You still have to heat treat it, and conventional powder metallurgy uses basically dies, but it's a lot more flexible than you give it credit for. Now, whether these guys are capable of the full monty here, as it were, is unknown. They may have been using stainless because their oxidization control is poor and so they need the corrosion resistance. Or maybe they're doing it because it's convenient; hard to say.