Feedback on website I made for people to get together to bulk purchase non-printable hardware for 3d printed projects

I really appreciated all of the shared knowledge on raprap when I was building my Rostock Max V2 (much needed as I was troubleshooting my initial prints) so I thought it would be a good group to ask for feedback on an idea I am working on.

Cliff Notes: I want to help make it easier to build the best maker projects that require 3d printed parts and other hardware/electronics. I created a website (http://www.assemble.fund) to help with this and I am curious if you guys think it is dumb or have any thoughts on how to improve the model. Below I outline my rationale for the site. Ultimately I just really like 3d printing and building things and want to help make it more accessible to others.

--end cliff notes

After I got my printer up and running and printed A LOT of solid objects/figurines I got kind of bored. I found a bunch of cool projects to build on thingiverse like:

- RC Speed Tank: [www.thingiverse.com]
- Gyroman: [www.thingiverse.com]

But it was hard to figure out what parts to get and the assembly instructions were not great...

I dove in and took on the Gyroman project. As I was going through the process of getting parts and doing the assembly I got really frustrated (it took forever and was expensive) and I thought others might be going through the same thing. I created a simple website where people can get together and say they want parts to build a project and then I will order, sort and ship them out to everyone. The site is [www.assemble.fund].

Also, there were several things on the Gyroman instructable page (https://www.instructables.com/id/Gyroma ... Gyroscope/) that took me awhile to figure out that I wanted to document somewhere but there is no way of adding to or editing an instructable. To get around this I created my own wiki anyone can edit or improve for any project, including gyroman: [wiki.assemble.fund].

I am curious if any of you have also tried to do one of the more complicated projects on thingiverse and if you had a similar experience. If so, would you prefer to contribute to a crowd funded campaign for me to buy all the parts and just ship a sorted kit of parts to you? if not what is a better method to accomplish the goal of easy access to inexpensive parts kits and good instructions? It didn't seem wise to make a lot of kits before i know if people wanted to make the project. I also do not have the budget or space to hold lots of inventory so my thinking was doing the crowd campaign will mean only the project that get enough support will trigger a payment.

I'd like to build other projects but most project originators don't take the time to build a good parts list and instructions so I need help from others to figure it all out.

In any case thank you for contributions to this community! It helped kick off my 3d printing experience so I am grateful!

take this example TANK

first ten backs the project helps fund supplies for the next 10 products or so then prepares a build manual which is then what! sold on by you/site, have you the creators consent to sell something to which they applied a License with a NonCommercial aspect of the License. just wondering how that works.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2017 12:11PM by jinx.

Good points, this is all very much in alpha and I am open to changing everything around, here are my thoughts:

The idea is a web site for collective purchases of parts for open-source designs. My thinking is that forum discussions for 'the questions' + a community built wiki for 'the final answers/instructions'+ crowdfunding for the parts will be the right recipe to get rid of the isolation and frustration I felt while trying to build things with my 3d printer. By getting together everyone could get parts for cheaper then they could alone and have clear instructions.

What do creators get out of this - if it was super easy to build advanced projects the creators would likely get a lot more traffic, downloads, and tips. This helps both them and sites like thingiverse. Also, i plan to tip the creators and in the long run I hope to have some functionality to allow users to tip creators on my website. I also will reach out to every creator once we start a focused effort to figure out their project and immediately remove any project the creators ask to be removed.

As one early indication of how creators feel about assemble.fund. I reached out to LoboCNC on thingiverse who is the creator of Gyroman. He seemed to really like the idea and we have been corresponding, He also voluntarily posted a link to the gyroman campaign to help his fans gain easy access to the parts.

i realize there is a perception risk where people think i am trying to capitalize on others open source creations, I really want them to be more accessible so am hopeful you guys can help me figure out how to address this and other concerns.

Quote
jinx
take this example TANK

first ten backs the project helps fund supplies for the next 10 products or so then prepares a build manual which is then what! sold on by you/site, have you the creators consent to sell something to which they applied a License with a NonCommercial aspect of the License. just wondering how that works.

This is really quite a tricky question. With the Tank design, obviously selling a complete kit (including the printed pieces) would be a violation of the non-commercial aspect of the Creative Commons license. Equally obvious is that selling a single bearing that could be used to build Tank design would not be a violation. The question then is what portion of a complete kit crosses the line to become a license violation? The cleanest way, of course, is to get explicit permission from the design's creator to sell partial kits. That's what assemble did with my Gyrorman design, and I applauded his efforts. (Of course, my Gyroman design was based on an original invention be John Jameson, and I initially sought out his permission, even though his patent had expired.) Absent explicit permission or denial from the original designer, I'd call partial kits of off-the-shelf components a real grey area.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2017 12:50PM by LoboCNC.

Nothing gray about a kit of off the shelf parts. Not a violation. It's when you add project specific parts you get into the gray area.

Quote
ElmoC
Nothing gray about a kit of off the shelf parts. Not a violation. It's when you add project specific parts you get into the gray area.

What about a design that consists entirely of off-the-shelf parts put together in a unique way? I don't think there's any logical restriction that a unique design must contain at least one unique, project specific part.

Quote
LoboCNC

Quote
ElmoC
Nothing gray about a kit of off the shelf parts. Not a violation. It's when you add project specific parts you get into the gray area.

What about a design that consists entirely of off-the-shelf parts put together in a unique way? I don't think there's any logical restriction that a unique design must contain at least one unique, project specific part.

If it is all off the shelf parts, not a problem as long as you don't include the instructions. Think of it this way. Someone designs an all wood dresser and licenses it as non-commercial. Does that mean no one can now sell a package of wood and hardware that can not only be used to make that dresser, but any number of other items?

If there is nothing unique about the item, then how can it be copyrighted? In your example, it is the assembly, not the parts, that is copyrighted.

Quote
LoboCNC

This is really quite a tricky question. With the Tank design, obviously selling a complete kit (including the printed pieces) would be a violation of the non-commercial aspect of the Creative Commons license. .

Ah! So when you all went to the site did you think it was saying what would be shipped to you was a kit that included the 3d printed parts? That is not the intention at all so let me know what gave that impression and I will change it on the site.

I am not proposing to provide the printed parts. The site would be to provide a packaged kit of off the shelf parts (bulk purchased for cost savings and sorted for efficiency) to people with 3d printers capable of printing the 3d printed parts. The site would also hopefully provide a place people could discuss the project in a forum and house community built instructions on the wiki.

I am hoping no party would be perceived as being hurt. My intent is that the end result is the creator, sites like thingiverse, and the builders all find value in the service being provided. If that is the case then it is unlikely they would go after the site for the potential licensing gray area. It doesn't seem like a package of screws, bearings, motors, arduinos, etc would be a violation but I am not a lawyer, I will ask one I know to look into this.

Quote
ElmoC


If it is all off the shelf parts, not a problem as long as you don't include the instructions. Think of it this way. Someone designs an all wood dresser and licenses it as non-commercial. Does that mean no one can now sell a package of wood and hardware that can not only be used to make that dresser, but any number of other items?

If there is nothing unique about the item, then how can it be copyrighted? In your example, it is the assembly, not the parts, that is copyrighted.

I don't think a mere lack of instructions would relieve you from infringement if you provided exactly the parts needed to assemble a protected design. I've heard of patent infringement cases where a company selling a collection of components which individually were not in violation were found to collectively violate a patent, even without any particular directions to assemble them in a manner that would infringe. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and am just blowing smoke, so I should probably bow out of this discussion.

Quote
LoboCNC

Quote
ElmoC


If it is all off the shelf parts, not a problem as long as you don't include the instructions. Think of it this way. Someone designs an all wood dresser and licenses it as non-commercial. Does that mean no one can now sell a package of wood and hardware that can not only be used to make that dresser, but any number of other items?

If there is nothing unique about the item, then how can it be copyrighted? In your example, it is the assembly, not the parts, that is copyrighted.

I don't think a mere lack of instructions would relieve you from infringement if you provided exactly the parts needed to assemble a protected design. I've heard of patent infringement cases where a company selling a collection of components which individually were not in violation were found to collectively violate a patent, even without any particular directions to assemble them in a manner that would infringe. Of course, I'm not a lawyer and am just blowing smoke, so I should probably bow out of this discussion.

Patents and Copyrights are two different beasts. I can't speak to the case you are referring to, but it doesn't sound likely. There had to be more going on than that.

An example of one of these weird cases was with Weight Watchers. They have patented their point system so anyone can get the algorithm by pulling up the patent. There were some programmers who wrote some smartphone apps to calculate the points. Weight Watchers sued. The end result was the uncompiled code could be distributed without violation since it contained publicly available information. The compiled version couldn't be since it was a complete item.

Quote
ElmoC

Patents and Copyrights are two different beasts. I can't speak to the case you are referring to, but it doesn't sound likely. There had to be more going on than that.

An example of one of these weird cases was with Weight Watchers. They have patented their point system so anyone can get the algorithm by pulling up the patent. There were some programmers who wrote some smartphone apps to calculate the points. Weight Watchers sued. The end result was the uncompiled code could be distributed without violation since it contained publicly available information. The compiled version couldn't be since it was a complete item.

Wow, that goes to show how poorly the legal world understands technology. What if the code was interpreted instead of compiled???

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2017 02:25PM by LoboCNC.

Quote
LoboCNC

Quote
ElmoC

Patents and Copyrights are two different beasts. I can't speak to the case you are referring to, but it doesn't sound likely. There had to be more going on than that.

An example of one of these weird cases was with Weight Watchers. They have patented their point system so anyone can get the algorithm by pulling up the patent. There were some programmers who wrote some smartphone apps to calculate the points. Weight Watchers sued. The end result was the uncompiled code could be distributed without violation since it contained publicly available information. The compiled version couldn't be since it was a complete item.

Wow, that goes to show how poorly the legal world understands technology. What if the code was interpreted instead of compiled???

The requirement was that the end user had to make the working object for themselves. In the case of interpretation, it is the end user causing the action, not the code creator. So it still fits and not a misunderstanding of technology.

assemble

Quote

Ah! So when you all went to the site did you think it was saying what would be shipped to you was a kit that included the 3d printed parts?

this did
"and send you only what you need, we first need to work together to figure out exactly what parts we need and where the best place to buy them is"

I was left with the impression I get everything needed for a complete build. maybe somewhere in red bold type " printed parts required separately ".

but with the support of the creator/designer from the start, solve a lot issues around CC and providing printed parts.
I personally dont believe tipping designers as a choice really works, thingiverse has it but I dont hear/read of designers getting rich on tips,, sooner see a $5 designer bounty added to the overall cost of the product. thinking out loud could be an incentive for others to make and share. granting assemble limited agreement to reproduce and distribute the parts at cost. in the long term enable community members to support each other locally.

one deal breaker I see are international members getting hammered by postal charges could balloon the makers budget. but as assemble grows and members create there network this becomes a lesser issue.

foremost though who is Assemble when the site mentions WE and OUR who is WE are they affiliated with existing webshops/group.

am with Lobo thinking this can be good/great thing for makers keeping prices down and making new friends , and wish you every success.
sure you see me in the forums

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2017 03:39PM by jinx.

Quote
jinx
assemble

Quote

Ah! So when you all went to the site did you think it was saying what would be shipped to you was a kit that included the 3d printed parts?

this did
"and send you only what you need, we first need to work together to figure out exactly what parts we need and where the best place to buy them is"

I was left with the impression I get everything needed for a complete build. maybe somewhere in red bold type " printed parts required separately ".

I see what you mean, great suggestion! I changed it to:

In order to get to the point we can bulk purchase, sort, and send you the non-printable hardware you need (while you print the rest of the parts), we first need to work together to figure out exactly what non-printable hardware we need and where the best place to buy them is.

We will then open a small (~10 participants) beta campaign for this project. These beta builders will get the parts at a deep discount and help troubleshoot the construction process and draft the instructions that everyone else can then use and improve on.

We will then open a much larger campaign to open the project to allow anyone that is interested to buy the non-printable parts that go with great instructions.

Quote
jinx
I personally dont believe tipping designers as a choice really works, thingiverse has it but I dont hear/read of designers getting rich on tips,, sooner see a $5 designer bounty added to the overall cost of the product. thinking out loud could be an incentive for others to make and share. granting assemble limited agreement to reproduce and distribute the parts at cost. in the long term enable community members to support each other locally.

The pay wall is a big animal to tackle. Imagine if you had to pay everytime you wanted to download a thingiverse file. I think it would be a massive barrier and dramatically slow down the growth and excitement of the community. That being said, since assemble.fund already requires a payment (to get the non printable hardware) maybe that could be the way to unlock a substantial reward system to awesome creators. i have absolutely no issue helping give back to those whose designs enable the whole system. (as long as it is clear the thingiverse account is the original creator. the dune buggy project is an example of a random person reposting someone else's work)

Quote
jinx

one deal breaker I see are international members getting hammered by postal charges could balloon the makers budget. but as assemble grows and members create there network this becomes a lesser issue.

The crowdfunding software i use allows me to set a requirement for an additional shipping rate for any country. Right now it is restricted to the US while i try to figure everything out.

Quote
jinx

foremost though who is Assemble when the site mentions WE and OUR who is WE are they affiliated with existing webshops/group.

Right now assemble.fund is literally me and a friend of mine. I sincerely hope it shifts away from 'me' and 'I' into a real community so optimistically use 'we' and 'us' in the website language. i am an engineer so this whole getting the word out thing is very intimidating to me! Let me know if you have any ideas.

Quote
jinx

am with Lobo thinking this can be good/great thing for makers keeping prices down and making new friends , and wish you every success.
sure you see me in the forums

I am so glad someone else thinks it makes sense. i've spent several weeks standing up the website, forum and wiki and hope it can add value to others efforts in some way. Please keep the suggestions coming! I appreciate the feedback and help!

Often the problem with open source, is that actually what happens is one charitable individual who releases designs gets screwed, whilst others profit. If you truly believe in the open source movement, you need to empower designers. I recommended designers see a cut of the profit, or you donate a sizeable chunk to maker-based charities.

All designs should be used with permission, there should be no discussion on this.

Quote
Origamib
Often the problem with open source, is that actually what happens is one charitable individual who releases designs gets screwed, whilst others profit. If you truly believe in the open source movement, you need to empower designers. I recommended designers see a cut of the profit, or you donate a sizeable chunk to maker-based charities.

All designs should be used with permission, there should be no discussion on this.

I agree on all fronts. Hopefully my last post speaks to your concerns. I have no desire to take away from the community, I am trying to add to and help it. Is there something about the way I am pitching this idea that implies otherwise? I sincerely want to figure out how to message what I am trying to do in a way that gets people excited rather than concerned I am taking away from others creativity and generosity.

How would you phrase the "about section" to resolve this concern?