Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              6       7       end
  

Archive 2005 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

  
 
molson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


frizbone wrote:
Molson,

Please explain why you support this. If I shoot a picture it's my picture. I should be able to do with it as I please.
Ken


So if I steal a copy of your picture, I should be able to do with it as I please, right? Just like Adobe seems to want to do with Nikon's proprietary software code?

It's hard to explain this concept to the hobbyists who are only concerned about getting free software, and don't understand the importance of defending copyright and intellectual property rights, but it's not Nikon who are the bad guys here. Adobe's mudslinging PR antics certainly seem to be working, though.



Apr 19, 2005 at 06:56 PM
stevenas
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


molson wrote:
So if I steal a copy of your picture, I should be able to do with it as I please, right? Just like Adobe seems to want to do with Nikon's proprietary software code?

It's hard to explain this concept to the hobbyists who are only concerned about getting free software, and don't understand the importance of defending copyright and intellectual property rights, but it's not Nikon who are the bad guys here. Adobe's mudslinging PR antics certainly seem to be working, though.


Yeah, just keep telling yourself that.......



Apr 19, 2005 at 07:03 PM
camey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Photoshop is free? Last time I looked it cost many hundreds of dollars. I'm a software developer myself so I'm certainly not an advocate of undermining developers right to make a living but let's sort out the facts from the emotions here. My images are copyright to me, not Nikon. The program that I choose to purchase (neither NC or ACR are free) should be based on who can offer the best processor for the image. Right now that's NC in my opinion but those of us who remember how bad early versions of NC were in the D1 days, can appreciate that a little competition (Bibble, Qimage) is a good thing. Nikon are trying to win the race by tripping their competitors, rather than making an honest effort to stay ahead, and that's a bad thing for consumers.


Apr 19, 2005 at 07:23 PM
frizbone
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


molson wrote:
So if I steal a copy of your picture, I should be able to do with it as I please, right? Just like Adobe seems to want to do with Nikon's proprietary software code?

Wake up, it has nothing to do with what Adobe does with the .nef, it has everything to do with what I do with it. I took the picture using a Nikon camera. The output is mine. Nikon nor anyone else should have any say in regards to what I do with the output from the camera. Photography has worked this way for over a hundred years. Why do you want Nikon to begin the process of owning photographers images. Nikon's big mistake is that they are messing with the wrong type of consumer. Pro's will go elsewhere. If they were to do this on consumer grade equipment, it would be just as unethicle, but nobody would care until its too late. Fortunately for us there are very few people who think like Molsen.

Molsen, please explain why Nikon should control the digital output from our cameras, and do you think they should somehow try the same with film, like only allowing their equipment to work with certain films that only Nikon can process for a fee of course?

I look forward to you enlightening response.

Ken



Apr 19, 2005 at 08:11 PM
frizbone
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Molsen, one more thing.

You seem to be obsessed that Adobe is somehow infringing on Nikon. This makes no sense for many reasons.

1. Nikon made a pluging specifically for Adobe Photoshop so that Nikon customers could open their .nef files in Photoshop. This plugin was free with the camera.

2. Adobe came along and created a more full featured plugin that accomplished the same thing, as have many other software makers. (This process is totally legit. Software companies make software that integrates to other software/hardware all the time. It's kind of like the "INTERNET".)

3. Nikon then decides out of the blue to encrypt one arbitrary portion of the .nef file so that Photoshop will either not be compatible or Adobe will have to brake the encryption.

4. Adobe has stated that they are not going to break that encryption.

Tell me again what Adobe has done that has you all up in a hizzy.

The only thing happening here is Nikon is screwing their customers and themselves.

Thanks again,

Ken



Apr 19, 2005 at 08:41 PM
Octavio Salles
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


frizbone wrote:
4. Adobe has stated that they are not going to break that encryption.


Where did you see that Nikon is not going to break the encryption ?? The D2X is a brand new camera, I bet they will let Adobe use it... but definetly NOT free softwares out there... and I think they are right.



Apr 19, 2005 at 09:16 PM
stevenas
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Octavio Salles wrote:
Where did you see that Nikon is not going to break the encryption ?? The D2X is a brand new camera, I bet they will let Adobe use it... but definetly NOT free softwares out there... and I think they are right.


But just the fact they would try something like this in such a competitive market with the chance of alienating customers just blows my mind!

Someone at Nikon has some mighty big kahunas or a big pipe!



Apr 19, 2005 at 09:40 PM
Shivatron
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Octavio Salles wrote:
Where did you see that Nikon is not going to break the encryption ?? The D2X is a brand new camera, I bet they will let Adobe use it... but definetly NOT free softwares out there... and I think they are right.


You state that you think Nikon is right for not allowing WB decrpytion to "free softwares out there". I'd be interested to know, Octavio, why you think Nikon has a right to encrypt the data you record (which, might I remind you, includes the in-camera WB data) with the camera you purchased?

As one poster in the Nikon forum said, it's like making a camera that produces film that only works in one enlarger.



Apr 19, 2005 at 09:44 PM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


molson wrote:
So if I steal a copy of your picture, I should be able to do with it as I please, right? Just like Adobe seems to want to do with Nikon's proprietary software code?

It's hard to explain this concept to the hobbyists who are only concerned about getting free software, and don't understand the importance of defending copyright and intellectual property rights, but it's not Nikon who are the bad guys here. Adobe's mudslinging PR antics certainly seem to be working, though.


There is no question, at least in my mind, of the legality and ethical soundness of Nikon's position. They obviously have a right to protect their code. That said, is it the company's best interests to exedrcise their rights in this manner? Personally, I don't think so.

This is also not about free software, or amateurs wanting it. Many amateurs pay out the nose for software, Nikon's or otherwise. Many amateurs even sell photos, and are acutely aware of their IP rights.

Nikon is in the business of selling cameras and lenses. The software may be well done, but it's slow on some platforms, and I have little doubt that other companies dedicated to making software (Adobe, and to a degree, Apple and Phase One) are able to address some of these shortfalls in creative ways. Many people have built entire workflows around these applications, and may not be interested in using NC. What Nikon may be seeking to do with this is deny photographers that choice, or at least so it seems.

Some photographers may have different emphases for their photography. NC might be necessary and sufficient, but for others, maybe not. Some people may prefer ACR as a photo-editor for considerable post capture manipulation. For those people, requiring NC not only forces the purchase of a software solution, but also complicates their workflow. Nikon is certainly entitled to do that, and I have qualms about the legality. But do you really think it helps them expand their customer base, or keep their customers happy?

Choice may not be legal in this case, but I think Nikon has done a poor job of balancing it's IP rights with its interest in keeping customers and industry partners friendly. Like any camera manufaturer, Nikon can't afford to be an island. Their expertise is in optics and bodies, not film or software. Closing the standard does little to buttress their camera business, but it may harm it by incensing enough partners and customers to look elsewhere.

I sincerely hope that Nikon limits and ultimately rejects this course of action.

Arka C.



Apr 19, 2005 at 09:46 PM
Octavio Salles
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


yeah but nobody said Nikon is trying to do it except Adobe itself! That's why to me this is all a huge internet ridiculous hysteria attack.

Sounds like Adobe is feeling the pressure that a LOT of people are using NC instead of the very expensive Photoshop.

BTW, all camera manufacturers use their own RAW formats instead of an Adobe format. Is Adobe afraid? I think so!




Apr 19, 2005 at 09:47 PM
mkonik
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


I'm just going to cross post the link to the thread I started my rants in... A lot of good points across the forums but most people are still missing the big picture, pun intended...

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/212421/1

marc



Apr 19, 2005 at 09:49 PM
Octavio Salles
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Shivatron wrote:
You state that you think Nikon is right for not allowing WB decrpytion to "free softwares out there". I'd be interested to know, Octavio, why you think Nikon has a right to encrypt the data you record (which, might I remind you, includes the in-camera WB data) with the camera you purchased?

As one poster in the Nikon forum said, it's like making a camera that produces film that only works in one enlarger.


Because NC costs $99 and the free software costs $0. Nikon loses money everytime someone uses such free softwares.

Like I said earlier, Nikon is not a non-profit organization... and we are not on the film times anymore. Post processing is a major part of digital photography.

Some people say that Canon don't worry about software... well they don't worry because no one wants to use that bad software they make (from what I hear)... but NC, more and more people are using it regularly, including me.



Apr 19, 2005 at 09:52 PM
stevenrk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Octavio wrote:

yeah but nobody said Nikon is trying to do it except Adobe itself! That's why to me this is all a huge internet ridiculous hysteria attack.

Octavio, sorry to be somewhat critical of your statement, but you made these statements earlier which were shown to simply not be correct. Not sure why you are returning to this line. Nikon executives (see posts here) have accepted this as true and are responding. Thomas Knol is one of the two creators of PS and is also quoted in this post. Please inform us what about the statements of Nikon executives or of Thomas Knoll are not accurate?

Steven






Apr 19, 2005 at 10:01 PM
Jack OBrien
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


From the viewpoint of a software developer, I retain all rights to my software. When a customer purchases my software, they get a limited license to use the software. This is fairly typical of all software. However, IMHO, I think there is a misunderstanding of what is software, and what is data. The WB information that is stored in the nef file is encrypted data, not software. Yes, it does require software/code to decrypt the data, but that is where NC or any other software comes in that imports/converts the nef file. Encrypted data is not inherently protected by copyright. The software that decrypts it is. I use encrypted data all the time in my software, because there are certain things that I don't want to be publicly viewable. And that is what Nikon has done, they have encrypted the WB data, because they don't want it public.

If someone were to be able to decrypt data I have stored/created with my software, I wouldn't like it, but it would not hold up in court as theft or infringement of copyright.However, if you steal my software, I'll do everything in my power to take you down. Now, if you stole the code that Nikon actually wrote, e.g. the code that creates the WB data, that would be theft. But, reverse engineering the data to write your own code/algorithim would not be theft. This has been tried many times in the courts. For example, IBM sued Phoenix Technoligies accusing them of 'stealing' their BIOS code on the IBM PC. But Phoenix proved in court that they had reverse engineered the BIOS and wrote their own, and the courts sided with Phoenix. The 'IBM compatible' computer was the result.

I don't mind that Nikon is encrypting the WB data, what I do mind is them not being forthright with how to read it. If they are trying to protect intellectual property, I would think they could store the data in such a way as to hide their technology. Outside of that, they could license the decryption algorithim to vendors, or provide what is called a software development kit for software developers. This way, they would protect their data, and other software developers could incorporate full Nikon support into their software. Kodak has a similar program for their software technologies.

IMO, all the Nikon software contained in the camera itself is of course intellectual property of Nikon, and I fully support them wanting to protect that. However, I do believe that once the file has been stored on my memory card, it should be totally and completely mine. Just my thoughts.

Jack



Apr 19, 2005 at 10:15 PM
mkonik
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Jack, your premise is spot on. The bigger issue is how far Nikon will go and how does that impact a photographers options later, not just in post but in time, of working with "his data". This is a pretty terrifying prospect for those that save and use images over the course of many years. Generations of photographs would be lost if the ability to read the file format was compromised and this certainly is a move in that direction. Somehow Nikons' marketing and the product managers lost sight of the end user and need to see the light... A photograph usually tells a story and evokes emotions, imagine if that ability was compromised by this seemingly simple programming action. Nikon's founders are rolling over in their graves right now in disgust... It certainly flys in the face of their mission statement.
http://nikonimaging.com/global/about/brand.htm

I suppose that they should put a disclaimer on the Three Promises of the Heart.*

*Promises are valid only to licensed users of Nikon Capture...

regards,
marc



Apr 19, 2005 at 10:36 PM
Paul Gardner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


I personably amazed at how many people don't understand the difference between software code and data. How the cmarea manufacturers write the code that deposits the data on the memory card is propritory and is intelectal property. Once the data is written it belongs to the photographer. Any attempt to hide the data is an invasion of the photographers rights. The data belongs to the photographer! The layout of the data needs to be public so that in the future any programmer can write code to read the data on any system of the future.
We need to tell the manufactures that we will not buy any more cameras from them until they make the layout of their formats public. We can live a year or so with our present cameras, can they live without sales.
Nikon's move is just the latest step in the race to control how we process.

Come on guys, see the light before its too late and we have lost control of our processing.



Apr 19, 2005 at 11:11 PM
Qranc
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


From my perspective Nikon is damned if they do and damned if they don't. They invest a great deal in developing a fairly sophisticated soft for their photographers, ask literally next to nothing for it and people complain. All Nikon is saying "use PS if you like just use NC first, trust us it's better image wise. We know, we built the camera and the software." If they offered "free" software (read crappy) then people would complain "I spent this amount on a camera and this is all they give me?"

The day that Nikon builds software capable of matching PS for all it's worth is the day I play hockey with fallen angels. Dealing specifically with the issue of processing/editing, it is a far more sophisticated animal than simply managing histograms, curves or the odd cloneing of power lines.

Maybe Nikon should have been smart and just offered free (crappy) software and let everyone buy 5k worth of camera and leave them to their own decisions about processing.

I still don't see where this creates any loss of control in post processing. You still have an equal amount of control as you would have with film in respect to WB. You can still edit it in photoshop in post processing, you just can't do it useing the raw data.



Apr 20, 2005 at 12:17 AM
bogatyr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


molson wrote:
From Nikon's perspective, why would they invest R&D money in software development, which is crucial to improving the output quality of their cameras, if they have to give it away for free, or worse yet, be forced to let their competitors have it for free?

I'd like a free copy of NC4 as much as the next guy, but I'm trying to appreciate the bigger picture here. _peace_


Please, who is talking about giving anything away for free?

I am interested in functional software, and I am prepared to pay for it. But I am not prepared to accept software companies' "protection of intellectual property" whose effect is that other developers are prevented from making alternative software, thereby limiting customer choice. Among other things.

Software companies must accept that they have to compete by coming out with better products than the competition, not by limiting customer choice and prohibiting other developers from making their own software.

By the way, Adobe has no moral reason to complain here. They have produced software which cannot be run without strings to the manufacturer after the license is paid, thus jeopardizing the safety of our data when the tools we need to manipulate our own data does not function independent from the software company.



Apr 20, 2005 at 12:39 AM
bogatyr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


molson wrote:
I don't have a lot of respect for a company that tries to steal intellectual property. It makes me wonder why Adobe changed their registration and activation process for Photoshop CS to make it so secure? If they think software code should be made available for anyone who wants to copy it, they should set the example and start with their own products.


Nobody is advocating stealing others' code. What we want, is to see other software companies and third- party developers being able to create their own solutions. The code of any given program belongs to the creator in every instance, but that should not prevent other developers from making their own software.

If I write a program, I own the copyright to that program.

If I try to prevent others from writing a program which performs the same function(s), I am trying to create a monopoly for myself. By the way, software patents are effectively monopolies on technical solutions, and therefore especially detrimental.



Apr 20, 2005 at 12:50 AM
bogatyr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Octavio Salles wrote:
Because NC costs $99 and the free software costs $0. Nikon loses money everytime someone uses such free softwares.
.


That means, if I write a program, I should have the right to prevent third-party developers to write a program independent of my program, but which does the same thing?

How perverse is that?

As a photographer, I have to compete with other photographers, both amateurs and professionals. I have to accept that amateurs give away their photos for free, and I must compete with superior quality to make people pay. I cannot demand that non-professionals stop taking pictures because I lose money when someone else gives away pictures for free.

My intellectual property is what I create. I should have no right to prevent others from making their own creations. Increasingly, the concept of "intellectual property" is used to stifle competition and limit the choice of others.

If someone wants to write free software, by all means let them do it. If someone steals the code of others, it is theft which of course is illegal and should be. But if someone creates their own code which does the same thing as another program, it should be perfectly legal.



Apr 20, 2005 at 01:00 AM
1       2      
3
       4              6       7       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              6       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.