This post may go over like a lead balloon

Software is property. Time and dollars are spent in the development of the software. What right do people have to copy, use or alter the property of others and claim it as their own.

Music, video, other software is used without payment, without any sense of theft. If everyone paid, the price would be lower for sure. More companies would prosper, more dollars available to continue on. The fact is, that today the only companies that prosper are the biggies that have critical mass and can charge enough to offset the theft. Its absolutely killing the small developer who are creating much of the innovation. The irony is, the guys that are creating the hacks are the very talent pool that the large companies will ultimately squash when they get their dream off the ground.

The biggest and most prosperious are the biggest offenders. Microsoft and Adobe are the strongest of the crowd. Tom Knoll is brilliant guy, but the marketing and operating team are not so warm and friendly and are willing to SQUASH anyone in their way. These guys play hardball. If they don't get their way, they will do anything to make a point. And they can afford to do so.

There is a battle brewing and its a battle of the giants. Electronics vs. software. Big software (verses small) is winning. We will all loose unless better rules exist. The hysteria against Nikon is fabricated. Nikon gives its customers a free plugin to keep one in the photoshop domain entirely if one wants to. If they want to add additional capability in their raw converter, that's their right to do so and the customer gets a benefit.  Why should they do the R&D and then just turn it over to Adobe. That's what you all are demanding.

I was on the bottom floor of the internet being one of the guys that got Concentric Network off the ground. I have benefited from the sweeping change that we all are now so comfortable in using in our daily lives.

Canon was once my camera of choice. I was a devotee for nearly 30+ years but after spending mega dollars in the FD lens line in the late 80's, they dumped me for the EOS mount, obsoleting multiple bodies and virtually every L lens in the line. I said this is progress, OK. Autofocus wasn't an issue for me so I soldered along and slowly added an EOS body and a few lenses where AF made sense. I bought in to Canon digital up to the 10D. Then they started futzing with the mount, killing value again, I said enough. Dumped Canon and went Nikon as they have been more backwards compatable where the majority of my investment lie. The D2x was a godsent to me and I couldn't be happier.

If someone copied your tiff files and claimed them as their own you'd be up in arms. OK let crop your file a little differently, maybe more saturation or use PS to alter it a little. Its now mine. Ha you say and I agree. My talent, my work, my inspiration. Photography is fortunate that its darn hard to reverse engineer the (data) pixels when its output to a print. Maybe some day scanners will challenge that assumption.

Someone is copying my .exe files every day and not paying. It makes it tough to prosper. I absolutely admire Adobe, I just see them for what they are  "self serving". You all are their willing soldiers.

Bob said:

"Software is property"

Yup...it is. But the data is MINE!  The NEFs are MINE, not Nikons or Canons (or pick your favourite vendor).  The image is MINE, digital or otherwise.  Just like music software is property (eg. iTunes is Apples software).  The music itself is owned by the copyright holder....the artist, or label or some such.  But I can buy the right to use that music, and when I do, I will use it any way I please, so long as I don't give it to anyone else.

Would you buy a camera where the image data was owned by the manufacturer and they "licensed" it's use to you?  Not on your life.

We are not talking about the software.....Nikon is welcome to own Capture and View, and license it's use.  They cannot have my image though.  Those are mine.  And the white balance setting is mine too, since I chose it (either manually or not).

Word is owned by Microsoft, but the document I produce with it, I own.  And the pressure is on MS to open up the document specification (with the advent of Open Office which has a well documented format spec).

If Nikon has a good raw converter, I will buy it (and have in fact, since I do own a legal copy of Capture).  But I also want the ability to use MY data any way I please, and that includes using 3rd party tools to process the raw data, including white balance.

We are not talking about the software, but the RAW file format.

And all the customers I have talked to about this say they want an open standard for RAW files (DNG is a good start). Or at least documented proprietary formats.

Given how many 3rd party converters are already out there, Pandora's box is wide open...and there is little to no competitive value left in hiding small bits of your format (like encrypting WB), since all the competition already knows what your format does and is.  And retention of backwards compatibility will prevent too massive a change, so you can't regain a proprietary advantage.

Compete on the strength of your Raw Converter software...it's features, it's flexibility, it's speed (or lack thereof).  No problem.

But competing by trying to lock your customers into a proprietary format is a going out of business strategy. We won't accept it: we'll either break it (that took a few weeks only) or we'll switch to a manufacturer that cares about what we, the customers, want.  It's a no-win for the manufacturer.

Maybe 20 years ago...but not in the internet age.

Robert said:

" Nowadays nobody supports anything and nobody fixes anything, they just sell you a new release."

That is not entirely true.  Sure, there is crap, unsupported software out there (both commercial and open source). And there is some very good software out there as well, fully supported (again both commercial and open source).

The best support I have EVER received has been for free, open source software.  In many more than on occasion too.  So if my experience is any indicator, open source actually has better support, on average, than commercial code.

But you're missing the point of "open".  With open source and even open standards (or at least documented proprietary ones), you have options, especially farther into the future. You can modify or support the software yourself, because you have the code or the spec.  If you can't or don't want to do that, you can pay someone else to do it for you, again because you have the source colde or at least the spec for your data, and you can do this almost indefinitely into the future, especially when you consider that you can have a custom converter built to get you to DNG V666 in 2666. ;-)

With proprietary, closed solutions, if the vendor goes tits up, you typically don't have these options.  In large software systems, escrow agreements are common (where the source is deposited with a 4rd party escrow agent) and you can get what you need in the event of a corporate failure.  But you don't have that option for retail-level consumer software.

'nuf said.

Doesn't look like it as Nikon's latest press on the subject basically states that this is all a misunderstaning and misinformation.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203...nefresponse.asp



I remember that story. It was in the book of "Brook" where the History of the World is discussed.



As I stated, you do not own the software as a whole but the physical copy of that software. You are free to use it apropriately but not free to distribute it, which includes installing it on multiple computers unless the creator specifies otherwise.

And since I'm thinking about it, I'll jabber some more on it.

Agian, software is not the property of the software creator. We are not renting or leasing the software in any way. We pay $X for it and we own that copy and can use that software within the confines of the law. Software is intelectual property.

Lets relate it to a camera (although thigs are slightly different, the jist of what I am going to say remains the same). When you buy a camera you own that camera but the camera maker owns the copyrights on the design of that camera. You cannot make an exact duplicate of the camera and distribute it as that is a violation of copyright law and a violation of the camera makers intelectual rights. But you can reverse engineer some elements of that camera and make your own camera design based off of that.

Copyright law protects that camera design as a whole. It protects software as a whole. It prevents others from profiting from your hard work. It does not prevent people from owning what they purchase and it does not prevent people from owning what they make with that camera and/or software.

The NEF is copyrighted in the same way. It's protected as a whole.. Individual components of that NEF are not copyrightable and this includes the custom WB metadata tag. The WB tag is created by you and is part of your copyrighted work. You do not own the copyright to the tag (it can't be copyrighted) but it is part of your work as a whole. In this regard, it could be argued that Nikon is infringing upon your copyrights since they are effectivbely preventing you from utilizing your work fully unless you use their software. This most definatly infringes upon fair use rights.

Unfortunatly since the DCMA is so poorly written, cracking the encryption of the encrypted WB tag (which is part of Nikons copyrighted work NEF - not a copyrighted item itself) can be considered an circumvention of Nikon's copyrights (which really it isn't since only the WB tag is effected) and Nikon could by all rights sue the creator of DCraw and anyone else who does into want to be locked into Nikon's software. One (of many) similar situation to this is the Lexar case regarding printer cartridges where Lexar used the DCMA to try and lock out competition and screw over consumers.

I would suggest reading more on copyrights at the US Copyright Office for anyone who wants to understand more on intelectual propery applies (in America).

Disclaimer: I make no claims at being a lawyer or a copyright expert. The subject of copyrights and the DCMA are subjects I have been following closely and I have put alot of research time into since they are subjects that directly effect me in more than just the photography I make. I am simply passing along the knowledge of the subject that I have gained. If someone with more actual knowledge (not talking out their back end) in the area wants to correct me or add to this with substantiated information I welcome it.

Rob C,

Correct usage demands capitals after colons in Blighty too, you know. Just not after semi-colons.

End of off-topic grammar exercises.

W

Hmm, sales & marketing 101 - don't antagonize your potential and existing customers! Let's see now, unnecessary encryption and just plain stupid marketing material all in one week. I'm sure that only a very few people are ACTUALLY affected by this (heck, I can always set white balance in the raw convertor later - it's not exactly brain surgery or the end of the world, even if you are setting white balance for a shooting session) but the bad press has got to hurt sales & Nikon's reputation at some point.

So, do you think there's a new opening at Nikon right now for a good marketing person? Do you think someone lost their pinkie or had to fall on their sword over this debacle??

I don't have one of these cameras to test such things out with, but what's wrong with Nikon's own PS plugin?

The problem with that example is that internet explorer (IE) is a proprietary software aplication (and it was the inovative one at the time but came to a hault in '01). Adobe DNG is an open file format. As a programer you should know (as I'm sure you do) that those are two very different things.

IE has become the mainstay for the internet with ~96% useage in the market. The problem with that is that it's controlled fully my MS and never updated or advanced (why would they, there is no real competition-till now). The advancements in way we interact with the net and web-design has litteraly been held back due to it's domanance. Since DNG is an open and backwards compatable standard, that kind of lock-in is not possable.

What is needed is for an independant non-profit organization to maintain standards for digital imaging. Sort of like the ISO but more specialized. Kind of like how the interet has the W3C which sets markup language standards. This will give a central place for inovation and full easily-accessed public documentation. Companies can pettition for improvements wich can be implemented in updates to the standard(s) and programers can plan ahead for future updates and advancements.

Yeah, it's all part of the same problem, big corporations seal themselves off from being communicated with by their customers.  I wonder if Nikon decision makers are even aware yet of how badly they're alienating a lot of us.  I also wonder how you can get feedback about possible product improvement to them.  I'm sure that giving us a more versatile bracketing implementation for the D2X would be a fairly simple firmware modification, but will we ever see it?  Do they care?  I can't believe they really don't care, but they seem to think that they don't need to hear from their customers directly to know what we might find most useful and desirable.  BAD BAD BAD.  They should be spending the money they're wasting with their software billgatesing effort and spending it on opening more effective communication channels to their customers.

Good idea. And maybe we could combine both kinds of composition into some useful rules like "Always place a colon one third of the way through a sentence."  

Amen.

Everyone should wander over to dpreview and check out the interview with Dave Coffin:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042701...ininterview.asp

It seems that Canon also applies a type of encryption to color balance on some of their cameras.  And Phase One encrypts their entire RAW file. Also Sony.

Makes you wonder why Adobe didn't throw their arms up in the air about those cameras.  Hmm...


This is from Dave Coffin's site:

The best action is to write to Nikon. To be honest, I don't think ACR is all that hot. It's sub-par in terms of workflow and the interface isn't so hot either. Kodak's Photodesk is a good example of what a manufacturer can do.

I think the whole idea of ACR-Rules is wrong. The new ACR will be very nice, I'm sure. But they'll still have side-cart files, etc. Kodak is a good example of what a company can do with software if they put their mind to it. In the last two years Photodesk has turned into a fine program. In December of 04 they recompiled both the Mac and PC version, which resulted in huge speed increases all around. The idea of manufacturer-based RAW converters isn't wrong or bad. It just needs to be implemented correctly, and with a lot of user input. If Nikon does this (and perhaps follows Kodak's examples) things will be okay.

I

You may be right and I may have been too quick on the draw. I saw something on Rob Galbraith's forum about there being a "key" that is embedded in the file that is used to read the WB data. If it actually is a "key" in the data encryption sense of the word, and not something else (such as a lookup index) which someone who is not technically inclined is mis-identifying as a "key", then it is a bizarre design decision indeed. After all, why just "encrypt" that one piece of data, then provide the unlocking key for everyone to read? Anyway, I'll bow out and let Nikon, Adobe and Bibble sort it out. They're big boys, they don't need my help. It wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last that a big corporation makes a dumb move. Happens all the time.

Just after I posted my prior thoughts, I checked the Nikonians discussions, finding to my delight, that this has already been done!  Read on....

"A Massachusetts programmer says he has broken a proprietary encryption code that has effectively forced some Nikon digital camera owners to use the company’s own software.

Because Nikon scrambled a portion of the file, legal worries have kept third-party developers like Adobe Systems from supporting Nikon’s uncompressed 'raw' photos in their software. Nikon sells its Nikon Capture utility for $100.

'It’s an open format now,' said programmer Dave Coffin, who posted the decryption code on his Web site this week. 'I broke that encryption–I reverse-engineered it.'"

More at this link:

http://news.com.com/Nikons+....48.html

Dave Coffin is the author of the DCRaw program, an open source raw converter. Source code can be found here:

http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/index.html

Take that Nikon (and everyone else who dares try to screw with their customers!)!   This is the era of the internet, where information and data formats want to be free....nay, demand to be free!  You are fighting a losing battle...and may lose the war (and your market share) by warring with your customers.

Now stop this silliness and support an open format like DNG or open up the specs for your own RAW formats.  The market demands it.  If your software can't compete in a competitive market, then this silly proprietary behaviour ain't gonna cure the problem.

The customers have spoken!  Stick to creating better cameras and lenses, which is what you are good at.

<wide grins>

You don't own the software when you buy CS or almost any other software I can think of. You acquire a "right to use" license. This is where the conditions on use come in. How many installations / copies etc. in use. How many can run at once. Including the now common network search to insure a copy is not being run on an other "puter.

I have no problem using my NEF files now. And I never touch Capture. All of my work exists within some other converting/editing application.

So how is Nikon hurting us? Trying to develop features unique to Capture. What everyone calls encription is not functionally and practicially different from compiling.

In the end..You get the output of your input. Nikon is not withholding anything.

This is a discussion/debate which will never be agreed upon. One poll I'd like to see is how many have paid for CS in the user group. I know some have. Other justify not paying in many ways. Its too expensive, it's cool but..., Adobe makes too much money... and on and on. The only thing I hold against Adobe is this smear campaign. But they won the hearts and mind and took the focus off their new conditions of purchase.

Maybe some day you'll have someone use one of your images for personal or commercial gain without your permission. Actually I hope not.

Cheap shot...  

You don't know me and I don't know you. Please keep the discussion on a civil level.

I don't think you see the fundamental difference between a compiler and encryption software (or you're simply not expressing yourself in a way that indicates such understanding).

A compiler takes human-readable instructions to the computer and compiles those instructions in a way that the computer can understand.  The result may very well be human-readable, too, there is no need to hide what actually goes on.

Encryption software attempts to make it extremely hard or impossible for any unauthorized entity to get at the encrypted data.  This includes computers and software, not just humans.  Encrypted data is nothing to accept, even at face value, it's intentionally inaccessible.

Or, in over-simplified brevity: a compiler deals with computer programs, encryption deals with data.  Your image in NEF format is not a program, it's data.

Of course, in some instances, the encryption is a product of ineptitude, and is easy to break, q.v. DeCSS, and apparently also the NEF format.  But that does not affect the legal issue at hand; Nikon has intentionally placed a constraint on the practical use of photographers' works of art, and the use of "circumvention devices" to get at your own data is practically necessary if you don't want to use software provided by Nikon.  Mind you, this is currently only an issue in nations with the DMCA or similar legislation.

Hi JC

Nikon as plural or singular? It's not complicated from a UK point of view: Nikon is a company - 'a' company - a form of collective plural, so you would use the singular.

In a way, and a propos of nothing much, it reminds me of the hoary old one about the glass being half-full or half-empty: if you are in the process of filling it, then when you reach the mid-point it becomes half-full; if you are emptying it, then it becomes half-empty. Ain't a lot more to it.

Something which seems odd to my U.K. eyes is the transatlantic thing with colons: you seem to use a capital straight after them unlike the custom in G.B. but then, we are a people divided by a common language, no? But don't let it bug you - we find so many of our own countrymen completely beyond understanding on any level.

Ciao - Rob C

Yeah, the more I have my face right close into this mess (with a crappy raw converter that won't even install on my Mac systems), it seems totally inconceivable that a company that makes such great lenses and cameras can also be so stupid as to release their first really innovative new camera in years along with an unfinished beta raw converter that they're trying to shove down everyone's throat while extorting $100 for it.  
An all around amazing degree of Nikon myopia and Shit_Storm weather prediction dysfunctionality.  The D2X and available lenses are so great, however, that I believe Nikon will weather the storm somehow.