Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Prevents Photoshop Support of Nikon Camera
Will writes "PhotoshopNews.com reports that the risk of getting sued under the DMCA prevents Adobe from fully supporting the raw file format of Nikon's top professional camera Nikon D2X. The file format contains encrypted white balance information that is necessary to render the image correctly and while the encryption can and has been broken, Adobe fears getting sued under the DMCA if they decrypt the data."
Adobe is a large company with deep pockets (unlike Bibble), and it is unlikely we would run the legal risk of breaking the white balance encryption unless we can get some assurance from Nikon that they will not sue Adobe for doing so. Since Nikon clearly does not want third party raw converters reading their files (they would much rather sell you a copy of Nikon Capture), the likelihood of Nikon providing such an assurance to Adobe is not very high.
People who would be purchasing a high-end camera like the D2X and D2H would probably only be doing so to use a high-end piece of software to manipulate the 12+MP digital images.
When a potential buyer looks at Photoshop and sees that it isn't supporting the D2X/H fully because of some retarded move by Nikon to try and make money they are likely going to find another camera. People interested in the D2X/H cameras are going to be shopping around looking for the one that best fits their needs and aren't going to be impulse buying a $5000 camera.
Really dumb move Nikon.
Nikon, to the best of my understanding, is a camera manufacturer. I have no clue if they do stuff in the whiz-bang imaging market, like Kodak, or Agfa, but it would seem that their business model depends on selling cameras, lenses and other nice gizmos, ideally loads of them.
Assume I'm a Fotografer. Since the times of silver plates and baryt paper (which sure as hell still has it's niche, but I digress) seem somewhat outdated I like to process my digital images with what can be considered the major photo processing application; pretty much the standard in my trade.
And the good burgers from Nikon intend to prevent direct access to crucial parts of the raw data of my images?
I think I buy a Canon!
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
This is exactly what the DMCA was intended to do. I can't remember their being much corporate oppostition to the DMCA when it was being introduced.
Stick Men
The DMCA is having very far-reaching effects, all of which I'm sure were not contemplated or foreseen by the people who drafted the DMCA.
The thing I hate about this sort of legislation, is that once it's on the books, it's very difficult to get repealed.
Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
They went after a Russian dude who broke their encryption, and he even did it in Russia where it was entirely legal. They only threw him in the can when he entered the US.
So FUCK THEM. Karma has bitten their asses, and I don't feel sorry at all.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
There's a difference in principle between encryption to protect content owned by the corporation and encryption simply created to extract money from third-party vendors.
If I take a picture with a Nikon camera, I own the content. Shouldn't I be able to do what I want with it?
Furthermore, what grounds would Nikon have for suing Adobe based on Adobe's violation of encryption that is protecting my copyrighted works? IANALY, but isn't there a "standing" issue here?
Nikon is going to take the hit for this one. Adobe is basically a monopoly when it comes to image processing. If they leave support for Nikon out of their product they won't sufffer a bit, but Nikon will.
Because it always makes my hemerroids itch, when a manufacturer demands a toll in order for me to access my data.
I hope this helps.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Adobe should get on the horn with Nikon's legal dept. and inform them that there will be a sticker on Adobe's packages and full disclosure on their website about Nikon support.
Truly no issue here. Let Nikon make their own Photoshop if they want, but I think this is going to be 'case closed'.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Photoshop's RAW converter is considered by many in the industry to be mediocre. Nikon wants images from their flagship camera to be processed well, reflecting the quality of their product.
[More Realistic Angle]
Nikon wants to sell more copies of its Nikon Capture software, which is a superior RAW converter, hands down. $100 for a copy of NC is penuts to a pro, and the savings in their time will be significant.
Furthermore, several high-end photographers are extolling the virtues of stand-alone raw processors as an addition to their photoshop workflow.
Unfortunately, no standalone raw processors can support Nikon's encrypted format
I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable for Nikon to lock part of their RAW format, I'm just saying that the impact of this upon the pro photo world is far less significant then it would appear.
Only if what you are saying is that having only one raw converter, Nikon's, is not significant.
This is truely significant. What Nikon is saying is that Nikon owns the file and that the photographer does not.
SteveM
I believe your question cuts to the heart of the matter.
I'm imagining Nikon makes a presentation to Adobe about their products, "we need Adobe's support" blah blah blah. And then when Nikon gets to the specifics of their high-end camera they tell Adobe, "Nikon is giving Adobe a wonderful opportunity to license our RAW technology for use in Adobe products!"
After Nikon buys Adobe people an expensive lunch, Adobe is indignant that they must license the RAW import technology. They are ADOBE SYSTEMS for gosh's sake. Adobe Engineering can hack their way into it, but Nikon's smart and is leaving the litigation door open.
Adobe then attempts to reassert their dominance by making Nikon/DMCA out to be the bad guys (which IMHO they are not.)in the press in an attempt to get industry/public opinion on their side.
I give Adobe kudos for doing whatever it takes to get a lower price/free technology. It takes real talent to make customers feel good while they take it up the a**. I'd be much better off if I could do it as well as they do.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Personally, I don't want the camera manufacturer telling me what software I can use to read my photographs. Would you accept it if Nikon told you you were only allowed to get prints using Fuji labs?
I also don't want my photo library to depend on some secret file format that may end up being completely unsupported and unreadable in ten years' time. What if Linux takes over the desktop, but Nikon decide not to bother with a file format reader for Linux? What if Nikon go out of business, and Windows 2010 can't run the plugin to read your library of thousands of images?
I absolutely demand that all my photos be in an open, documented file format. And I think you're being foolhardy not to demand likewise.
Sure, you can use the RAW converter on each image as you take them, convert to a sensible format like PNG, and store that--but you're losing information by doing so, making the Nikon a much less appealing and less professional camera.
The really professional companies like Hasselblad understand this, and have committed to Adobe's open DNG raw format. I wouldn't buy any camera that pretended to be "professional" but didn't support DNG or some other open file format.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Breaking encryption is not a DMCA violation.
Breaking encryption that controls access to a copyrighted work is what is against the DMCA.
Unless nikon is claiming copyright protection on their white balance information, it woudln't have much of a chance of winning (and it's hardly an original or creative work)
From a completely ruthless business point of view, Nikon has made a monumentally stupid decision. Really, this is one for the text books. If they don't about face immediately, they will lose the professional market entirely. Though more conservative than the typical slashdot reader, pro photographers are even more jealous of their rights. And no matter how you spin it, Nikon appears to be encrypting some of my information for the sole purpose of selling me software to decrypt it. That's extortion.
But that's not the monumentally stupid part. The once-in-a-lifetime blunder is in the numbers. In order to pull a few million in software sales, they are throwing away a billion dollars in brand value. Value that took 50 years to build. Value they will likely never be able to reclaim. That brand recognition gets them shelf space in stores, and ensures their cameras are reviewed by journalists, and gets their products support from companies like Adobe. The annual worth of those benefits is probably 10x the revenue they could hope to pull from their software. Unbelievable.