Nikon encrypts D2X white balance metadata

[Kho King]

if u hack the nef and sell your software commercially, Nikon can sue u.

as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Wai ...not just something that can be "hacked" overnight....not fair for developers who worked hard to get the authorisation right?

[timlim]

just want to share my understanding of the DMCA and adobe as a software manufacturer...i am not in full knowledge of the exact intentions of nikon and adobe so please bear with me and correct me where you think i have been misled.

the issue over the encryption is that, under the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, any feature that is implemented to protect software is itself protected. in other words, it is not only a crime to make illegal copies of the software, it is also a crime to attempt to break whatever protection (such as encryption) the software owner has used to protect the software. technically, it does not matter how sophisticated or unsophisticated that protection feature is. to use an analogy, it does not matter whether you use a $3 combination lock or a $3000 state-of-the-art alarm system to lock your front door - anyone caught trying to break the lock is automatically commiting a crime.

therefore, according to the DMCA, whether the encrytion takes 2 hours or 2 years to break, breaking it is a crime. so the observations of some posters that the nikon encrytption is easily broken is technically a non-issue. clearly, this is a controversial law especially unpopular with consumers as, for example, it prevents them from making back-up copies of software or data that they have legitimately bought.

software developers (SDs) are cautious because even though they can break the code easily, nikon may be able to sue them whenever it likes if they do so. some posters have said (in another thread) that a big SD like adobe should have the resources to "fight off" nikon. that is no doubt true, but another perspective is to say that adobe is a big company with very deep pockets. for smaller SDs (some of whom are already offering those nikon-compatible, if not nikon-authorised products), they can just go bankrupt, fold, and sprout up somewhere else. adobe, on the other hand, can and will have to pay up if they lose.

now the interesting bit...it is well known, as some have pointed out, that adobe is the first (if not the only) SD to have used to DMCA to jail someone. yes, they had every legal right to have Dmitry Sklyarov arrested under the DMCA. however, they had to drop the charges in the end due to public pressure...people were demonstrating on the streets in the US and threatening to boycott adobe products. in the end, adobe had to give in to consumer/economic pressure.

to add another twist: adobe and canon are in joint partnership to develop digital imaging standards and algorithms...a case of posturing between nikon and adobe/canon and vice-versa, perhaps? after all, it is entirely possible for nikon to authorise ALL SDs to use their algorithm EXCEPT adobe/canon.

i'm a nikon user myself, but i am against nikon, or anyone else, coming up with ways to "break" up existing standards. everyone has more to gain by using a common standard - would you still buy a nikon film camera if it could only be used with "nikon" 35.72mm film and no other 35mm film? as adobe has found out, it usually does not pay to piss off the consumers, especially your potential customers!

[agape01]

Wai...

Thanks for doing the test yourself, but as I have stated earlier on C1 programming is quite good as it already is. However, you have not looked at the final product. What is currently available is only the release candidate, but so what if the entire WB is off. It is only the beta version of C1 3.7.

Is it so bothersome to set all the NEF shots to Auto WB? After all, that is what batch processing is for right? Even if you had the correct WB setting on your canon cam, don't tell me that you wouldn't adjust it if you found that your shot was taken in the wrong WB?

I know some people would adjust their WB individually, but they do that as they have a lot of time to kill on their hands, so this shouldn't be a problem right? Besides, C1 is well known for its batch processing and again, this shouldn't be that big of a issue.

The only reason why people are making such a fuss is because of consumer feedback on the web.

Still, there is one more thing for you to try if you have the time, but I think you don't. That is to run a copy of NC4 version 4.2.1 and see how damn long it would take you to post process even one photo. If you do this, you can understand why Nikon users who use the D2x complain about the laborous time taken to do post processing.

[Wai]

Originally Posted by agape01 Is it so bothersome to set all the NEF shots to Auto WB? After all, that is what batch processing is for right? Even if you had the correct WB setting on your canon cam, don't tell me that you wouldn't adjust it if you found that your shot was taken in the wrong WB?

yes, the WB measured by the camera should be more accurate at the first place, it will be kinda waste if you cannot make use of the WB determined by the camera. Only if the camera failed to get the WB that you want, then you can adjust it in C1, you dont adjust every pic if the WB is what you want at the first place mah....sometimes using auto will make the things worse, eg. using auto level or auto color in photoshop, u will get unexpected results sometimes

[Watcher]

Originally Posted by timlim just want to share my understanding of the DMCA and adobe as a software manufacturer...i am not in full knowledge of the exact intentions of nikon and adobe so please bear with me and correct me where you think i have been misled. the issue over the encryption is that, under the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, any feature that is implemented to protect software is itself protected. in other words, it is not only a crime to make illegal copies of the software, it is also a crime to attempt to break whatever protection (such as encryption) the software owner has used to protect the software. technically, it does not matter how sophisticated or unsophisticated that protection feature is. to use an analogy, it does not matter whether you use a $3 combination lock or a $3000 state-of-the-art alarm system to lock your front door - anyone caught trying to break the lock is automatically commiting a crime. therefore, according to the DMCA, whether the encrytion takes 2 hours or 2 years to break, breaking it is a crime. so the observations of some posters that the nikon encrytption is easily broken is technically a non-issue. clearly, this is a controversial law especially unpopular with consumers as, for example, it prevents them from making back-up copies of software or data that they have legitimately bought.

Ah, but the question is: is it even encryption in the first place? Even if it is, under DMCA, there is doubt that prosecution in this case will take place. Why? Read this. Furthermore, a reading of it said that "prohibits the circumvention of any "technological protection measure" that protects access to a copyrighted work." Excuse me. Who owns the copyright to the image here? The photographer, right? So if I get a tool to allow access to my copyrighted work, it is illegal? Mind you, in the case of music, video, DVD, etc, you do not own the rights to the work. You boughts the rights to view it; you cannot resell it, transfer it nor claim it to be yours.

Originally Posted by timlim to add another twist: adobe and canon are in joint partnership to develop digital imaging standards and algorithms...a case of posturing between nikon and adobe/canon and vice-versa, perhaps? after all, it is entirely possible for nikon to authorise ALL SDs to use their algorithm EXCEPT adobe/canon.

No. Nikon offered Adobe its SDK. Let me repeat it the Nth time since people have not read it in my other post: Nikon had offered Adobe its SDK. Adobe declined since it said that they needed more.

Originally Posted by timlim i'm a nikon user myself, but i am against nikon, or anyone else, coming up with ways to "break" up existing standards. everyone has more to gain by using a common standard - would you still buy a nikon film camera if it could only be used with "nikon" 35.72mm film and no other 35mm film? as adobe has found out, it usually does not pay to piss off the consumers, especially your potential customers!

Pray tell, what "standard" is Nikon breaking? NEF? Common standard? Set up by whom? Royalty paid to whom? Again, no RAW file is an established standard.

[timlim]

Originally Posted by Watcher Ah, but the question is: is it even encryption in the first place? Even if it is, under DMCA, there is doubt that prosecution in this case will take place. Why? Read this. Furthermore, a reading of it said that "prohibits the circumvention of any "technological protection measure" that protects access to a copyrighted work." Excuse me. Who owns the copyright to the image here? The photographer, right? So if I get a tool to allow access to my copyrighted work, it is illegal? Mind you, in the case of music, video, DVD, etc, you do not own the rights to the work. You boughts the rights to view it; you cannot resell it, transfer it nor claim it to be yours.

agreed - this is indeed a grey area in the law and i'm not a big fan of the DMCA either! there are 2 works in question here. one is, as you have mentioned, the photographer's images. the other work is the nikon algorithm. if you create a novel, the copyright in the novel is yours. if you sell the novel as an ebook using XYZ SD's encrypted ebook format, the copyright in the novel is still yours. but if someone else breaks XYZ's encryption, XYZ (as opposed to you), can TRY to sue that someone else.

Originally Posted by Watcher No. Nikon offered Adobe its SDK. Let me repeat it the Nth time since people have not read it in my other post: Nikon had offered Adobe its SDK. Adobe declined since it said that they needed more.

fair enough. does the SDK include full authorisation to access? if nikon has indeed been generous in offering SDKs to "bona fide" SDs (as it claims in its release), why are SDs like bibble using terms like "successfully decoded" to describe their access to the RAW data (as opposed to just "includes" or "authorised by nikon")? i'm assuming bibble is a "bona fide" SD, of course.

dpreview also states that nikon "doesn't provide them (SDs) direct access to the RAW data itself". are we getting the full picture from nikon? to be fair, i'm also curious as to what additional concessions adobe wanted from nikon, and whether these concessions are reasonable.

Originally Posted by Watcher Pray tell, what "standard" is Nikon breaking? NEF? Common standard? Set up by whom? Royalty paid to whom? Again, no RAW file is an established standard.

perhaps "standard" was a poor choice of a word on my part. i meant to describe "openness" and accessibility across all manufacturers. it's true that all digital camera manufacturers have their own proprietary formats, but to date no one to my knowledge (except possibly nikon - we shall have to wait and see) has tried to impose some form of restriction on their formats.

at the end of the day, i'd be happy if this is just all bad PR management from nikon. if they have nothing to hide, they should really make it clear and end the speculation once and for all!

anyway, hope my reply hasn't sounded too antagonistic - i'm just after some harmless intellectual (if i may say so) banter !

[Watcher]

Originally Posted by timlim agreed - this is indeed a grey area in the law and i'm not a big fan of the DMCA either! there are 2 works in question here. one is, as you have mentioned, the photographer's images. the other work is the nikon algorithm. if you create a novel, the copyright in the novel is yours. if you sell the novel as an ebook using XYZ SD's encrypted ebook format, the copyright in the novel is still yours. but if someone else breaks XYZ's encryption, XYZ (as opposed to you), can TRY to sue that someone else.

Well, not really. XYZ sells you a tool. Prosecuting the breaking of the protection is still up to you. It is the same as locks on a door. If I have to get a locksmith to break my locks for what ever reason, the police should not arrest me for trying to break into my own house, right? Smilarly, if someone breaks the locks and enter your house, you sue the person, not the lockmaker.

Originally Posted by timlim fair enough. does the SDK include full authorisation to access? if nikon has indeed been generous in offering SDKs to "bona fide" SDs (as it claims in its release), why are SDs like bibble using terms like "successfully decoded" to describe their access to the RAW data (as opposed to just "includes" or "authorised by nikon")? i'm assuming bibble is a "bona fide" SD, of course. dpreview also states that nikon "doesn't provide them (SDs) direct access to the RAW data itself". are we getting the full picture from nikon? to be fair, i'm also curious as to what additional concessions adobe wanted from nikon, and whether these concessions are reasonable.

That is the issue with abstraction. When you use any SDK, you do not again full access at all, just like if you use APIs to access any system. You loose power for the advantage of abstraction. When you use an SDK, you basically is subjected to controls and limitations in the SDK, be it programming to a database or SAP or machine. It is akin to programming with C/C++ vs assembly. Basically, Adobe has been reverse engineering the files to again full power all these time. so now...

Originally Posted by timlim perhaps "standard" was a poor choice of a word on my part. i meant to describe "openness" and accessibility across all manufacturers. it's true that all digital camera manufacturers have their own proprietary formats, but to date no one to my knowledge (except possibly nikon - we shall have to wait and see) has tried to impose some form of restriction on their formats. at the end of the day, i'd be happy if this is just all bad PR management from nikon. if they have nothing to hide, they should really make it clear and end the speculation once and for all! anyway, hope my reply hasn't sounded too antagonistic - i'm just after some harmless intellectual (if i may say so) banter !

Well, the so-called restriction is a simple function that is laughable to call it a "restriction". As for the PR, it is more like Adobe making excuses for not doing it. Very ironical that they use DMCA for their work.

[freelancer]

Originally Posted by Watcher That is the issue with abstraction. When you use any SDK, you do not again full access at all, just like if you use APIs to access any system. You loose power for the advantage of abstraction. When you use an SDK, you basically is subjected to controls and limitations in the SDK, be it programming to a database or SAP or machine. It is akin to programming with C/C++ vs assembly. Basically, Adobe has been reverse engineering the files to again full power all these time. so now...

In using the SDK, you are also constrained by important things as I understand, for example the bayer algorithm developed by Nikon. Software companies like Capture One and RSE I believe develop their own algorithms which may be better than what Nikon can provide and therefore be a direct (better) raw software competitor

[espn]

Originally Posted by freelancer In using the SDK, you are also constrained by important things as I understand, for example the bayer algorithm developed by Nikon. Software companies like Capture One and RSE I believe develop their own algorithms which may be better than what Nikon can provide and therefore be a direct (better) raw software competitor

Not really... the workflow is better, I have no doubts, but coming to final output, Nikon Capture's workflow would still give the final quality I want.

[agape01]

Again... ESPN worships Nikon.

[espn]

Originally Posted by agape01 Again... ESPN worships Nikon.

aguppy

[agape01]

Ok... so ESPN chooses to be a heretic.

I hope they do not burn you at the stake.

[timlim]

Originally Posted by Watcher Well, not really. XYZ sells you a tool. Prosecuting the breaking of the protection is still up to you. It is the same as locks on a door. If I have to get a locksmith to break my locks for what ever reason, the police should not arrest me for trying to break into my own house, right? Smilarly, if someone breaks the locks and enter your house, you sue the person, not the lockmaker.

you've just summed up why the DMCA is such an unpopular piece of legislation! unfortunately the locksmith who breaks the lock on the software commits a crime, whether or not the objective is morally right. the locksmith, even if he is breaking the lock for a perfectly legitimate reason, must obtain permission from the software owner first. like it or not, however, it is a law and SDs have to be aware of it and comply with it.

the rationale for this aspect of the DMCA is because it is easier to "catch" the locksmiths that break the locks, than the individuals that use the service of the locksmiths. in other words there's no chance nikon will be going after nikon users who use 3rd party software. nikon will want to go after the 3rd party SDs instead - fewer and easier to catch, more money to pay, no direct conflict with their paying customers.

Originally Posted by Watcher That is the issue with abstraction. When you use any SDK, you do not again full access at all, just like if you use APIs to access any system. You loose power for the advantage of abstraction. When you use an SDK, you basically is subjected to controls and limitations in the SDK, be it programming to a database or SAP or machine. It is akin to programming with C/C++ vs assembly. Basically, Adobe has been reverse engineering the files to again full power all these time. so now...

i'm not familiar with these technical concepts so correct me if i have misunderstood what you have said above: SDK does not equal full access. does that mean that nikon's giving away of SDKs also does not give the SDs full access? so at the end of the day is nikon giving the SDs full access or not?

Originally Posted by Watcher Well, the so-called restriction is a simple function that is laughable to call it a "restriction". As for the PR, it is more like Adobe making excuses for not doing it. Very ironical that they use DMCA for their work.

as mentioned, no matter how simple the protection measure, circumventing it may be a crime. if adobe is making excuses, nikon should just clarify it completely and leave no doubts, maybe even tell the world what it was that adobe wanted. the impression i get is that both nikon and adobe have something to hide...

[Watcher]

Originally Posted by timlim you've just summed up why the DMCA is such an unpopular piece of legislation! unfortunately the locksmith who breaks the lock on the software commits a crime, whether or not the objective is morally right. the locksmith, even if he is breaking the lock for a perfectly legitimate reason, must obtain permission from the software owner first. like it or not, however, it is a law and SDs have to be aware of it and comply with it. the rationale for this aspect of the DMCA is because it is easier to "catch" the locksmiths that break the locks, than the individuals that use the service of the locksmiths. in other words there's no chance nikon will be going after nikon users who use 3rd party software. nikon will want to go after the 3rd party SDs instead - fewer and easier to catch, more money to pay, no direct conflict with their paying customers.

Actually, it goes for both parties: the locksmith and the one who engages him. I have my doubts that Nikon is after the 3rd Party SD. What benefit will that get them? More NC? Hardly, when the issue is with D2X that less than 100k units will be sold in 1 year. At around S$170 per copy, assuming that the D2X don't already have a NC since the D1 series from years ago (NC upgrades have all been free), how much revenue will additional NC generate?

I've just read Thom Hogan's updated comments on DPReview. Interesting view...

Originally Posted by timlim i'm not familiar with these technical concepts so correct me if i have misunderstood what you have said above: SDK does not equal full access. does that mean that nikon's giving away of SDKs also does not give the SDs full access? so at the end of the day is nikon giving the SDs full access or not?

Yes and no. Any form of abstraction will result in loss in control. This is known as the leaky abstraction problem. Read the concept here That said, the SDK from Nikon is alleged to be pretty good, but then, it is not equal to the full potential power of getting the file format documented. Whether any 3rd party SD have to skills to make use fully is another issue.

Originally Posted by timlim as mentioned, no matter how simple the protection measure, circumventing it may be a crime. if adobe is making excuses, nikon should just clarify it completely and leave no doubts, maybe even tell the world what it was that adobe wanted. the impression i get is that both nikon and adobe have something to hide...

If the function can be interpreted or translated without being decrypted, then it is NOT an encryption Ha ha!

[timlim]

Originally Posted by Watcher If the function can be interpreted or translated without being decrypted, then it is NOT an encryption Ha ha!

well i guess adobe and dpreview are worried over nothing then, since there's no encryption...wonder what bibble is boasting about too, claiming they've decoded something that was not encoded in the first place.

anyway i guess we can agree to disagree . i don't think i can explain any more about the legal issues than i already have so this discussion for me has run its course...i take it from the lack of postings from the other CSers that no one's really listening anymore ...it's been an excellent distraction from my exams but i really can't wait to go out and shoot again!