Adobe Blasts Nikon's Closed File Format 347
Joe Decker writes "Thomas Knoll, creator of Adobe Photoshop,
blasts Nikon's use of encryption to limit access to white-balance information contained in D2X RAW images files. Fearing the DMCA, Adobe won't reverse-engineer the file, slightly reducing Photoshop's support for those files.
Nikon responds. Is Adobe whining? Is Nikon shooting itself in the foot?" We've covered this previously.
Nikon (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nikon (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nikon (Score:5, Funny)
Stolen from somewhere I can't remember.
Re:Nikon (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nikon (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nikon (Score:5, Funny)
-- Mr Furious, "Ticking Time-bomb of Rage"
Re:Nikon (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nikon (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, man. Put a little thought into these! That was as stupid as a screendoor on a battleship!
Re:Nikon (Score:5, Informative)
Adobe has previously been having a similar problem with the Fuji WB's as it can been seen here, taken from the following thread on usenet:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/adobe.photosh
>Chris Cox Feb 20 2003, 10:08 pm show options
>It's out of agreement because the plugin cannot read the FUJI
>proprietary and undocumented data, and is making a guess at
>the whitepoint based on the image contents.
>
>If you would like to see this improved, please contact Fuji and
>ask them to work with Adobe to read their proprietary and
>undocumented file format(s).
Don't confuse encryption with undocumented RAW! (Score:5, Informative)
That entirely misses the point.
Undocumented RAW formats are one thing, and can in most cases be reverse-engineering quite trivially just by using commonsense.
But what Nikon did was to *ENCRYPT* the values contained in one particular set of fields, those holding the white balance information.
This is totally unrelated to the structure of their RAW files being undocumented. It requires a decryption key to release that data (which is the photographer's data anyway, not theirs), and commonsense cannot possibly reveal it.
Re:Don't confuse encryption with undocumented RAW! (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I know, Canon is also doing some kind of encryption of the WB in some of its cameras, which can be seen in the dcraw source code.
Re:Don't confuse encryption with undocumented RAW! (Score:5, Insightful)
I just looked at dcraw.c [cybercom.net] and the parts pertaining to parsing Canon's white balance info simply use the camera model name to determine where in the RAW file Canon put the WB. Hardly "encryption", it's just an offset that varies by format.
Canon appears to develop a unique RAW file format by camera model. That makes a "tiny" bit of sense in that each file can accurately describe precisely the data the camera is capable of producing. It makes it harder in the long run to support dozens of file formats, but that's a trade-off Canon appears to be willing to live with. Keep in mind that Canon has to eat their own dogfood, too -- every format they produce means a new software release to parse the RAW files. And Canon doesn't charge for these downloads -- once you've bought their camera, it comes with software and upgrades (so far) have been free. So there's no real economic incentive for them to continue this, but they do.
What I think is most important regarding this issue is that it's simply a tempest in a teapot, being stirred by Adobe for their own political reasons. First, it's only on a single high-end pro camera -- affecting only a select set of professional photographers, most of whom have never heard of Open Source. Second, it's only white balance information. It's what the photographer told the camera about "white" or "gray" at the time of the shot, but it doesn't change the underlying image data. It's nothing that can't be recovered in the digital darkroom during processing. Finally, the encryption is trivial to break -- Adobe is raising a ruckus claiming the DMCA is preventing reverse engineering. In reality, most Open Source developers would simply ignore the DMCA and perform the decoding anyway.
In the camera world Nikon stands alone in this stupidity, but it's really too small of a matter to concern any of us, (unless you're looking for a DMCA poster child to nail to the wall.)
Re:Don't confuse encryption with undocumented RAW! (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody who can, say, afford to buy Macromedia is much more likely to get slapped with a giant lawsuit.
Re:Don't confuse encryption with undocumented RAW! (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought it was Nikon that raised the ruckus by threatening Adobe with it.
Either way, it being trivial to break isn't going to be a winning arguement in court. Indeed, trivial encryption is exactly what the DMCA was made for. Strong encryption doesn't need to be protected by law.
Honestly, I hope Adobe is successful in stirring things up around this. If it actually goes to court there stands a very good chance of a bit of the DMCA being chipped away, since it's actually the end user who owns copyright on the data being encrypted.
Trivial or not, Nikon needs to be kicked in the head.
Purpose of white balance (Score:4, Insightful)
Even just for "pro-sumer" cameras, this feature is great when working with ambient light.
Re:Don't confuse encryption with undocumented RAW! (Score:3, Informative)
It is for now, but Nikon has several new cameras, including consumer models, coming up. What's to say they won't all use the encrypted NEF as well in hopes of doing whatever this is supposed to do for them? After these cameras, there will be more cameras, any of which could meet the same fate.
Second, it's only white balance information. It's what the photographer told the camera about "white"
Re:Don't confuse encryption with undocumented RAW! (Score:3, Interesting)
it's simply a tempest in a teapot,
No, Nikon are obviously market testing the we-encrypt-your-data waters and trying to set a precedent.
Future models will be much more restrictive. If there is no backlash now when do you think people should take a stand?
Kudos to Adobe on this one.
---
DRM - Democracy Restriction & Manipulation
Not just undocumented, actively encrypted (Score:5, Informative)
Adobe is pushing their own portable RAW format (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html
Essentially they're trying to create an open, ISO certified format that is capable of holding all the RAW information that a camera maker would need. This would future proof images so that they can be read by a number of tools.
cheers,
Kris
Re:Nikon (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
PDF - It Just Works.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you even looked at the PDF specification [adobe.com]? If not, how can you make comments about the format?
What's clumsy and bloated is Acrobat Reader. My guess is that more free *nix
Huh? PDFs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, they've managed to make most people think you need horribly expensive "Distiller" software, when they could just use GhostScript and PDFCreator. What a racket...
--grendel drago
Re:Huh? PDFs? (Score:3, Informative)
We have GS on all machines here, and Acrobat on three. I never use GS. It crashes, can't handle multiple page sizes (iirc), has an absolutely horrible interface (distilling ps is a nightmare for me, let alone non power-users).. in short, paying for Acrobat is worth it.
Yes, Adobe DNG Format (Score:4, Interesting)
To combat this, Adobe has introduced a new open RAW format called DNG for digital negative [adobe.com]. They provide a free converter to convert all of the closed proprietary formats to it and are willing to work with the camera comanies to make sure that the format contains the information they need.
The RAW converter that came with $2500 Minolta SLR I bought does a terrible job. They want me to pay an extra several hundred dollars for the Pro version that does the job decently. All that just to read the damn pictures I take!
Can you imagine if you bought a film camera and got consistently crappy prints from it unless you bought a pro-upgrade lab? At least Adobe takes the time to reverse engineer these proprietary formats and even provides a free tool to convert to an open format.
OpenRaw.org (Score:4, Informative)
Here is a solution. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Here is a solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here is a solution. (Score:2)
Re:Here is a solution. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here is a solution. (Score:2)
Re:Here is a solution. (Score:4, Informative)
That doesn't make any sense. Try "never have been". Or, if you are basing this on what you hear said, try "never 'ave been" or maybe even "never've been".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here is a solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here is a solution. (Score:2)
1. Nikon would try to sue anyway and Adobe wants to avoid the legal headache.
2. Adobe wants to settle the issue nicely without alienating a manufacturer of high-end cameras, cameras which are no doubt used by a lot of people who use Photoshop to edit their photos.
Re:Here is a solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here is a solution. (Score:2)
Adobe can't have it both ways.
Re:because (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:because (Score:3, Informative)
Uhhh... you realize that many large cities prohibit the sale of photos of their buildings without buying the rights? Or that selling photos of photos, ads, sculptures, paintings, artwork, etc can get you sued if you don't acquire the rights to the original? It's called "photography clearance".
--Rob
Re:because (Score:3, Insightful)
You still own the copyright, even if you need to make agreements to use the photographs commercially.
It's called reality.
No one is screwed.Unless they've been so all along (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nikon SDK that permits decoding of the format is still available to 3rd parties.
In short, it's the same as it ever was.
If the licensing is so heinous that an open source project can't accept it, then perhaps the problem isn't on the Nikon side, but in the perception and conception of how licensing should work on the part of the project team.
Re:No one is screwed.Unless they've been so all al (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't a problem for open source projects. They can already access the data [lwn.net]. Well, those outside the US anyway, and people inside just need to download from outside...
It's Adobe, a proprietary US company, that's having problems.
Re:No one is screwed.Unless they've been so all al (Score:2)
Re:No one is screwed.Unless they've been so all al (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No one is screwed.Unless they've been so all al (Score:3, Interesting)
And yes, of course the solution is "if you don't like it, don't buy it". So I won't. However, I'm feeling some pity and righ
Re:No one is screwed.Unless they've been so all al (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know about Nikon, but for my Canon I know that ACR produces far better results than Canon RAW Converter.
The SDKs don't provide full access to raw formats (Score:3, Informative)
My experience with a Canon G4 is that ACR not only is more flexible (and even allows recovery of blown highlights if at least one
An unforeseen consequence of the move to digital? (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents aside, there might also be an issue reading some of these manufacturers' RAW formats in years to come if you've lost the original CD or it doesn't work on Windows ZZZZ.
Hooray for the DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hooray for the DMCA (Score:3, Insightful)
>anyone can access Nikon's encrypted data with a
Considering it is NOT Nikon's data, I don't see the problem to start with.
Re:Hooray for the DMCA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hooray for the DMCA (Score:2)
Both (Score:5, Interesting)
Is Nikon shooting itself in the foot? -- Yes.
1. Adobe is whining because it doesn't really matter in the end (see #2).
2. Nikon is shooting itself in the foot because even though I'm not a professional I know enough gurus in the graphics field to know that they are insane product researchers, and won't come within 10 feet of a product that will produce less than optimal results with photoshop.
Ok, next topic. Refresh, refresh, refresh...
Re:Both (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Both (Score:5, Interesting)
ACR (adobe's raw converter) has always produced suboptimal results with NEF, so many don't use it. It takes quite a bit of profiling and tweaking to get an image that doesnt look flat and dull out of it - something other raw converters dont seem to have a problem with. So typically you export to TIFF in another converter, then do your photoshopping.
Most really high end camera systems use completely proprietary formats that only their own software can read. I've got a 22mp digital back here that costs 5 times what a D2X costs and it can only be handled with its own software. This has been pretty normal for years
As a professional, this is an annoyance, but at the same time, I can't say it bugs me too much. Photographers arent quite as obsessed with things like this as typical slashdotters are. Got better things to do...
It is however, a PR nightmare. Nikon's never been too good at PR. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I think theres much more going on behind the scenes between adobe and nikon than is let on.
Re:Both (Score:5, Insightful)
> take my business to Canon.
Well YOU can, but the huge pool of pros and serious amateur photographers won't, because they're already too heavily invested in Nikon gear. The D2X and its brethren aren't point-and-shoot cameras that can simply be swapped for Canon gear: people often have thousands of dollars worth of lenses that would also have to be replaced. I'm not a pro, but even my Nikon optics+camera are worth more than my car.
Nikon knows this.
What will happen (Score:5, Interesting)
The best solution would be to pay camera companies to include a "Compatible with Photoshop" peelable sticker on the bottom of the camera / camera packaging. That'd probably get Nikon crawling back pretty quickly.
Re:What will happen (Score:2)
Re:What will happen (Score:2)
Re:What will happen (Score:3, Interesting)
They probably won't ditch it, but if there's a film photographer looking to make the move to digital, or someone looking to enter the field, it very well could be enough to sway their opinion away from Nikon.
I may get a DSLR sometime over summer. I was considering between the Nikon D70 and the Canon Rebel XT, but th
Re:What will happen (Score:2)
Re:What will happen (Score:2)
So in answer to the parent. No DNG isn't RAW format but it doesn't have any impact on the image quality and should not have an impact on perf
Re:What will happen (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What will happen (Score:3, Informative)
Even the transformation from RAW to a format with lossless compression is a lossy conversion. See, for instance, here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], and here [slashdot.org].
Double strandards? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double strandards? (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, what we are talking about is not reverse engineering, it's cracking the encryption scheme used in a format that is well documented (in the case of PDF; don't know about Nikon's raw format). Second of all, Adobe is choosing not to do this, IIRC, so you can't say they are being inconsistent from a legal standpoint.
The essential difference between these situations is that Nikon's format prevents a work's owner from doing c
heh, just read this story today (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, here's a link to dcraw [cybercom.net] which will blast through Nikon's bullshit.
Nikon shooting itself in the foot. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nikon shooting itself in the foot. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, at the G5/Powershot/etc level, changing brands is a matter of picking a new camera up. When you get into DSLRs, changing brands is orders of magnitude more expensive than simply buy a new camera body.
Squeel? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, except (Score:3, Interesting)
So now they're complaining about somebody else doing the same thing. I find their whining at best, uh, whiny.
Let me be the first to say: (Score:5, Funny)
And Let ME be the first to say: (Score:5, Funny)
bona fide software developers (Score:3, Interesting)
from encryption to the court (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:from encryption to the court (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, the feature here is that it can be turned on or off as the user wishes. Moreover, you don't need to encrypt a file format to create a valid digital signature for it.
The only reason for Nikon to do this is to make sure that they can charge a license fee for anyone who wants to be able to manipulate raw images taken with their hardware. The best solution for everybody would be to do th
Recent Nikon experience (Score:2, Interesting)
It was full of .NEF files (no, I haven't RTFA so I don't know if these are the files in question) so I emptied them off and she went back to taking pictures.
Thing is, the CD's she had with her that she'd got with the camera, were full of crippled software - "lite" versions you have to purchase the full version, etc.
I didn't have the time or inclination to look into it fully
Re:Recent Nikon experience (Score:5, Informative)
By default, Nikon cameras (that are able to shoot RAW) convert to JPEG on the camera, and you have to select RAW manually. Sadly though as you discovered, they don't supply fully licensed software that can read RAW data with their cameras, beyond a trial version of Nikon Capture (this might have worked for you?).
Granted - their software is a total pain in the ass to install. I've just recovered from a situation in which I installed updated 4.1 to 4.2, but the installer crashed, and 4.1 refused to reinstall because it detected the remnants of 4.2 and aborted - leaving me with no usable version of the software. In the end I had to borrow a copy of version 3 which didn't have the newer-version-check in the installer, and then patch up from there.
I'm not bothered about NEF being encrypted or whatever, but I do think it's lame that they don't supply a fully licensed copy of Nikon Capture with their cameras that can shoot RAW. I own a D70 and had to fork out for a copy of it to make the most of the camera. Other than that, Photoshop natively supports NEF files, although IMO the remote control and live previewing features of Capture make it worth the cost.
Re:Recent Nikon experience (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the crap I hate. You buy some nice piece of hardware that seems like it _should_ work just spiffy on its own, but the truth is you have to use someone's proprietary software or go searching for a hack to make it work. It's maddening.
Other things in this category: My daughters' iPod. Yeah, I know y'all love iTunes and I know that it doesn't suck, but maybe you can cut me some slack in the fact that I happened to choose a different package for my MP3 library before getting her the iPod. Now I have this incompatible mess. I could just switch to iTunes throughout the house, but why should I have to make that choice just to put a stupid MP3 file on her player?
My cell phone has this nice memory card that I need synch software in order to access. Yeah, I can store and use a gig of data, including MP3s, software, books, etc, but I can't access it on any computer that doesn't have ActiveSync. Why?
I'm sick of it. Maybe these folks think they're helping me out by including their crappys software or maybe they're just doing it to lock me in. Either way, it makes me, the consumer, wary of buying their products. That can't be something they actually like.
TW
Adobe calling the kettle black? (Score:2)
The Good News, As i see it: (Score:5, Insightful)
For this, they should be praised. IMHO.
Make a non US version (Score:2)
They're free, we're free (Score:5, Interesting)
We are free not to buy their products.
I run a heavy traffic photo mailing list (http://www.topica.com/lists/streetphoto) and the overwhelming response has been "Stuff Nikon".
Photogs tend to have well established workflows with a few choice tools (eg Capture One + PSCS) and do not enjoy having to use Nikon's frequently b0rked software.
There is no reason whatever to encrypt this data except to screw more $$ out of the customer.
If Nikon had a conspicuously superior product then this might conceivably make some kind of bean-counting sense but these days they don't. Canon's DP stuff is arguably superior and the only real effect of this on anyone will be to drive up Canon sales and drive down Nikon, amplifying an already-existing trend.
Thomas Knoll, who blew the whistle on this, is regarded with great affection within the DP community. Nikon is not.
If you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of Nikon flushing itself down the toilet.
How ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Adobe CREATED this and now wants protection from it. That's kinda funny. I don't care so much about white balance. The other issue in this matter is much more interesting.
Re:How ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
This won't effect me and most other Nikonians (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought a D70 recently. I choose cameras by using them (and of course reading the odd review). This way i've always bought cameras that I, myself, can take great pictures with (previously, Canon A70, Olympus C-5060).
I also tried out the Canon 300D and 350D, E-300 etc. The Nikon felt best in my hand. That's the secret to a good camera/photographer relationship.
I would put up with having to install a plug-in if it meant getting better results. Perhaps Nikon's plug-in produces better results?? They did create the camera, after-all.
I think Nikon's biggest problem is they have no decent mid-range D-SLR. But then I can't imagine what you would need that the D70 can't deliver.
This is a tempest in a teapot, and here's why... (Score:5, Interesting)
Shooters who are serious about RAW files don't use Photoshop as their RAW converter. Photoshop may be the number-one image editor, but when you've got 300 RAW files to process it's totally unacceptable for that task. Not only is the output merely good rather than great, Photoshop just isn't engineered for smooth high-volume workflow. If you shoot weddings, catalogs, fashion, or the like; you've got too many files to use Photoshop time-efficiently.
The kind of shooter who needs a D2x will be using something like Capture One [phaseone.com]. I once used it to convert 300 RAWs under difficult stage lights in two hours. I grouped photos under similar light, fine tuned the converter for one group, set it batch converting the group in the background while I moved on to the next group. This would have taken a loooong time in PS. Once your RAWs (NEFs ORFs CRWs, whatever) have been converted to TIFFs, THEN you move to Photoshop, if necessary.
PhaseOne has already announced that C1Pro 3.7.release.candidate supports the D2x, so I guess the SDK is available to 3rd parties. The overlap of [D2x owners} and {Adobe Camera RAW users} will be a relatively small group.
For $600 dollars... (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is - Encrypting files for no reason (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be no fear of decrypting this data. Didn't I create that file? Isn't the data even though encrypted mine?
I can't even think of an analogy. Even MS with its word file format, won't document how it works but isn't so evil as to encrypt it.
This is bad form and is another strike against Nikon.
Subject (Score:5, Funny)
The poetic justice is lovely this evening.
Cut 'em off (Score:3, Interesting)
Adobe needs to just punish Nikon by stripping all support for Nikon raw images from Photoshop until Nikon caves. Nikon will have a hard time selling digital cameras to professional photographers if Photoshop just spits up all Nikon raw images as improperly formatted.
Illegal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in Scotland, preventing someone access to something they own (and you would expect that the photographer owns the data of the photograph) is viewed as theft by the law. It's why car clamping is illegal in Scotland. I'm not sure if there are any cases which provide precedence for this with regards to data, but would be interesting to see Nikon bought to court over this!
Nikon to Users: All Your Data Are Mine (Score:5, Informative)
Nikon released a statement late last week regarding the "encryption" (not technically encryption, but instead, obfustication) of the RAW format (NEF) photo data taken with a D2X camera:
Nikon: You Are Wrong. Period. And do not insult me by lying.Update: Nikon has removed this statement from their web site.
The thing that galls me about Nikon's statement is that Nikon is essentially telling me that I need to use their processing solution, or one that they approve, or not use the NEF format at all.
They can wax poetic in PR legalese all they want, but at the end of the day, all I am reading is that Nikon is saying that my data is for me to use as they see fit. No, Nikon, it is not.
A camera is an instrument to take a photograph, and that's all. Now, however, the coming of age of digital has married irrevocably cameras and software. Without software, a digital camera is absolutely useless. It produces nothing tangible, and to make that photograph anything more than a small image on the LCD screen on the back of the camera, you simply must have software.
That said, if the images are now aetherial bits, do they not still belong to us, the photographers, or our assignees?
I think the answer to that is yes. They certainly would if they were film images. And has any camera manufacturer ever mandated what film processing methods must be used with photographs taken with their camera? No. It would have been insane for one to even try.
And this is insane now.
As such, I think that the SDK should be freely available to anyone who asks for it, and at the very least, to any owner of a Nikon digital camera. Why should I not be allowed to write my own software? Because Nikon says that I can't, as I am not a 'bona fide' developer? Do I need to be one, to write applications to fiddle with my own images?
No. The data are mine.
Let me use a real world example: I photograph a lot of panoramics. I use Panorama Tools a great deal of the time to stitch those programs together. Now then, PTools does not have an embedded interface for NEF files, especially D2X NEF files. Let's say that I wanted to open my NEF files and input them programmatically into Panorama Tools. With this press release, Nikon is telling me that I cannot have the information to do the task I want to do. In other words, sod off, pay us to play.
This whole issue reminds me much of Gillette, the razor company, when their mantra was "sell the razor cheap and the blades at a high price." Instead this time, it is "sell the camera high and continue to reach into their pockets to allow the photographer to use his/her pictures. Use our software, or someone we like, or do not use your data as you see fit."
Worst of all, this has been enabled by the US government, what with the asinine provision of the Digital Milleneum Copyright Act. The DCMA makes it illegal to reverse engineer encrypted files. Bottom line is that one can argue that NEF files are not encrypted, but in reality, they are, because the data are obfusticated...and without Nikon's blessing, one risks enormous civil fines and prison to bypass Nikon's methods.
I hope at the end of the day Nikon is punished severely by the marketplace for this. I truly hope that Canon makes a point to point out in their marketing that not only do they not charge for their RAW conversion tools but that developers can get the information they need to extend the capabilities of Canon cameras.
That sounds severe, but the only thing Nikon will understand is a beat-down from their potential customers. And this time, Nikon deserves a black eye.
Re:Let's get some FACTS down! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nikon has not asserted any ownership of your images. This outcry has come from the general bitching that everyone has with the encryption issue. Everyone's falsely concluding that just because something is encrypted in the file that that means that Nikon owns your image. How absurd is that! My guess is that there's more than just white balance that is encrypted in the file.
Yes, let's get the facts straight:
1. Nikon has obfusticated some of the data I produce with their camera.
2. Nikon tells me this i
If Adobe wasn't so wedded to the DMCA... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's unlikely white balance information is copyrightable at all. Which means decrypting it isn't bypassing a technological measure protecting a copyrighted work, which means the DMCA doesn't apply. In any case, the white balance information in a photo isn't copyrighted _by Nikon_ (unless a Nikon employee took the picture), so Adobe could probably get any case dismissed for lack of standing.
It's amusing to see Adobe hoist by its own petard. And even more amusing to see that the format (including encryption) has been reverse-engineered, and will be supported by open-source tools.
I don't see the 'blast' (Score:3, Insightful)
Nikon might want to consider publishing their format. But it it truly just image information? I thought there was some internal state information included. This might be simply a way to protect their complete 'system,' whose borders reach beyond the physical camera, to the export of jpeg and tiff. It really is their format, after all. Positive persuasion is more appropriate here, not demonization.
Duplicate Posting (Score:2, Informative)
This posting is actually referring to the earlier news - but the above link refers to Nikons response...
Re:Sue Nikon under the DMCA! (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess that knife cuts both ways, eh?