Seems a bit far fetched… but you should at least be aware of the issues…
http://youtu.be/3hrqj1vOq0c
In a very general sense, nobody should be trusting their lives or well being in parts made on FDM machines. Now the general public may not know that either.
Curious that the stock footage of printing they chose is the @Robo_Hand design. Wonder if that’s intentionally relevant or just good luck.
What a terribly misleading title on that video. 3D printers don’t “circumvent” product liability law, they allow people who (generally) aren’t covered by product liability law to easily produce things they can sell. They’re just outside of the scope of current law.
This woman in my opinion is make Stanford look bad. 3d printed products are boo different than anything on etsy. Her analogy of buying a product from a neighbor is similar to having a neighbor mow your lawn. You forego your right to pass liability when purchasing a good in this fashion. I just hate how people cling onto 3d printing examples when it is no different than countless other more common scenarios. It seems like this woman is riding the wave of buzz. If she would have done the same piece on laser printers, or homemade woodwork, I think it would have had more credibility, but would have sounded boring and overly sensationalized.
Looks like a lawyer looking for future possible business to me.
Less lawyers = less nonsense lol
Ugh, and here I thought I was 3d modeling data, thanks for setting the record straight, Lawyer person, I’m 3d coding, - must run off to update resume.