Nikon does a dumb thing

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 4/19/05 5:28 AM, in article hu1fj2-ldl.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org, "Chris
Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

> Nikon are using weak encryption on part of the raw file (the white balance)
> in their D2X:
>
> http://photoshopnews.com/?p=226
>
> The apparent rationale for this is that it potentially makes 3rd party raw
> convertors in violation of the DMCA, and liable to be sued by Nikon.
>
> This is a really stupid thing for them to do - 3rd party raw convertors are
> a *good thing*, they *help* sell cameras. Lack of 3rd party support is
> something that will put a DSLR at a disadvantage.
>
> And quite aside from that, there's the small point that the copyright on a
> photograph belongs to the person who took it, yet such a person, if they try
> to write their own D2X raw convertor, is now at risk of being sued for
> copyright violation for accessing images which *they own the copyright to*.
>
> Nikon, you're being dumb. Stop it.
Agreed, it is really a dumb thing! Not only does this make it legally risky
for third party raw converters to decrypt the white balance it would appear
to make simple viewer / organizer programs, like iView, unable to display
D2X NEF's with 'as-shot' white balance.
Chuck

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
> Agreed, it is really a dumb thing! Not only does this make it legally risky
> for third party raw converters to decrypt the white balance it would appear
> to make simple viewer / organizer programs, like iView, unable to display
> D2X NEF's with 'as-shot' white balance.
> Chuck

It is probably an IP issue; it is probably the ability to claim a patent
on the .NEF format and this is a simple method to make enforcement easy
if it need be. I suspect Adobe paid for a license to incorporate a
converted for the .NEF format into Photoshop.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dx89e.9952$go4.9299@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
Ken Burns <kenburns@twave.net> wrote:
>
>Doing such a thing with a camera that will be used almost exclusively by
>professional photographers who probably use software other than Nikon's slow
>and buggy apps, is sure disaster for Nikon. They are going to get a lot of
>the already-sold D2X's back because this limitation makes them basically
>unuseable. They will not sell very many more now that this info is
>available. The few pros who have stayed with Nikon up till now will start
>switching to Canon in masses. Nikon is committing suicide, bankruptcy is
>emminent, the CEO should be hung from the yardarm before the ship sinks!

I think that's possibly a bit strong, but this move certainly seems to be
tactically unsound to me, especially when they aren't in the strongest of
positions to start with. The last thing they want to do is give professional
photographers the idea that Nikon makes the DSLRs that "don't work properly
with Photoshop".

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

snip
> I suspect Adobe paid for a license to incorporate a
> converted for the .NEF format into Photoshop.
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
> Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
>

According to posts in the Adobe forum, Nikon refused to sell decryption
rights to Adobe.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> writes:
> Bandwagon ... Canon -vs- Nikon ... opportunity ... jump.

Are you sure Canon hasn't done something similarly stupid?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Rubin wrote:
> UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.net> writes:
>
>>Canon and the other manufacturers should respond by adding DNG to
>>their list of raw formats. Force Nikon's hand.
>
>
> What's DNG?


It's a general digital negative format. Adobe developed it and then open
sourced it - they charges not royalties and anyone can use it. It's one
warty to ensure that there will always be reader capable of opening your
files.

So far the feedback from users, software vendors and camera makers has
been positive. A few camera makers have announced plans to support DNG
in future products.

--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:28:28 GMT, Chris Brown
<cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

>Nikon are using weak encryption on part of the raw file (the white balance)
>in their D2X:
>
>http://photoshopnews.com/?p=226
>
>The apparent rationale for this is that it potentially makes 3rd party raw
>convertors in violation of the DMCA, and liable to be sued by Nikon.

That's not what the article linked to says at all.
Nothing in the article says Nikon says this.
>
>This is a really stupid thing for them to do - 3rd party raw convertors are
>a *good thing*, they *help* sell cameras. Lack of 3rd party support is
>something that will put a DSLR at a disadvantage.
>
>And quite aside from that, there's the small point that the copyright on a
>photograph belongs to the person who took it, yet such a person, if they try
>to write their own D2X raw convertor, is now at risk of being sued for
>copyright violation for accessing images which *they own the copyright to*.
>
>Nikon, you're being dumb. Stop it.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:

> http://www.nikonpro.com/clear_definitions_main.php
>
> "Photoshop is excellent for graphic artists; Capture is designed for
> photographers."
>
> ...amongst other delusions of grandeur.

I have no experience with this "Capture", but the statement re:
"photoshop is for graphic artists" is on target.

> Much as I think it's karmaic to see Adobe getting the receiving end
of the
> DMCA (the way they behaved towards Dimirty Sklyarov was disgraceful),
Nikon
> can't win this battle. They're just going to hurt themselves.

So?

> Nikon - the DSLR that doesn't work properly with Photoshop. Great
selling
> point, guys.

If Nikon has, as you aver, decided to committ corporate suicide, well,
that's their choice. Who are we to stand in their way?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:hu1fj2-ldl.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> Nikon are using weak encryption on part of the raw file (the white
balance)
> in their D2X:
>
> Nikon, you're being dumb. Stop it.

Never been a Nikon user, don't ever intend to be, but I would love to see
somebody try to challenge Nikon's ridiculous move in the courts, on the
basis that the white balance of any individual photograph belongs to the
manufacturer of the photograph, and NOT the manufacturer of the camera.
H.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:54:03 GMT, UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.net>
wrote:

>Paul Rubin wrote:
>> UrbanVoyeur <nospam@nospam.net> writes:
>>
>>>Canon and the other manufacturers should respond by adding DNG to
>>>their list of raw formats. Force Nikon's hand.
>>
>>
>> What's DNG?
>
>
>It's a general digital negative format. Adobe developed it and then open
>sourced it - they charges not royalties and anyone can use it. It's one
>warty to ensure that there will always be reader capable of opening your
>files.
>
>So far the feedback from users, software vendors and camera makers has
>been positive. A few camera makers have announced plans to support DNG
>in future products.

Canon doesn't plan to but Lecia and Hasselblad have stepped up to it.

The RAW file format is proprietary and is designed to extract the
maximum information form the image. On the other hand there is value
in standardization, which makes it easier for software to deal with
the files. However standardization makes it more difficult to change
and improve the format. With a proprietary RAW file we can make
changes and improvements quickly to deal with advances in camera
technology. We have no problems with the Adobe proposal for
standardization, but for now we will stick with our own proprietary
RAW format.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photograp [...] plans.html

Hasselblad and Leica support Adobe DNG file format : Adobe Systems
Incorporated announced that Hasselblad and Leica Camera AG are among
the first camera manufacturers to commit to support Adobe DNG (Digital
Negative Specification). Hasselblad will work to allow export to the
Adobe DNG file format and Leica plans to include native support within
their new digital camera models. Just a few months after Adobe
announced the free Adobe DNG Converter, which translates all Photoshop
supported raw photo formats into the new universal DNG file format,
Hasselblad and Leica, along with respected software companies Phase
One, DxO Labs, Extensis Portfolio and iView, have rallied around this
single unified file format for archiving raw files.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/ne [...] _2803.html


******************************************************

"ich sprechen von euerm nicht,
ich sprechen vom ende de eulen
ich sprechen von butt und val...
ich speche nicht mehr von euch,
planern der spurlosen tat...
ich spechen von dem was nich spricht,
von den sprachlosen zeugen..."

Hans Magnus Enzensberger

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <h56dnT-U4-mi5_jfRVnyig@pipex.net>,
Hannah <hannah@example.com> wrote:
>Never been a Nikon user, don't ever intend to be, but I would love to see
>somebody try to challenge Nikon's ridiculous move in the courts, on the
>basis that the white balance of any individual photograph belongs to the
>manufacturer of the photograph, and NOT the manufacturer of the camera.

I think it depends on the amount of data that is encrypted. If the
encrypted data is a fairly simple transformation of the selected color
temperature, then Nikon does not own the copyright.

On the other hand, if they include a large chunk of data that is
designed by Nikon (for example executable code that can perform clever
subjective color transformations) then Nikon may claim ownership of part of
the encrypted data and they may have a case.

(Adobe probably wants to show who is in control. Providing better
support for Canon is much worse for Nikon than it is for Adobe).

Of course the usual disclaimer applies: IANAL.

--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <hu1fj2-ldl.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

> Nikon are using weak encryption on part of the raw file (the white balance)
> in their D2X:
>
> http://photoshopnews.com/?p=226
>
> The apparent rationale for this is that it potentially makes 3rd party raw
> convertors in violation of the DMCA, and liable to be sued by Nikon.
>
> This is a really stupid thing for them to do - 3rd party raw convertors are
> a *good thing*, they *help* sell cameras. Lack of 3rd party support is
> something that will put a DSLR at a disadvantage.
>
> And quite aside from that, there's the small point that the copyright on a
> photograph belongs to the person who took it, yet such a person, if they try
> to write their own D2X raw convertor, is now at risk of being sued for
> copyright violation for accessing images which *they own the copyright to*.
>
> Nikon, you're being dumb. Stop it.

Exactly.

Cracking encryption and encoded data alone does not violate even the
draconic DMCA. That has been proven over and over again. It only
angers customers while they wait for new conversion software. Invoking
the DCMA against a cracker could even get Nikon counter-sued for
attempting to claim ownership of a photographer's copyrighted photo
data. The only winners in a DCMA lawsuit are the lawyers.

If this half-assed scheme is the best technological advancement that
Nikon can come up with for a new camera, it's time worry about the
future of Nikon. The new $3500 D2Hs is already bewildering in its lack
of improvement.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <gjqb61ht5tqqj0auissec6ioqva40do16j@4ax.com>,
Confused <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:28:28 GMT
>In message <hu1fj2-ldl.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>
>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>> Nikon are using weak encryption on part of the raw file (the white balance)
>> in their D2X:
>>
>> http://photoshopnews.com/?p=226
>>
>> The apparent rationale for this is that it potentially makes 3rd party raw
>> convertors in violation of the DMCA, and liable to be sued by Nikon.
>> <SNIP>
>
>I agree, but how come no one complains about Adobe's
>gestapo approach to copy protection.

Plenty of people have complained about Adobe's practices in this regard.
Remember Dmitry Sklyarov?

>It's a violation
>of fair use and accepted backup and redundant machines
>for continued working in normal everyday conditions.

Oh that thing. Got a Mac myself.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:29:55 GMT
In message <pnghj2-52o.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

> > I agree, but how come no one complains about Adobe's
> > gestapo approach to copy protection.
>
> Plenty of people have complained about Adobe's practices in this regard.
> Remember Dmitry Sklyarov?

I didn't pay much attention because that case and
others are nothing more than sensor noise. In the
long run, the DRM folks will win out, because the
same companies that have been encouraging copying
are the same companies putting the self destruct
chips in hardware.

> > It's a violation
> > of fair use and accepted backup and redundant machines
> > for continued working in normal everyday conditions.
>
> Oh that thing. Got a Mac myself.

That's what ticked me off. I have an IBM laptop
and a Powerbook. I was going to get CS for
the Mac and start shopping for a G5 desktop.
The copy protection / activation is now
implemented on both platforms.

It's also nice of Adobe to drop direct CS sales
on their web site, and then increase the price
of CS at the retail level BEFORE releasing CS 2.

Jeff (regretting that I missed the pre-elements3 CS upgrade offer)

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:m1vc61lfr5gnj6qbqkrjmnskekiso3phk9@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:38:20 +0100, "Hannah" <hannah@example.com>
> wrote:
> >Never been a Nikon user, don't ever intend to be, but I would love to see
> >somebody try to challenge Nikon's ridiculous move in the courts, on the
> >basis that the white balance of any individual photograph belongs to the
> >manufacturer of the photograph, and NOT the manufacturer of the camera.
> >H.
> >
> >
> What rediculous moves in court are we talking about?
>
Duh. Do you understand English? I would like to see someone challenge (in
the courts) Nikon's ridiculous etc etc. Is that easier for you?
H.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:28:16 GMT, Chris Brown
<cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

>In article <0p4d61h17l5n1q5tisph1qc0e92rgvh498@4ax.com>,
>Confused <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:29:55 GMT
>>In message <pnghj2-52o.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>
>>Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > I agree, but how come no one complains about Adobe's
>>> > gestapo approach to copy protection.
>>>
>>> Plenty of people have complained about Adobe's practices in this regard.
>>> Remember Dmitry Sklyarov?
>>
>>I didn't pay much attention because that case and
>>others are nothing more than sensor noise.
>
>I think his family, and indeed the man himself, might have felt rather
>differently.

Hey, they dropped the charges and Elmsoft was found not guilty. What's
the big deal.

http://www.freesklyarov.org/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
> Thats why we, in Asia, depend on pirated software
>
So basically you are all thieves???

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darrell wrote:
> >
> > Thats why we, in Asia, depend on pirated software
> >
> So basically you are all thieves???

Yes, just as all Europeans and Americans are colonizers and murderers.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:28:23 GMT, Chris Brown
<cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

>In article <hejd61tafqh72jbctsst1riq244v1ta51d@4ax.com>,
>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:28:16 GMT, Chris Brown
>><cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>> > no one complains about Adobe's gestapo approach to copy protection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember Dmitry Sklyarov?
>>>>
>>>>I didn't pay much attention because that case and
>>>>others are nothing more than sensor noise.
>>>
>>>I think his family, and indeed the man himself, might have felt rather
>>>differently.
>>
>>Hey, they dropped the charges and Elmsoft was found not guilty. What's
>>the big deal.
>
>The big deal is that a man was forcibly detained (some of the time in
>prison) in a foreign country, kept from returning from his family, and made
>to face an uncertain future for months when all he was doing was presenting
>at a conference, because of the despicable way Adobe behaved.

It had nothing to do with a Abobe. It had to do with a law.

>
>If you don't think that's any kind of big deal, then I would have to wonder
>what happened to your basic humanity.

He had been charged with breaking a law whether the law is right or
wrong is another question. When you break a law and are arrested you
can expect all the bad things you mentioned to happen. When dealing
with the law and the state there is no such thing as basic humanity
just the reality of force.

I find despicable that he turned on his employer and became a tool of
the very law and state which had arrested him.

At least he was arrested and in jail in a place where was treated with
basic humanity.
******************************************************************

"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,
law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached
at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded,
by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom or the
virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at
every transaction, noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped,
measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished,
prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished."

"General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century"
Pierre Proudhon

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <t1umj2-ilr.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>The big deal is that a man was forcibly detained (some of the time in
>prison) in a foreign country, kept from returning from his family, and made
>to face an uncertain future for months when all he was doing was presenting
>at a conference, because of the despicable way Adobe behaved.

That he was forcibly detained is not entirely the fault of Adobe. If you
violate somebody's patent, there will be just a civil lawsuit.

The actual fault lies with the politicians who made breaking trivial
encryption schemes a criminal offense.

Of course, Adobe should not have filed a complaint in the first place, and
given their track record with pdf, they should not be trusted. Unfortunately
there is no real alternatives to Photoshop.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Philip Homburg commented courteously...

> Unfortunately there is no realalternatives to
> Photoshop.

Phillip, what's wrong with Paint Shop Pro 9 for 99 44/100%
of the "average" person's needs? Not that there's any such
thing as average...

--
ATM, aka Jerry

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3mmh611cmjnt8ja1no5q79mt0h6td3jqio@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:28:23 GMT, Chris Brown
><cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>>
>>The big deal is that a man was forcibly detained (some of the time in
>>prison) in a foreign country, kept from returning from his family, and made
>>to face an uncertain future for months when all he was doing was presenting
>>at a conference, because of the despicable way Adobe behaved.
>
>It had nothing to do with a Abobe. It had to do with a law.

Cobblers. If Adobe hadn't made a complaint, the whole thing would never have
happened. Even Adobe themselves admit their action precipitated Skylarov's
arrest.

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pr [...] oftqa.html

Note that they only withdrew their support for the prosecution of Dmitry
Sklyarov after he had already been charged, and after a substantial amount
of bad press had been generated. Dropping their support when it was entirely
likely that the US government would go ahead with a prosecution afterwards
smacks of a cheap publicity stunt, and doesn't even begin to make up for
the mess that Adobe precipitated in the first place.

>I find despicable that he turned on his employer and became a tool of
>the very law and state which had arrested him.

You'd rather that he refused and potentially spent years in what is arguably
the most brutal penal system in the developed world, after being offered a
way out when it was apparent that he was just being used as a pawn in a
business argument? Curious point of view - I don't regard it as remotely
noble to risk 5 years of my life to help my employer out in an intellectual
property dispute. No job is worth that.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Xns9640601A5B8E4ReplyToken@216.196.97.131>,
All Things Mopar <usenetMATP123@comcast.net> wrote:
>Philip Homburg commented courteously...
>
>> Unfortunately there is no realalternatives to
>> Photoshop.
>
>Phillip, what's wrong with Paint Shop Pro 9 for 99 44/100%
>of the "average" person's needs? Not that there's any such
>thing as average...

I don't think that Photoshop is for the average person. For low-end image
editing there are all sorts of programs. There is even the open source
program 'gimp'.

For professional use (and given that this thread is about the D2X, we can
assume that, or a very serious amateur), Photoshop is the program with the
least number of limitations.

Usually, the first thing to ask about other editors is: how does it handle
16-bit/ch images.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Darrell wrote:
>
>>>Thats why we, in Asia, depend on pirated software
>>>
>>
>>So basically you are all thieves???
>
>
> Yes, just as all Europeans and Americans are colonizers and murderers.
>
As a colonizing murderer, I take offense to that. :-)

--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com