However, they are not as forward thinking of the consequences. Many of these consequences are favorable, other papers will discuss the various uses of 3D printing; medical uses are an example. We can reasonably anticipate that medical uses will be moderated appropriately by the government, the grey area of question here falls under personal use. This brings us to our second stakeholder group: the general public. It cannot or perhaps should not, for the sake of argument, be assumed that the public will use this technology in accordance with copyright law. The same assumption was made and was found to be correct at the dawn of the internet age. Copyright law protects a free exchange of media, though there are a number of ways around this. .
Lastly we have patent holders and those who would be protected under intellectual property law. There is much to lose with this group; the idea of any household being able to recreate a product and distributed on a black market (of sorts) with relative ease is a nightmarish concept for these individuals.or is it? As we have already mentioned, there is a system in place with personal computers, and it is reasonable to assume that this template will offer some protection. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is our most observable example of a system in place. As it stands, a website that hosts content works as an unbiased intermediary between the uploader of content and the rightsholder. The uploader can upload whatever he or she wants, given that it does not violate any preset community guidelines. The rightsholder can object to content and report it to the website. The website will then remove the content and contact the uploader; the uploader can object, and the website will restore the content and report back to the rightsholder. The rightsholder can either acknowledge that there is indeed no copyright infringement taking place, or sue for violation of copyright.
