Slashdot Mirror
Nikon Responds to Encryption Claims
ader writes "In a rare response to public complaints, Nikon has released a statement clarifying the use of encrypted white balance information in the NEF raw data from its digital cameras. They point out that this 'proprietary' format is accessible through the use of their 'proprietary' SDK, which is freely available to 'bona fide software companies' on written application. In other words: open source coders can butt out."
An OS project coder could be a bona - fide developer - nothing says Nikon wouldn't provide one to an OS project.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
but, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't this originally brought up on /. because of adobe not being able to access this?
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
You take a photograph, you think its yours, taken with a camera you bought, of a subject you chose, with all permissions sorted.
However you then find there's an extra little catch.
You can only access your picture with software that your camera maker has decided to approve.
You didn't agree to any of this, it didn't warn you on the box, nobody told you that the pictures are only your subject to some extra pre-conditions and you had reasonable expectation that the camera would not raise artificial obstacles to you getting at your picture.
And this situation is somehow supposed to be acceptable?
In other words: open source coders can butt out."
In other words, "Would all the tech-saavy people in the audience please discourage everyone they know from buying our products".
We geeks may not have the sort of numbers big companies specifically target, but we do have something they dream of having on their side - Our positive word of mouth when the vast majority of friends and relatives ask us for recommendations on buying a new product; in this case, a digital camera.
Guess which product line just got added to my "Whatever you do, do NOT buy this one" list?
Thanks for the help, Nikon, but we'd rather deal with whichever of your competitors actually wants geeks on their side.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Why are they doing the proprietary bit in the first place? Wouldn't they want their product to be as widely useable as possible?
Widely used by photographers and graphic artists, but not widely used by Kodak and other competing camera manufacturers.
"They point out that this 'proprietary' format is accessible through the use of their 'proprietary' SDK, which is freely available to 'bona fide software companies' on written application."
Pardon me, but Fuck' Em with a spoon. They shouldn't receive the support of the open source community, nor should they receive the support of the non-Nikon software community. If they like the bed they're making, then we shouldn't deny them the long-term pleasure of lying in it.
So, somebody explain this to me. What am I missing here?
DMCA prevents the creation or distribution of a tool that defeats access control measures for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to protected content.
Or something like that.
The white balance information is part of the image data. It's unique to each photo. It's the data that's created when the photographer takes the photo.
The person who will be gain access via a white balance plugin is the person who has the raw image data--typically the photographer, unless he gives the file to someone else.
The photographer can hardly be accused of using such a tool to gain access outside of his rights.
Further, since the tool is freely available to any "bona fide software developer" for the asking, it can hardly be described as an access control measure.
In short, it's the photographer's freakin' creation. Who the hell is Nikon or anybody else to say what he can or cannot do what he produced?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
I wonder what they will do with their NEF files in 20 years time when they are long obsolete and the software that converts them won't run on any modern hardware?
Why did Nikon actually go to extra effort to make their NEF output less useful?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
According to the link: "The SDKs are not available to the general public but are open to bona-fide software development companies or individuals" I find that statement interesting due to the lack of sense. What is the difference between a bona-fide software development individual and a member of the general public? Before you laugh it me, think about it a minute. No one is going to bother to download it unless they are able to understand it therefore they program to some extent. Bona fide - in good faith, does not actually reduce the group at all or mean a lot in this context. There is a strong possibility that other conditions are applied later. However I do dislike how with multi-national big-business, words lose any sense of meaning at all.
My little Linux and tech blog
no, just in the USA
The toad can't burp - and for some reason can't fart either, so it swells up and eventually explodes. --Anonymous Coward
"When it was slashdotted with a thousand people registering to get the kit, they might get a clue."
It would be a bad idea for Slashdot to promote itself as a weapon. Slashdot would be seen as a gang of punks, not as a statistical sample of the victim's customer base.
Slashdot did the smart thing.
"Derp de derp."
How would the white-balance information people's digital photos qualify as Nikon-owned property?
AFAIK, the DMCA is there to protect copyright and data colateral to taking a photo should be technically owned by the camera's operator.
Nikon can own the patents or trade secrets behind how to use the data but the actual data's ownership/copyright should clearly belong to whoever took the snaps.
This is not too many steps away from Microsoft claiming it owns all code and software written or compiled using VisualStudio tools.
I don't think you get it. Using JPEG or TIFF is not nearly as useful. Raw format (Nikon's NEF format) allows the user to adjust white balance and other settings after the shot. It's far easier to do it in raw than it is in JPEG or TIFF.
This whole thing seems like it's driven by Nikon's greed. They want money for their software, and they don't want anyone else taking a slice of the pie. Frankly, I think this will turn Nikon customers towards Canon, Konica-Minolta, etc.
Frankly, you'd think that Nikon, with a smaller market share than Canon, would do everything in their power to attract customers rather than alienate them. This is clearly NOT going to win the hearts and minds of photographers everywhere.
Nikon is not a software company. They're a camera company. They should stick to lenses, camera bodies, and flash units.
I'm glad I left Nikon for Canon.
-- No sig for you!
Yet, hacking your own (and purchased) X-Box is subjected to DMCA infringment?
As much as I and other readers hate to admit it, the DMCA protects proprietary properties that is "explicitly" locked down with security. In other words, it's one thing to reverse engineer, but it's quite another to "hack" encrypted security according to DMCA.
Life is not for the lazy.
Interesting point of view here, but the people you're talking to at Fry's are a different market than the one this change affects. From my understanding, the only Nikon's that write NEF/RAW images are the digital SLRs, which Fry's may not even stock.
I do like how you mention that you use a variety of sources to form your opinion, but then you have the example of how you influence sales, and the Focus, which surprise me. If I go into a store and someone tells me that the expensive item I'm going to purchase isn't very good, most likely I'll go and check online, get some more reviews, and make sure their claim isn't anecdotal. One opinion isn't going to keep me away from a product . . . I want a larger sample size.
Tiff is way better then png. Tiff is an extensible file format witch suports both lossy and non-lossy compression, high-bit channels (16 bits, not sure about float though), cmyk and other color spaces, and more info like masks and etc.
If I am not mistaken the digital-negative standard is an extension to the tiff format (or tiff based).
Well tiff is very good format, the only downside is that there is so many tags and extendions to it, that is hard to find a decoder that compreends all of the tags embeded in every file.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
I don't know what software Adobe has written regarding this, but the way I figure it, that is irrelevant. The DMCA is not what stops Adobe from providing their users with the kind of access to Nikon raw images that their Nikon-using Photoshop users may want, although I experience a good schadenfreude laugh at Adobe's expense when I read people make the argument that Adobe is somehow disadvantaged by the DMCA here.
Adobe can use some of the money from distributing proprietary software (ill-gotten gain, in my opinion) to negotiate a binary-only proprietary copy of a Nikon library to link to Photoshop which would allow Photoshop users to decrypt the Nikon raw white balance segment that is encrypted.
Nikon and Adobe both walk away getting what they want: Nikon's encryption is no less "secure" than it was before (how this works can be hidden from hidden from everyone, including Adobe), and Adobe gets to supply plug-and-play functionality to their users. Meanwhile, and more importantly, their users are left without their software freedom, and no ability to easily deal with Nikon raw images in other programs. Those users are paying their money in exchange for a loss of their software freedom and complete control over their images. If Adobe complains about not wanting to ship software under its name without full and complete source code to that program so they can inspect, modify, and even share it should the need arise, I'll get another schadenfreude chuckle at Adobe's expense because I want software freedom too. The only difference is I don't want to hoarde it from others.
Both Adobe and Nikon are treating their customers like dirt and it's always a good time to remind Adobe that it was wrong to have Sklyarov arrested, detained, and subject to an "agreement"..
To me, these are all excellent reasons to avoid or stop doing business with both Adobe and Nikon. Run the GIMP, use some other brand of camera that will give you the unencumbered raw functionality you want, and retain full control over your photos. The dcraw website hosts a list of cameras it will work with. Surely some camera on that list will meet one's needs without going to Nikon.
Digital Citizen
isn't Nikon violating the DMCA with their software by providing access to YOUR protected content?
Just wondering...
For $5000 dollars, I'd expect to be able to use any piece of software I damn well please. For that amount of money, I decide what "bona-fide software" from "bona-fide" developers is.
Buying a professional CD player, like say a $3000 rig, then trying to hook it up to your professional digital to analogue converter. However, nothing comes out. You call the maker and they say "Oh the data isn't raw S/PDIF, it's a special proprietary format. You'll need to buy this $200 adapter to make it work."
I mean, when you pay the kind of money a professional camera costs, it's not too much to ask that the software be included at no extra charge. It's a very reasonable expectation that it ought to work out of box with Photoshop. Further I'd say it's reasonable to expect that the format be open. After all, you are paying for the hardware to allow you to capture pictures. How you process them afterwards is your own business.
Yes - but Campbell's isn't going to threaten me with lawsuits if I want to design and build my OWN can-opener...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Back in the day (to-day, on occasion), I used a camera to fix the play of light onto chemically treated film. I ran the film through a chemical bath, and then ran light through the film onto photo-sensitive paper, which was then itself bathed. While the precise formulations of the film, development chemicals, and photo paper may be trade secrets, the general process isn't, so I could swap various vendors in and out of my production process more or less at will.
Nowadays, a full digital production process produces good enough results that the convenience usually outweighs what ever superiority the analog process provides in the final result. Just like LP, to CD, to MP3. And, just like the audio analogy I just hinted at, I've now introduced embedded software into the mix... and I bet that if I took the time to dig out my Nikon (Coolpix) manual and looked hard enough, I'd find that the embedded software is merely licenced to me. Naturally, the frickin' hardware is for all intents and purposes useless without the licensed firmware, so when I bought the camera (and the non-Linux computer, and printer) I was merely purchasing a non-exclusive license that allows me to manipulate light, digital signals, and ink with that particular equipment kit.
To say that the content is owned by the creator misses the point (in Nikon's eyes). The content is going through their process, and - to stretch my point - they don't feel any more compelled to tell us how the process works than I am to teach you how I paint your portrait.
Yes, this sucks, but it shouldn't be a surprise in a nation where our right of free speech vaporizes the moment we switch from pen, paper, and the offset press to a computer and TCP/IP. We do have the right to swap out the offending firmware from hardware we have purchased, but attempting to reverse engineer everything in sight is a losing battle. Better to change the rules of the game.
Luke, help me take this mask off
It also ignores the fact that the SDK generates jpeg/tif from RAW. Which wouldn't be bad except the main reason to use Adobe ACR is to use THEIR raw image processing routines. Who wants to waste time decoding the file twice?
Finally, it ignores the fact that Nikon basically wants you to spend $5000 for a camera... and then pay an additional $100 to get their software to process your images.
Stop bashing Adobe and check a few facts. Nikon doesn't want people using ANY third-party image processing software.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
What planet do you live on? EVERY working pro I know has paid for his equipment. You may get a demo of a new camera, but after the demo period is over the camera goes back and you buy your own.
Besides, if you're a top tier professional (whom you seem to be ranting about) a $5,000 camera is pocket change, and a $25,000 MF digital back is not much more so.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
I'm confused. Maybe you can explain something to me.
You say you want to take somebody else's property, incorporate it into your own whatever, and then release under terms that allow other people to modify it, copy it, do whatever they want with it.
How is that not completely deranged?
I don't mean to be rude, I really don't. I'm just having a very hard time understanding how your statement doesn't boil down to "Give me your stuff, and by the way waive all moral and property rights to it in the process."
There exist no property or moral rights in this case.
None.
Whatsoever.
(Or are You talking about copy rights, patents or trademarks eventually ?)
Mundus Vult Decipi
Which part of "freely available" didn't make sense to you.
A format is not "property". Does Nikon own the pictures I take with my camera? No? Then why the hell can't I read the white balance information in them?
My picture, my property. Ability to read my picture? Also belongs to me.
May not be the way it is right now, but it's the way it damn well should be.
Random and weird software I've written.
Seems a bit bogus here...
So you'd rather a dev reverse engineer the format, make an invalid assumption, and have a piece of software you bought suddenly start putting a blue cast onto all of your images because you just upgraded the firmware?
Nikon isn't saying "you can only use our software", they're saying "we provide an SDK that documents everything, free of charge".
My nikon camera (I own a D100 and a coolpix 5700) is my property, not nikon. If I want to take a little bit of driver code that they provide it, and debug it, fix it to work on 64 bit, or just audit it for security, I should be able to do so.
I would expect to be able to give that to other people who also own nikon cameras, given that their camera is also their property. Note that this code is pretty much useless to people who own other cameras, and companys like Canon know enough about things like white balance that they don't give a rip about nikon's code.
Nikon is in the business of selling cameras, not writing device drivers. If the drivers were freely available, and people could write new and interesting software based on it, this would HELP them sell cameras, not HURT them. For the same reason, Nestle gives away the tollhouse cookie recipe - they are in the business of selling chocolate chips.
Nikon has both property and moral rights over their software.
But...do those "property and moral rights" extend to the photos that are taken by the person using the software? Does Nikon "own" the white-balance information of the picture taken by the photographer?
If so, Nikon is basically saying "Buy our camera and use it, but you don't own your pictures".
It'd be like (in film camera terms) buying Kodak film, taking pictures, an then Kodak telling you that you don't own the negative.
Nikon seems to be fine with not being well supported. Open source developers will respond accordingly. ("well, fine, go ahead and screw yourself")
Companies that want to be widely supported and recommended will supply ready-to-use patches, developer support, and free hardware. I'm not kidding; many vendors have done this. Hard drive manufacturers even supply Linux developers with special drives for debugging error handling. I'm not expecting even 5% of that kind of support.
Oh well.
Speaking as a photographer who uses Nikon equipment, I find this very troubling. As far as connections with Adobe go, Nikon is shooting themselves in the foot if they don't release information. Nikon's digital camera sales would plummet if RAW format usage with photoshop had some important features cut out. But that much aside, I fail to understand Nikon's reasoning behind keeping their RAW data formats a big secret. i fail to see how it benefits them. But then, I fail to see a lot of things... *sigh*
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
The underlying issue here is that Nikon is encrypting for whatever reason and making it difficult. That's the hair in the soup and should not even be there.
Now you come along and say that the hair has a right to be there and needs to treated properly.
Just forget all that mindfuck - some corp. jerk at Nikon dreamed up a scheme to increase a bottom line and now reality kicks in, people don't like it, Nikon is backpaddling - a little, still scheming the orignal plan.
That BS needs to go - making a picture format coming out of a camera proprietary (and get money for it) is a joke and as wrong as it can get. Maybe it is just a test balloon, if it flies, they try the next thing or another company gets ideas tries something similar down those lines further restricting freedom.
You with your arguments, how the wrong thing should be treated "right" are just sucking up to them.
Of course, you COULD use other formats other than RAW to store the unprocessed data. It just happens to be the (unfortunate) case that Canon, Nikon, etc all give us the choice of JPG (with all the auto-processing included) or RAW.
If I had the choice of using an open format that gave me the raw data, sure, that'd be better than proprietary RAW formats--but I don't have that choice (yet).
Given that reality, nothing in your post justifies the comment that people use RAW to be "elite". They use it because it's the better of the two options they have available (for their particular workflow, anyway).
>And as to your first comment, you really have got
>yourself arse-about-face haven't you? the idea is
>that people SHOULD learn how to use their cameras
>properly in the first place.
Right. I don't want the camera to focus for me, so I use manual focus. I don't want the camera to decide the exposure for me, so I do it manually. I don't want the camera to determine white-balance etc, for me, either, so I use RAW, rather than JPG. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Btw, I'm not really interested in your masters thesis, Mr. Pompous--I'd be a lot more interested if you managed to produce a good photo.
IRA
Hmm, the D30 I had focused just fine, as did my 10D and my current 20D. None of the front/back focus problems at all, even with a 300mm f/2.8 wide open.
As for the flash, yeah, Canon's flash system wasn't the best, and now you're flaming them for improving it?
You know, it really sucks that my Sun Ultra 5 workstation won't work with my USB mouse -- damn Sun for not including USB in the system before it was widely available.
Basically, your 10D precedes the new flash metering system in the 580EX -- it's not reasonable to expect older cameras to know about and use features of newer flashes.
Look, the DMCA prevents reverse engineering of encryption methods that are protecting copyrighted data. Thus, hacking the encryption on the firmware of the X-box is illegal (though it shouldn't be).
The white balance data in an image is copyrighted by YOU. That's right, it's your data. It comes from the environment or your settings or whatever. But the data is yours.
Nikon is trying to encrypt data that is copyright to you. The DMCA does not apply.
White balance data is essential to get correct images. All digital cameras have it, one way or the other. There is nothing special or unique about white balance data.
As I stated in another post, it would be like Nikon encrypting your JPEG files.
~X~
~X~
You don't use apple itunes to record music you've composed and played. By using a Nikon camera, Nikon doesn't own or license your pictures in any way, shape, or form, so they shouldn't try and hold a monopoly over your data. That's why "Apple good, Nikon bad."
I would liken it more to the chemical processes used to develop the film.
Take for example the simpler black and white processing method, since I have enough experience with it to speak about it knowledgably. D76 is a well-documented (but not obvious) recipe of chemicals, but Kodak also sells it. What Nikon is doing would be analogous to Kodak saying you must use only Kodak's branded D76 with your Kodak film taken in your Kodak camera, and protecting the recipe for the D76 with some sort of crazy law (not a patent) that makes it illegal to try to reproduce that very simple chemical recipe to develop the used roll of film into useful negatives.
Computer-related laws rarely make any sense when applied to anything else.
A "process" is a patentable item. Patents expire.
A "software program" is a copyrightable item, as is an "artistic work" (read photographic image in this context). Copyright, thanks to the bizarre and troubling majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft, effectively does not.
Now, the trouble with all of this is that I do not see where this is really creating much of a burden for photographers. Yes, Nikon can prevent its image capture software from being copied, but it cannot protect its encryption algorithms from duplication for any longer period than that prescribed by patent law. For a prime example of this idea in action, you may refer to the RSA encryption algorithms. Encryption algorithms are "processes" (as are chemical development processes and recipes), and as such, ineligible for copyright protection.
So, unless the international community (or the US Government, in particular) decides to accord patents the same effectively permanent protections they have granted to copyrightable works, the encryption algorithms in use in Nikon's format will eventualy be free for all to use or deconstruct (which has, in fact, already happened).
The interesting thing in this particular case is that Nikon's algorithms are being used to potentially deny the creator of an artistic work the ability to dispose of that work as he sees fit, which we can all agree is a natural right. The case hinges upon the interpretation of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, whose wording includes the phrase "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".
Now, the clear intention of the DMCA was to block circumvention of a mechanism used to prevent unauthorized copies of a protected work, not to allow companies to arbitrarily deny a creator the ability to dispose of his own work as he sees fit--but the text of the law was written in such a fashion as to seeming allow such an action, unless you make an argument based upon subsection 1201.a.3:
Now we need to ascertain the meaning of "copyright owner" in this subsection. The copyright owner of the encryption software, or the copyright owner of the image so encrypted? Which "work" is pre-eminent? Arguments could be either way, although I believe that the copyright of the creator of the image is clearly superior.
Then of course, we need to examine the effect of 1201.a.3.b on existing patent law. How can the DMCA be effective if the "technological measure" relys upon the "application of...a process or a treatment" which has clearly fallen into the public domain? Curiouser and curiouser...
I am a Nikon user. Professionally, I have used nothing but Nikon cameras. I may not continue to do so as a result of Nikon's actions described here.
Yes, the photographer will retain the right to use equipment other than Nikon's. However, the selection of Nikon equipment by a photographer does not give Nippon Kogaku the right to deny me the ability to dispose of my images created with their equipment as I see fit.
Actually, the software contained by the camera cannot be disassociated from the intended and actual function of the camera. As a result, it is difficult to justify the legitimacy of any associated software license that may restrict my ability to use the camera in its normal function, an idea which is clearly opposed to the doctrine of "first sale".
At what point does this "feature" creep into the rest of their product line?
This is something that I have seen time and time again, you give companies like this an inch, and the next thing you know any Nikon will require their software to get to your pictures, no matter which one you buy. It's not a company having a proprietary format that annoys me. I have no problem with LZW (and that's actually a valid thing to protect, not some hacked up TIFF based format), because I can still choose between software to use with my artwork. It's that the content is mine, and I don't care why they decided to pull this BS, if they want to screw with my access to my content, then it's a problem.
iMovie (which I use because it's ridiculously simple, quick, outputs decent home movies, and I hate serious movie editing apps) is a proprietary program. However I can still access my files with other applications. The files are mine, and I will do what I want with them. Photoshop (which I use, because I like hardcore image editing software) has a "proprietary" native format, but I can still open photoshop files in Graphic Converter and other programs, and I do from time to time because the images are mine and I paid for the software and because I want to. For the same reason, I don't encode anything in any format containing the word "Windows" (WMA, WMV, etc), don't use DRM'ed music, etc, etc. Note: a consumer only needs to get burnt one time, and they will generally learn if the issue is explained in terms they can understand.
The moral of this story is this: We as consumers don't like crap that stands between us and stuff we have created. The stupid home movies, graphics, web sites, photos we take, music we make, stuff we type, etc is viewed as ours and many of us take the right to use our own stuff however the hell we want to very seriously. If you do stupid crap like this, most knowledgeable consumers will avoid the format, program, device, whatever, in the future. Companies pull this kind of stunt at their peril.
Notice that with as cool as Sony is, their sales of the ATRAC device players has been in the toilet, and they have been forced to accept MP3.
So what this means to me is that instead of saying "guess what Nikon is doing to all of their cameras", it's "guess what Nikon is starting to do".
There's no way 80 percent of pro photographers use Nikon. With the current dismal crop of D2s they've released, photographers are dropping Nikon and moving to Canon as fast as they can afford it. I work for a major newspaper chain, and every paper is looking to find a way to switch to Canon. Why? The newer Nikon cameras have a reddish cast, and lots of noise in the shadow areas. If you want quality, use Canon, or better yet, stay with film.
Adobe's ACR does things differently to how Nikon Capture would. This includes colour choices, white balance, etc.
By forcing you to use their SDK or break the law, Nikon are saying that their's is the right (and only) way to decode NEF files.
By using the SDK, you are limited to the fastest it can process files - you can never process a file faster by working out your own solutions, you're always limited to the speed of the libraries.
You're also forced to live with all the bugs, memory leaks, etc. You never really have the kind of control that you want over your app.
If the job at hand was hard, then it might make sense for an API to help you, but everyone manages this work just fine. So why force an SDK on us ?
Nikon is increasingly lagging behind Canon in terms of innovation. Just look at their respective current DSLR offerings, and Canon's stuff is better by any technical definition. Nikon's newest DSLR offerings are marginal improvements and little evidence of real innovation.
I see this as a clear indication that Nikon is top-heavy and full of staunch conservative bureaucrats unable to move with the times. Management sits in a high castle out of touch. The badly translated but clearly terse verbiage used in this press release further demonstrates Nikon management's mode of thinking sounding similar to what IBM's board was capable of in the 1970s.
The very notion of "bona fide" software developers is pretty ugly and necessarily implies that some software developers aren't good enough to be working with Nikon. While I'm not particularly worried about open source in this regard - although unlikely, Nikon could just make binary libraries and not share their proprietary algorithms.
No, my concern is that "non bona fide" developers likely include independent raw CCD photo processing software vendors like those making Bibble, Pixmantec Raw Shooter Essentials, D1SLR and other similar software packages. These applications are designed to decode the raw CCD data from digital cameras using algorithms and color science developed by their respective vendors independently of Nikon. With varied results, but in many cases producing better or at least equal results to Nikon's very expensive Nikon Capture software which is particularly awful in terms of workflow and cost.
Nikon Capture feels similar to Sony's proprietary software in terms of stability and design clarity. These japanese giants produce an incredibly poor grade of consumer software, light years behind the technical quality of their hardware and so obviously I'm interested in having 3rd party software support for their very good hardware.
The "official" Nikon mesage is that these measures exist to protect the quality of the decoded images. That's very nice of them. But the pictures belongs to the photographers and photographers should be free to choose the software they wish to use for processing those images even if that means the colors are decoded differently from what Nikon's own best lab technicians have come up with.
Just as an example, CaptureOne is one Nikon compatible application - it does a superior job of handling moire CCD color noise on Nikon D1x, far surpassing Nikon Capture. Bibble handles colors on Nikon D1 subjectively better than Nikon Capture. Locking out these competing products is simply an awful measure that will not benefit consumers at all.
There can be only one explanation for Nikon's decision, and that is to produce more orders for Nikon Capture and license revenues from libraries included in commercial products from vendors choosing to use Nikon's official way of doing things. That's purely selfish of Nikonand serves consumers interest in no way!
I don't know how those libraries work, but from this press release I'd at least assume that they essentially output RGB data processed the Nikon Way, so you'd have pretty much the same result as using Nikon Capture, even if the library is embedded in a different program. That just means you won't be getting a second opinion and photographers using Nikon hardware won't be enjoying much creative freedom.
Once it enters my house, under any circumstances, its mine to do with as i please.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
See, Nikon, just like any other company or person, has the freedom to encrypt their data even if you think doing so is dumb.
... how can you grant everybody the right to encrypt whatever they want, subject to nobody's approval at all, while denying Nikon the right to encrypt white balance data?
Yes. But in this case, they are encrypting your data. They are encrypting part of your photograph that you took and hold all the rights to. And they are saying that you are not allowed to access your data that you own, unless they say you can.
Here's the thing
You shouldn't grant anyone that right. That would give me the right to encrypt your files without your permission - you don't want me to do that, do you?
You should grant everyone the right to encrypt data they own. Nikon do not own my data in my photographs. Therefore, Nikon should not have the right to encrypt it, QED.
Nobody, statistically speaking, uses anything else.
Really? What percentage of market share would it take not to be a "nobody"? And should market share even be a factor when answering questions as to individuals' rights to tinker with their own, physical property?
You should be ashamed.
I would be ashamed if I were known as an individual who uses abusive language trivially; rather, those friends who know me well tend to be somewhat shocked when I speak profanely. This -- the right to tinker -- is by no means a trivial thing, however, and I think it worth spending some of that limited currency by which I can express the depth of my distaste for those who would hamstring the creative class.
Are you having us all on? You obviously can't believe that. It IS a trivial thing. It's completely trivial.
The right to tinker and the ability to invent go hand-in-hand. Consider how many of the great scientists and inventors of the last century grew up tinkering with their radios; how many modern inventions have their origins in a garage, created by an individual who taught themselves by examining the works of others.
If this is trivial, it is on such trivialities that society's progress stands.