"they will pay (lobby) our government to keep it that way."
You just answered your own question. The "great" thing about capitalism is that it encourages every company to externalize all costs, whether it be monetary, environmental, or social. AT&T externalized their costs by buying favors in government to give them billions to establish and maintain a oligopoly.
So the plaintiff can't take the NYPD to court because they weren't aware of the covert surveillance until someone told them about it with unauthorized publication? Also, the NYPD can violate any rights they wish, so long as the victim is not aware of it.
No, the NYPD does not have the power to participate in illegal surveillance just because the people being surveyed are unaware of their rights being violated. Police surveillance is, by its nature, covert. How is anyone supposed to fulfill the supposed 3 requirements the judge cited in order to effectively challenge these violations if the violations are being deliberately obscured from their awareness? So if I'm not aware that the police searched my home without a warrant or probable cause, I can't challenge their actions? What about my right to due process?
Whether or not someone was aware of their rights being violated cannot be a factor in challenging rights violations. The government agency must be held accountable for violations of protected rights regardless of victims' awareness. The whole point is to prevent and discourage violations of civil rights. What good is the 4th amendment if the NYPD can ignore it if they're doing it in secret? If the NYPD assassinates someone and no one is aware of it, is it legal? No, if a person murders another and nobody knows about it, our system of law says they still committed murder. A crime is a crime whether the victim is aware of it or not. "Injury in fact" is a bullshit excuse.
They use thermoplastic, so they are already reusable. Just about every recyclable container is thermoplastic. Polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, and PVC are all thermoplastics. Some are better suited to particular purposes, but they all can be melted and reshaped repeatedly.
What is stopping people from shredding those items so the resulting pellets can be melted into more raw material for the printers? This seems to be very ecologically efficient. Use cheap, reusable raw materials, make them into new items, and break them down into raw material again after they no longer serve a use. It seems to me that 3D printing is a way to create an abundance of highly reusable resources. Why would you toss useful raw materials into a landfill when you can just use it to make something else, saving you money in the process? I will be glad to see billions of people using these tools to see what they can create. I welcome the infinitely renewable, ubiquitously abundant, post-scarcity economy and their beneficent overloads.
It goes without saying that this guy is clueless. If he wants to be paid, and paid consistently, he should be seeking people willing to pay him to do what he does. If it takes him X number of hours to make something and he requires Y quantities of income to live on, then he should be seeking people that will collectively meet that threshold so that he can release it directly to the public domain. Then he has his income and he can extend it even further by touring.
If things like Kickstarter have taught us anything, is that people will pay to have stuff created and earn VIP/premium benefits for increasingly larger contributions. It's probably the least risky path for anybody to get paid for their work. If nobody pays you, you're not obligated to produce anything. If the threshold is met and you deliver on your promise, you're guaranteed to get paid. It's a distributed version of a work for hire model. Instead of one client, you have many and they all want the results of your work, which they are willing to pay their share for.
The biggest convenience is that I don't have to have a local copy of every movie, show, song, or book in existence. Imagine if you had to download every work that exists in a digital format to your hard drive in order to access them at you whim. Downloads are cheap, but you have to wait for them and you have to have space to store the download. So yeah, the selling point is remote storage and instant access.
I don't think anyone who cares about the subject is incognizant of the fact that DRM is a tool to make people buy more copies of the same thing when they ought to be able to make their own copy after they've paid for the first one. It's quite apparent that is what they sought to achieve.
As the AC said, the answer isn't "NO!", it's "give us more money and we'll think about it."
What a laughable and impotent platitude! If money gets you "votes" in the market, then who has the most votes? The people with a war chest the size of the Exxon Valdez, you twit! If your influence is contingent on how much money you have, then it's pretty plain why nothing changes. The status quo has the money. The status quo has the votes. The status quo has the most influence and they can leverage that influence to make sure they get to keep it. So you can take your "vote with your money" excuse and stuff it up your atrophied posterior until you can tickle your adenoids with it.
Do you even know what an ad hominem attack even is? No, you don't. "You can't trust John's recommendations on tax policy, he doesn't even have a job!". That, is an ad hominem. Calling you out on your bad behavior is not an ad hominem.