When will we realize that 3D printing means objects are just data now?

3D printing is being used for amazing things, but its biggest impact won’t be an application. It will be how it rewires our fundamental understanding of what an “object” really is: data.

From music to currency to books, we’ve grown used to the idea that digital forms are essentially the same as physical ones for many purposes. To own music, you don’t have to have a physical CD. To pay someone, you don’t have to hand them a wad of bills. And when I read Anna Karenina on my smart phone, it’s the same book as the paperback.

As 3D printing becomes more commonplace, we’re seeing the same thing happen for physical objects. A good example of this comes from last month, when hackers used a high-res photo published in the Washington Post to make detailed CAD files of TSA master keys. With just a quick download and a short 3D print job, anyone can now get these keys, and open almost any luggage lock. Of course they’re not literally the same keys, but for the purposes of security, that’s irrelevant. The Post effectively handed out copies of the master key — even though nothing physical left their building.

Another example is NASA’s project to email a tool to space. Earlier this year, ground engineers designed and tested a small ratchet wrench, and then sent the CAD file to the International Space Station where astronauts printed it out and used it. That tool, which is now orbiting the Earth, was never on the payload manifest of any rocket. And if the astronauts realize tomorrow they need a new tool, NASA is able to digitally send them one. (This first-of-a-kind “digital launch” has led to plenty of speculation about how to save weight on future missions — why carry hundreds of tools that you may not need? I’m sure Mark Watney would have loved a 3D printer on Mars.)

And let’s not forget Cody Wilson, the inventor of a 3D-printable gun, who is suing the US State Department to be allowed to post his designs online. The government previously ruled that these designs violated weapons-export laws, because people with 3D printers could create copies of the gun. Wilson isn’t shipping anything physical across any borders, but by this logic he’s still exporting weapons. (Intriguingly, Wilson is arguing that preventing him from posting the code is a violation of free speech.)

Of course we struggle with the idea that a physical object could ever be “just data”. After all, we think that objects are unique, traceable, and can’t be truly duplicated. Could you “own” an object just by having the digital files to print it out? By exchanging 3D-printable files like peer-to-peer music sharing, are we “sharing” actual objects?

I’ve been designing and 3D printing objects for a couple of years, and I see this confusion all the time. When I tell people about an interesting 3D-printable design, many of them ask me what size it is — which is just as meaningless as asking how loud my Trombone Shorty MP3s are. When I’ve given 3D-printed gifts to friends, they treat them very delicately, even though I can easily print them an exact replica if something happens to the original. I’ve even experienced this confusion myself: when assembling my 3D printer from a kit, I got upset that a piece was missing and began writing an angry email to the manufacturer, before realizing that the printer’s CAD designs were online. With a temporary duct tape fix, I printed out a perfect replacement part in 30 minutes, no shipping required.

This growing disruption and confusion about what it means to have and exchange physical objects isn’t just an abstract issue. It has real legal, social, and economic implications. Who owns the digital representation of 3D scans of your body? How will we sell replacement parts or new household goods when they can be printed directly from digital files? And how will we secure locks when one glimpse of a physical key effectively means someone now has a copy?

Unless and until we can change our fundamental understanding of what an object is — broaden it to include the idea that digital objects are just as real as physical ones for many applications — we’ll be stuck with this confusion and incoherence. The only way we’ll be able to find consistent approaches to handle this situation is by rewiring what we think of when we imagine an object. This change — in our very understanding of what objects are — will be much more profound than any of the (certainly useful) applications of the technology.