So, do you think there's a new opening at Nikon right now for a good marketing person? Do you think someone lost their pinkie or had to fall on their sword over this debacle??
Doesn't look like it as Nikon's latest press on the subject basically states that this is all a misunderstaning and misinformation.http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203...nefresponse.asp
Also Religion 101: Moses' 12th tablet (one of the two that he dropped on the way down from the mountain) said "Thou shalt not bite the hand that feeds you".
I remember that story. It was in the book of "Brook" where the History of the World
You don't own the software when you buy CS or almost any other software I can think of.
As I stated, you do not own the software as a whole but the physical copy of that software. You are free to use it apropriately but not free to distribute it, which includes installing it on multiple computers unless the creator specifies otherwise.
And since I'm thinking about it, I'll jabber some more on it.
Agian, software is not the property of the software creator. We are not renting or leasing the software in any way. We pay $X for it and we own that copy and can use that software within the confines of the law. Software is intelectual property.
Lets relate it to a camera (although thigs are slightly different, the jist of what I am going to say remains the same). When you buy a camera you own that camera but the camera maker owns the copyrights on the design of that camera. You cannot make an exact duplicate of the camera and distribute it as that is a violation of copyright law and a violation of the camera makers intelectual rights. But you can reverse engineer some elements of that camera and make your own camera design based off of that.
Copyright law protects that camera design as a whole. It protects software as a whole. It prevents others from profiting from your hard work. It does not prevent people from owning what they purchase and it does not prevent people from owning what they make with that camera and/or software.
The NEF is copyrighted in the same way. It's protected as a whole.. Individual components of that NEF are not copyrightable and this includes the custom WB metadata tag. The WB tag is created by you and is part of your copyrighted work. You do not own the copyright to the tag (it can't be copyrighted) but it is part of your work as a whole. In this regard, it could be argued that Nikon is infringing upon your copyrights since they are effectivbely preventing you from utilizing your work fully unless you use their software. This most definatly infringes upon fair use rights.
Unfortunatly since the DCMA is so poorly written, cracking the encryption of the encrypted WB tag (which is part of Nikons copyrighted work NEF - not a copyrighted item itself) can be considered an circumvention of Nikon's copyrights (which really it isn't since only the WB tag is effected) and Nikon could by all rights sue the creator of DCraw and anyone else who does into want to be locked into Nikon's software. One (of many) similar situation to this is the Lexar case regarding printer cartridges where Lexar used the DCMA to try and lock out competition and screw over consumers.
I would suggest reading more on copyrights at the US Copyright Office
for anyone who wants to understand more on intelectual propery applies (in America).
Disclaimer: I make no claims at being a lawyer or a copyright expert. The subject of copyrights and the DCMA are subjects I have been following closely and I have put alot of research time into since they are subjects that directly effect me in more than just the photography I make. I am simply passing along the knowledge of the subject that I have gained. If someone with more actual knowledge (not talking out their back end) in the area wants to correct me or add to this with substantiated information I welcome it.