back to article Beam me up, Scotty, And VAPORIZE me in the process

Researchers in Germany have formulated a way to transfer information to a 3D printer on a one-time purchase basis, by killing off the original. The developers of "Scotty" believe that their development can allow 3D printing on a one-time use basis by destroying the object as it is scanned. The boffins attached a Raspberry Pi …

  1. Unicornpiss
    Alert

    So what happens...

    So what happens when the unit or its controller crashes (as things often do) partway into the destruction/construction process? Sounds like a bummer for the seller who has half a product while the buyer has (maybe) the other half...

    1. raving angry loony

      Re: So what happens...

      First thing I thought of as well. I can see destruction after confirmed duplication, but doing it piecemeal before that confirmation is just asking for a lot of trouble.

      This isn't "innovation", this is just attempting to enforce unworkable laws with unworkable technology.

      1. Matt 21

        Re: So what happens...

        Great for the environment too. Even if you can recycle what you've destroyed you're still throwing away the energy needed to turn it into something useful.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So what happens...

        > This isn't "innovation", this is just attempting to enforce unworkable laws with unworkable technology.

        It's essentially a sarcastic art project designed to poke fun at those unworkable laws.

  2. Aslan

    Really?

    A 3D object can be recreated merely with a sufficient number of photographs. It's a cool demo, but this in no way protects the object.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Really?

      "A 3D object can be recreated merely with a sufficient number of photographs. "

      Only in simple cases. An object may have deep undercuts, or even internal cavities. Think of a carburettor with its internal fine holes that are essential to its function. The only abstract representation of that complex layering is a digital file.

      1. Robert Helpmann??
        Childcatcher

        Re: Really?

        So this is essentially a one time streaming service based on a real-time scan and print of the product, right? Of course, no-one has ever figured out how to capture a stream. Leaving aside the issue of transcription and transmission errors, both fairly serious in this context, it seems like a lot of effort wasted on something that could be handled by current tech. After all, if the person on the other end is going to steal it, you will be handing them the only copy in existence. On the other hand, if the issue is with the person sending the widget, they will have physical possession of it before the start and will be able to do whatever they want before it is sent. Better to have the recipient sign a non-disclosure clause or license as they will be a lot easier to enforce than preventing unauthorized copying with this tech. This is a gimmick in search of a use.

        1. User McUser

          Re: Really?

          One could presume that they use some sort of replay attack prevention mechanism. They do claim to transmit it "securely" which surely would include such protections.

        2. chivo243 Silver badge
          Meh

          Re: Really?

          Just that one original copy? There may be X number of originals at location A. Thinking further, it is a delivery method based on having all of the stock at one location, destroying = a purchase = a transfer to location B-Z for example. The raw materials could be then used to construct another item at location A, etc

          Gimmicks today may be the basis for the future's underlying technology.

          At this time, I give the concept a half assed meh. It could be dead before it ever matures.

  3. Christian Berger

    Hasso Plattner is not a scientist

    The institute where those people work is named after "Hasso Plattner". He's not a scientist, but a business man who founded SAP. SAP finances some research into the futile parts of software design. You know the areas where trivial problems are solved with lots of code.

    I mean this is hardly science, it's more of an art project of what can happen if that kind of technology falls into the wrong hands. Technology is not there to mimic the limitations of the past, but to overcome them.

    BTW it's sickening how much they advertise their artificial restrictions as progress! That's why we need to teach ethics to people.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why would I buy this?

    It is a lot of expense to produce a part that would be far cheaper if I just had them ship it to me. Sure, if I need it in one hour instead of tomorrow or I'm somewhere hard to reach in the Antarctic or a space station it is better than shipping, but that's a pretty niche market.

    Destroying something in the process of replicating it isn't a big deal though, if it makes it easier/quicker/cheaper/possible to replicate it at all. They can keep their DRM however, and we can keep a copy of the data so we can make as many copies as we want of the once destroyed object.

  5. El Zorro

    The Teleport

    This is similar to the concept of the Blake's 7 teleport. The organic matter is copied, the information transmitted and reconstructed at the other end.

    The original is then destroyed.

    I doubt however that many people would willingly submit to being slowly milled out of existence on the off-chance the printer hasn't run out of "ink" at the other end

    1. Astarte

      Re: The Teleport

      HHTTG Ch.22:

      '... if you have to take me apart to get send me there then I for one won't go.'

  6. Marcus Fil
    FAIL

    I give up

    I was going to come up with several reasoned objections to the raison d'etre of this mechanism. However, the more I thought about it the more I realised it is complete and utter abject nonsense. It just does not solve any real work problem in a manner that could not be negated with a few minutes of clear thinking. Could the perpetrators please be redirected into doing something useful?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I give up

      Quite. List starts...

      1) Capture and replay the data;

      2) Put the received 'copy' in a modified 'transporter' and send it to a file;

      3) Etc.

      Also looks like a waste of raw material to me as two parts need to be made to fill an order for one.

    2. Oninoshiko

      Re: I give up

      The only useful case is where there are internal functional features, a destructive scan might be useful.

      At that point you could just save it to a file though.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If the person who has the original also has the plans for the original, why do they need to scan it destructively in order to send the instructions to the printer? They don't even need an original, they can just calculate the instructions from the plans!

    The scanner would be more useful for reverse-engineering competitor's designs or building counterfeit items.

    1. VinceH

      "If the person who has the original also has the plans for the original, why do they need to scan it destructively in order to send the instructions to the printer?"

      Exactly my thoughts. The suggested approach seems utterly wasteful - if the item being purchased is something that can be 3D printed at home, sending the design itself to the printer is a hell of a lot more sensible.

      There's an issue of protection - if you're technically selling the product and not the design, so the customer should only get one, then a mechanism needs to be in place to prevent multiple uses of the design; ideally it needs to go directly to the printer, mustn't pass go, and mustn't collect £300. That'll be a problem - but that'll also be a problem with the destructive, wasteful approach.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In other words, another solution looking for a problem to solve.

    Why don't these people get out into the real world and think about solving some of the problems we all have?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Blimey, why take things so seriously?

      There are lots of things in invented in this world that turn out to be useless. There are lots more than turn out to be useful in ways the inventors never imagined. This is how humans progress.

      Not everything invented has to succeed commercially in order to have value.

  9. A J Stiles
    FAIL

    Pointless

    At the age of about seven or eight, I invented a process for making message cassettes which could only be listened to once; by unscrewing the cassette shell after rewinding, inserting a small piece of loudspeaker magnet in the tape path just before the take-up spool and then reassembling.

    An hour or so later, I had invented a process for defeating my "one-time play" cassettes. Because one playing is all it takes, if there is another recorder plugged into the earphone socket of the first .....

    1. Simon Harris
      Flame

      Re: Pointless

      Kudos to your 7 year old ingenuity, but having an abrasive lead-out tape and enough matches to create a small fire embedded within the cassette would be more spectacular. "This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds, Jim".

    2. DNTP

      Re: Pointless

      "cassettes which could only be listened to once"

      "An hour or so later, I had invented a process for defeating"

      So what's your explanation for how you didn't subsequently become a millionaire consultant for the RIAA?

  10. Pen-y-gors

    Makes no sense

    "The system could prove vital for companies that wish to retail products to 3D printers. By holding buyers to a single copy, retailers could ensure a product can be sold and printed without the risk of pirates selling off additional copies of their 3D printed products."

    That's nonsense - the retailer's original would be destroyed in the process, and there's nothing to stop the buyer re-scanning and duplicating the copy.

    3d printing may one day be handy for creating a limited range of objects fairly quickly, at a distance. Problem is they'll all look almost, but not quite exactly, like a plastic model of the Eiffel Tower.

  11. Chris Holford
    Facepalm

    Hmmm

    If I understood the process correctly, what the receiver makes is a mirror image of the original. The top of the original is scanned and then destroyed by milling off one layer. This information is sent to the receiver which deposits the bottom layer of the recreated object. So what you get is a version of the original as seen reflected in a horizontal mirror.

    1. Terry 6 Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm

      The sheer lack of logic in this is actually quite mind numbing.

      It assumes the object existed in solid, 3D form, not just data. And was scanned to make a one-off transmission copy of something that has been made.

      The originator, who presumably would own the rights to this widgit, and has the original design data anyway, destroys his own (unneeded) copy in a rather extravagantly complicated way. (A hammer is cheaper and a blowtorch easier).

      The recipient, i.e. the person who may wish to breach the copyright, has exactly what he would have had with a conventional 3D printed or even shipped product. So for them nothing will change.

      Further, if the object can be reproduced from a 3D scan of the original, it can also be reproduced by a 3D scan of the product. The sort of things about the design that would prevent them scanning a copy would prevent scanning the original.

      Have I missed something? Was this written for publication on 1/4/15 and sent out in error?

      1. Red Bren
        FAIL

        Has Terry 6 Missed something?

        The second line of the article, perhaps - "The developers of "Scotty" believe that their development can allow 3D printing on a one-time use basis by destroying the object as it is scanned."

        > It assumes the object existed in solid, 3D form, not just data. And was scanned to make a one-off transmission copy of something that has been made.

        It's extravagantly complicated, but that's what they've done. No assuming needed.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why?

    This is the question you should always ask. Case in point as follows.

    Tax discs to display a cars valid tax payment recently became unnecessary as registration is not done via paperwork and on-line so only a licence plate check is required.

    So what do people do? Panic that they now have nothing to display in their tax disc holder on the front of their windscreen.

    The problem never existed, there is nothing needed to display in an unneeded tax disc holder. We just remove the empty holder from the dash and have an even clearer vision of the road ahead.

    Same here with the 3d "fax" machine. What problem were you trying to solve by destroying the original?

  13. Seanie Ryan

    nothing new here

    I did this months ago.. Object was scanned, printed to a printer miles away over TCP-IP. Then i got a hammer and smashed the crap out of the original. Job done.

    as for this: "By holding buyers to a single copy, retailers could ensure a product can be sold and printed without the risk of pirates selling off additional copies of their 3D printed products."

    How the hell does that work? I design something, I send it to you and destroy the original, so now I can't sell it again, and you now have it and can use a non-"Scotty" printer to copy it and sell on. Cant see any protection there.

    Seems like more that 3 seconds of thinking should have been applied here...

  14. Bucky 2

    The best use case I can come up with is that what we're talking about is a cheap scan of the source object, using a scanning technique that destroys that object as it removes each layer to discover the next. The source object would best be made of a very cheap material, of course, and part of its creation might be manual, rather than designed and rendered.

    Once the object has been scanned in this destructive way, then it can be mass-produced using the 3-dimensional model now in computer memory--perhaps using much more expensive materials than the original.

    The more copies you make, the more value this scanning method might have.

    Defining the process as being fundamentally limited to a single copy seems unreasonable.

  15. sisk

    Man in the middle

    Seriously, how trivial is it going to be to capture this data as it's in-route, so going through your computer, and create a file from it.

  16. Mikey

    Not exactly secure...

    Watching that video, it took me about 2 minutes to come up with the idea of monitoring the output from the motor controllers on your receiving end via an ADC, recording the result to an instruction file, and simply playing it back through a DAC, bypassing the original control circuitry.

    What DRM?

    Plus... it's a bit of a bad idea for sending people objects that are either mass produced (Just send the bloody thing to begin with) or things that are unique (I know! Let's destroy the original, and make an inferior copy out of plastic!)

    Still, it's an interesting experiment, and may yet yield something practical from the playtimes of demented students.

  17. Clive Galway

    The whole idea is fundamentally flawed

    It in no way guarantees that the object will be printed only one time.

    All it does is cost you extra, as you have to print a copy to send (instead of just squirting the schematics down the wire), introduces a margin of error, then it destroys YOUR copy? What use is that for people wanting to sell one-time prints?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like