DMCA Prevents Photoshop Support of Nikon Camera 656
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."
DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
encrypted? (Score:4, Insightful)
License (Score:2, Insightful)
What goes around... (Score:2, Insightful)
Good Grief! (Score:5, Insightful)
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Since the times of silver plates and baryt paper (which sure as hell still has it's niche, but I digress) seem somewhat outdated I like to process my digital images with what can be considered the major photo processing application; pretty much the standard in my trade.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!
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
The correct solution... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing I hate about this sort of legislation, is that once it's on the books, it's very difficult to get repealed.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?
FUCK THEM (Score:5, Insightful)
So FUCK THEM. Karma has bitten their asses, and I don't feel sorry at all.
Re:encrypted? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
It's obvious that they have their own tool that they want you to own in order to decrypt that data.
Isn't it in Nikon's best interests (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The correct solution... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Or choose not to support the camera. I can't imagine Nikon not trying to get Photoshop support to be rock solid, but that's their choice.
Re:License (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:encrypted? (Score:2, Insightful)
The correct solution...but to which problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Makes absolutly no sense from Nikon... (Score:2, Insightful)
-Photoshop pros looking for a camera - lots.
-High end Nikon owners looing for an imaging app other than Photoshop - few.
Nikon use your brain - Photoshop IS the high end imaging market. Preventing improved Photoshop support is pretty much the same as preventing more profit.
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
How about by buying a Canon camera?
I'm a sys-admin for a pro lab (Score:4, Insightful)
This will get resolved. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The correct solution...but to which problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
When Adobe used the DCMA to go after Russian programmers (a move they rescinded and let the FBI do for them), the DCMA was a great and wonderful thing.
Now, Adobe's learning what a poison pill the DCMA really is. Will this cut short their support for such a law, or next time make them fight such onerous challenges to reasonable copyright as set out by the founders of the United States?
Anyway, that's what I think the poster was talking about.
As for the last part, Nikon could sue Adobe under the DCMA, which states that you can crack encryption for personal use - but you can't tell anyone else how to do it. If Adobe releases a tool that cracks Nikon's encryption algorithm, then Nikon could go after them for some imagined damages.
The best thing is for Nikon to realize their heads are up their asses, remove this stupid encryption algorithm, and for both sides to state publicly that the DCMA is a bad, bad, bad law and they will never give money to any politician who supports it.
Yeah. And monkeys might fly out of my butt, too.
Agreed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Putting things into perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it's not Adobe who'll be suffering. This is a pure case of Nikon shooting themselves in the foot. With a bazooka, might I add...
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:License (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:foolish? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of people have file formats that are DMCA protected, including Adobe. And I bet Adobe wants you to pay their licensing fees...
Agreed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Truly no issue here. Let Nikon make their own Photoshop if they want, but I think this is going to be 'case closed'.
Probably no other option (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a lot of people seem to forget is that ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are Proprietary and encrypted. Canon Is no different. The only reason anybody is raising complaints is because nikon has not yet released the newest version of their Raw Format to adobe.
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshite. They knew exactly what the law would be used for and by whom. This law was drafted for the sole purpose of kissing the collective asses of big business.
The thing I hate about this sort of legislation, is that once it's on the books, it's very difficult to get repealed.
Which is why they just keep writing new laws to do the same thing as older laws ( just adding new "technologies" ) rather than changing the old laws to be more technology neutral.
Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?
We can't. In general, we don't have enough clout to get the politicians to even listen to us, let alone to get them to actually hear us.
Afraid of getting sued? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Big Picture (pun intended) (Score:2, Insightful)
As many noted, this hurts Nikon. And hurts them plenty.
Why wouldn't Adobe simply license the technology? Why should they? Why should they pay Nikon for the ability to decrypt information that has no business being encrypted in the first place?
More to the point, Adobe is simply not going to open the floodgates here. If they pay the license fee here, they've told every camera manufacturer "hey, build in some pointless encryption and we'll pay you money!"
Adobe's putting Nikon, and by extension the industry, on notice here. They're not going to be blackmailed into licensing pointless technology for DCMA issues. They'll drop your product first. And, as Nikon is sure to learn, they've got a lot more to lose than Adobe.
Looks like Nikon gambled here that Adobe would pay up to keep support for Nikon's product. And lost.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone I know who spends mucho money on camera's has photoshop. It has been that way the past 10 years. Excluding support for photoshop from a camera is like blocking AOL from your modem. Sure, you got a modem, but there is a sizable chunk of people who won't use it.
I know Nikon wants to sell their own software. But forcing people is the wrong way.
I know this analogy is not 100% the same, but what Nikon is doing is like what a professional studio does. You pay them $400 for pictures. You then take the pictures to Walmart to make copies, but the guy working tells you they can't make copies of studio work.
Remember when patents were to promote things? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, those days are gone, and the same's true for copyright and the DCMA.
All your profits are belong to CEOs.
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
And writing to both Canon and Nikon explaining your purchasing decision.
Re:License (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, let's all just walk away from one of the largest manufacturers of cameras on the planet.
As much as it sucks, this is a limitation on how to get the highest resolution images from the camera. Nikon sells software to access these image files. Photoshop can't because Nikon won't let them.
It sucks that Nikon isn't willing to open that up a little more, but if you're seriously deciding that people stop using Nikon en masse, you sorely misunderstand their position in the camera world.
This is just one of many reasons why I bought a film-SLR last year instead of a digital one. (OK, the four-fold increase in price was also a huge consideration.)
Rightly or wrongly, Nikon feels if you've already dropped a bunch of money on a professional quality D-SLR, the extra $100 or so to get the professional quality images out of it is not unreasonable.
Two thoughts. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
because! (Score:1, Insightful)
YOU should be paying ME to support your format.
Adobe has the upper hand here.
This is DRM on Your Photographs (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Good Grief! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I buy a Canon!
It's not that simply for a majority of folks that are in the market for cameras like D2X. Most of them already have $10,000 or more invested into Nikon before you even factor the camera body in.
Now they could sell all their Nikon stuff on Ebay for say $5,000, then spend another $10,000 buy the same things for Canon (even assuming that some of the older lens are available, you know the ones that we chipped to get working with the newer cameras).
Sorry that may make sense on /., but it doesn't make sense to real photographers. A few may make that leap, but many will simply stay with their D1's (or even F5's with Provia, and Velvia), until Nikon and Adobe works things out, or someone makes a plug in that hacks it for them.
The real question: (Score:4, Insightful)
No. The real question is: If I already use Photoshop, why would I want Nikon Capture? After all, it only does half of what Photoshop CS can do, and won't be compatable with my clients.
Pros aren't going to be dumping Photoshop any time soon. And while there're not, there's not much of a reason to use something else. Unless, of course, the company who made your camera is trying to lock you in, in which case you might consider another brand.
Why is Nikon so hot and bothered about image editing all of a suddern anyway?
Re:This is getting ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't let them off the hook that easily. Our legislators were told by consumer rights advocates that this was the type of thing that would happen. Of course supporters of the DMCA told the legislators that nobody would ever stoop that low.
Guess who they beleived?
Re:Nikon has its own RAW plugin for Photoshop (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:License Bingo! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it really doesn't, since everyone knows the DMCA only applies to encryption intended to protect copyrighted works, and color calibration data is just information that does not represent a creative work, therefore it can't be copyrighted.
Moreover, even if you did consider that tiny portion of a photo to be a creative work, it is a creative work in which one can assume that the person opening the file is the person who took the photo, or at least working for the same company.
Finally, the encryption isn't being explicitly added by the content producer (the photographer), which therefore means that it falls outside the DMCA by definition.
So... it sounds like Adobe suddenly did an about-face and decided the DMCA is evil for reasons other than saving their backsides. Either that or (more likely) they have a bone to pick with Nikon over something else and they're using this as leverage. That would be my guess....
Re:Good Grief! (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop jerking that knee. There was no "encryption" worthy of the name. It's been "broken" already, and the necessary function is already available in open source [cybercom.net]. If you read between the lines in the posted article, it sounds like Adobe hasn't even asked Nikon for permission -- possibly because Adobe thinks it has more to gain by fucking with Nikon in the court of public opinion and wants to be quite sure it doesn't have to offer any in-kind promises of immunity from its own IP abuse.
If Nikon had sued anyone over this, or even claimed the right to sue, they'd deserve condemnation. They've done neither. The original article is in substance an Adobe press release, and ought to be regarded as such.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL. Well, you're locked-in, so when Nikon decides it wants some fun you HAVE to bend over with a smile. Fortunately, not everyone is in the same position.
What a lot of people seem to forget is that ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are Proprietary and encrypted
All are proprietary, but as far as I know Nikon's is the first one with encrypted parts. Since the encryption is easily broken, its only purpose seems to be to invoke the threat of DMCA.
The only reason anybody is raising complaints is because nikon has not yet released the newest version of their Raw Format to adobe.
It seems pretty clear from the article that Nikon is NOT going to allow Adobe to decrypt the
As I said, it's pure Dilbert. Nikon got itself a bazooka, took careful aim at its foot and fired...
It's a test. (Score:2, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why they're going through with this insanity when far behind Canon in terms of new DSLR technologies and doing so poorly in recruiting customers. Sure, they're getting sales from pros who've already got a load of Nikon glass, but people starting from scratch, or pros who have the cash to invest in new lenses and bodies, will just switch to Canon and their superior DSLR linup. Tell me again, Nikon die-hards, where's the Nikon answer to the 20D? The entry-level Rebel XT? Where's Nikon's equivalent of the full-frame 1Ds Mark 2? Oh, that's right. There isn't one. There's just a D2X with 12 million tiny little photosites jammed onto an APSC-sized Sony-made sensor. Oh, and an overweight, underperforming Kodak-made monstrosity that doesn't work well past ISO100 anyway. Ick.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Our canned response to a a frequently asked question produced hostility in some customers.
2. Therefore, the customers are idiots.
3. ????
4. Profit!
Permit me to suggest that a better answer would be "Some camera manufacturers use a proprietary format and call it RAW. What camera are you using?"
If you are in customer service, I guarantee you that something close to 100% of your customers are idiots. (Dilbert's law - "Everyone is stupid about something sometime.") Your goal should not be to find better customres, but to accomodate the stupidity of your customers while making them happy to give you their money. That's the theory. In practice, when the customer's stupidity makes them unhappy about reality, you find a way to present the reality in a factual, accurate way that does not reflect badly on you. I call it "honest spin." In some cases there is NO honest spin that will make the customers happy; in this situation, you either lie or fire the customer.
Truly no issue? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The correct solution...but to which problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
All I can suggest is that you read the US Code. You'll see that the copyrighted material is a crucial requirement.
If Nikon wishes to patent it's encryption/decryption algorithm for this particular purpose, it's free to do so. But the DMCA cannot be used to replace the patent system. Unless the purpose of the measure (in this case, encryption) is to protect the copyrighted work (that belongs to me) from others (people NOT me), it isn't covered by the DMCA.
What goes around comes around. (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's why it's an issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [photoworkshop.com]. I wouldn't buy any camera that pretended to be "professional" but didn't support DNG or some other open file format.
Re:Black Hat, White Hat... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about the costs of a lawsuit. Adobe has several projects that rely on the DMCA to work. Take encrypted PDFs, for example, or Adobe's encrypted ebook format. When push comes to shove Adobe is heavily invested in the idea of proprietary closed formats.
There response to Nikon's use of a closed format is typical. Like Adobe's so-called secure formats Nikon's RAW format isn't really encrypted, but is instead merely obfusticated. With a little engineering Adobe could read the information they need just fine. However, doing so would weaken the DMCA, and Adobe doesn't want to do that. So instead they are putting economic pressure on Nikon. Adobe knows that quite a few of Nikon's users are going to want to edit their photos in photoshop. Adobe is using its market position to influence Nikon to change its mind.
Eventually Nikon will probably relent and give Adobe permission to open these files. Not only would this give weight to Adobe's interpretation of the DMCA, but if Nikon only gives permission to Adobe to open these files then it would give Adobe a market advantage. After all, Photoshop would be able to get the most out of Nikon's raw format and Adobe's competitors would not.
No one really considers Dmitry a blackhat, probably not even the folks at Adobe. The difference is that Adobe feels that it should be possible to make reverse engineering formats illegal, and Dmitry got in the way.
Re:encrypted? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see any evidence that Adobe is "up in arms." It seems to me that they are respecting what another company sees as that company's IP. The slashdot crowd may be up in arms, but I'm pretty sure that no one here (officially) speaks for Adobe.
Not entirely correct... (Score:3, Insightful)
Photoshop does not directly, officially support .NEF, but the PictureProject software with the D2H and most Nikon digital SLRs (including the D70, which I have), has a plugin for Photoshop that allows import of .NEF files into Photoshop, with a control panel for white balance and exposure adjustment during import. It's not as decent in terms of absolute resolution or artifact elimination compared to Nikon Capture Editor, but it's reasonable.
The best method for transferring work to Photoshop with the fewest artifacts and best absolute resolution/clarity would be to convert the image to a TIFF in Nikon Capture Editor or View Editor first.
Oh the irony (Score:3, Insightful)
Adobe went after Sklyarov with the DMCA for removing Adobe's ebook protections.
Now they're on the other end of the stick, and have to cripple their premier application.
I wonder if they still think they did the right thing by going after Dmitry.
Someone explain to me how white balance information on a picture you took, on a camera you own, is any of Nikon's business. DMCA or otherwise.
Re:Disagreed! (Score:3, Insightful)
The Corporate View (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... (Score:1, Insightful)
Your statement makes you sound like you've been brainwashed by the word "proprietary" - people will just reverse engineer it if the vendor won't cooperate, and the DMCA has no relevance here (since YOU own the copyright to your own photos).