Prevention of 3D counterfeiting to ensure the flow of royalty revenue

One of the challenges for writers like me is that when you submit a digital copy of your work, almost anyone can copy and use those words or run them through derivative software and steal it. That’s why DRM or Digital Rights Management software was created. Many have considered that this strategy could also be used for 3D code printing, thus allowing the designer or company that owns this product a copyright guarantee as long as their parts are produced.

Maybe you already see the challenges. In the writing format, anyone can grab a book, scan it, and then scan it and then have it, that is, they can plagiarize it, steal it whole, or modify it just enough to avoid it. the detection of copyright verification software. Okay, what if someone uses a 3D scanner to scan a part or item, scanning it, and once scanned, they just sell the code to others to print it in 3D, they’ve essentially stolen the design. This cannot be avoided and entails all sorts of dilemmas of quality, brand reputation, loss of revenue for the designer or patent holder.

Controlling this challenge is as difficult as controlling counterfeit clothing with a counterfeit label, look at this point. However, many thinkers are now busy working on this problem, let’s talk about one of the possible solutions considered so far, right?

There was an interesting article in Manufacturing News where they talked about the problems with hackers and counterfeit thieves stealing code from 3D printed parts, allowing others to steal these designs of parts without paying royalties. The new concept is to put defects in the code to prevent counterfeiting, this defective code would be removed before printing, but only under a set of specific conditions, counterfeiters would make the piece have defects, but it makes it useless and the user has wasted the material. with a defective part.

Wow, that’s pretty interesting, and maybe a good strategy, but it could also wreak havoc on a scammed customer from a major party. What if the part is an important part, for example, for a car, part of the brake system, what if someone buys that part assuming it’s real, then that part fails and causes the car to crash and the occupants stay seriously injured or even killed? ? It could then be said that the original manufacturer of the piece knew of the defect and sabotaged the hackers of its code, knowing that part could fail.

Who is to blame now? There is probably more than one culprit, the hacker, the manufacturer of the counterfeit product, the seller of the counterfeit merchandise and the original designer and / or manufacturer of the 3D printing code of the product with an intentional and malicious defect in the code. .

Will national defense companies start doing this, and will our adversaries who copy us crash their high-tech fighter jets, missiles, smart ammunition, and helicopters? In turn, they will try to inject malicious code into our 3D parts, have they already started? 3D printers will need to adopt a cryptocurrency strategy to make sure that a piece is authentic before printing to counter hackers: there is a lot at stake, so they will have to do some what about this problem

Suffice it to say; the future of manufacturing is becoming very interesting if you ask me? And, I know you didn’t, but thanks for reading this article anyway.