Washington house bill 2321 regarding 3d printers: Difference between revisions
Added archive URLs for 1 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
The question of whether computer code constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment remains partially unresolved. In 2016, during the ''Defense Distributed v. U.S. Department of State'' litigation, the Fifth Circuit declined to rule on the merits of the First Amendment claims, instead deciding the preliminary injunction on non-merits requirements. In her dissent, Judge Edith Jones wrote that the State Department ''"barely disputes that computer-related files and other technical data are speech protected by the First Amendment."''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf |title=Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't of State |website=United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |date=2016-09-20 |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250222140857/https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf |archive-date=22 Feb 2025}}</ref> | The question of whether computer code constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment remains partially unresolved. In 2016, during the ''Defense Distributed v. U.S. Department of State'' litigation, the Fifth Circuit declined to rule on the merits of the First Amendment claims, instead deciding the preliminary injunction on non-merits requirements. In her dissent, Judge Edith Jones wrote that the State Department ''"barely disputes that computer-related files and other technical data are speech protected by the First Amendment."''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf |title=Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep't of State |website=United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |date=2016-09-20 |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250222140857/https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-50759-CV0.pdf |archive-date=22 Feb 2025}}</ref> | ||
The case settled in July 2018 with the State Department waiving prior restraint against Defense Distributed and paying approximately $40,000 in legal fees. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert stated the government ''"would have lost this case in court, or would have likely lost this case in court, based on First Amendment grounds."''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-now-says-3-d-printable-guns-dont-make-sense-it-was-his-administration-that-helped-make-them-available |title=Judge temporarily blocks posting of blueprints for 3D printed guns |website=National Post |date=2018-08-01 |access-date=2026-01-22}}</ref> | The case settled in July 2018 with the State Department waiving prior restraint against Defense Distributed and paying approximately $40,000 in legal fees. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert stated the government ''"would have lost this case in court, or would have likely lost this case in court, based on First Amendment grounds."''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-now-says-3-d-printable-guns-dont-make-sense-it-was-his-administration-that-helped-make-them-available |title=Judge temporarily blocks posting of blueprints for 3D printed guns |website=National Post |date=2018-08-01 |access-date=2026-01-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260224120151/https://nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-now-says-3-d-printable-guns-dont-make-sense-it-was-his-administration-that-helped-make-them-available |archive-date=24 Feb 2026}}</ref> | ||
The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Defense Distributed litigation arguing that "publishing computer files that communicate information, even in an esoteric format, is speech protected by the First Amendment."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state |title=Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123004840/https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state |archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref> | The Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief in the Defense Distributed litigation arguing that "publishing computer files that communicate information, even in an esoteric format, is speech protected by the First Amendment."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state |title=Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123004840/https://www.eff.org/cases/defense-distributed-v-united-states-department-state |archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref> | ||
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
===Bambu Lab authorization control=== | ===Bambu Lab authorization control=== | ||
In January 2025, Bambu Lab announced | In January 2025, Bambu Lab announced [[Bambu Lab Authorization Control System|Authorization Control]] for its X1 series printers, introducing authentication for operations including firmware upgrades, print job initiation, and remote video access. The company cited security concerns including cyberattacks and DDoS attacks as motivation for the change.<ref name="bambu3dpi">{{cite web |url=https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-responds-to-backlash-over-new-firmware-update-235771/ |title=Bambu Lab Responds to Backlash Over New Firmware Update |website=3D Printing Industry |date=2025-01-20 |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260123004954/https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-responds-to-backlash-over-new-firmware-update-235771/ |archive-date=23 Jan 2026}}</ref> | ||
Third-party software including OrcaSlicer faced disruption. OrcaSlicer developer SoftFever publicly declined to adopt "Bambu Connect", calling it ''"unnecessary and of no meaningful benefit to users."''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-controversy-deepens-firmware-update-sparks-backlash-240588/ |title=Bambu Lab Controversy Deepens: Firmware Update Sparks Backlash |website=3D Printing Industry |date=2025-06-11 |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260217171536/https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-controversy-deepens-firmware-update-sparks-backlash-240588/ |archive-date=17 Feb 2026}}</ref> Josef Prusa, CEO of Prusa Research, commented on LinkedIn: "Quite scary where the 3DP industry is moving – control of your data."<ref name="bambu3dpi" /> | Third-party software including OrcaSlicer faced disruption. OrcaSlicer developer SoftFever publicly declined to adopt "Bambu Connect", calling it ''"unnecessary and of no meaningful benefit to users."''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-controversy-deepens-firmware-update-sparks-backlash-240588/ |title=Bambu Lab Controversy Deepens: Firmware Update Sparks Backlash |website=3D Printing Industry |date=2025-06-11 |access-date=2026-01-21 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260217171536/https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/bambu-lab-controversy-deepens-firmware-update-sparks-backlash-240588/ |archive-date=17 Feb 2026}}</ref> Josef Prusa, CEO of Prusa Research, commented on LinkedIn: "Quite scary where the 3DP industry is moving – control of your data."<ref name="bambu3dpi" /> | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:American legislation]] | ||
[[Category:Proposed legislation]] | [[Category:Proposed legislation]] | ||
[[Category:Right to repair]] | [[Category:Right to repair]] | ||
[[Category:3D printers]] | [[Category:3D printers]] | ||