#Renegade Software
52 messages in this thread
While browsing through some magazines at a news stand this weekend, the October
1993 issue of Amiga World caught my eye. The cover featured a Kodak Photo CD
disc and a CD rom player.
As I wasn't aware that Photo CD was available on the Amiga, I bought a copy to
see what was new on the Amiga.
The text of the news on Photo CD follows….
"Photo CD has unofficial support on the Amiga because of a renegade software
effort from the internet network…."
I've always considered Amiga World to be a reliable source for honest
information. I was surprised that they would feature on their front cover
"renegade software effort from the Internet network".
Is Kodak aware of the "renegade software" available for the Amiga?
Is the Internet network aware of copyright?
As a developer, I would have second thoughts about developing for a system that
is so proud of their "renegade efforts" that they would herald it as a cover
worthy news item.
I'll have to pick up the November issue of Amiga World to see if they publish
an updated Pirate Bulletin Board List. I can see why software support for the
Amiga is faltering.
It's All Relative
The software (Photo CD reader) you're refering to orignated on UNIX
systems, and has been ported to all the platforms (MAC, IBM, ATARI, AMIGA,
and more) by various people as part of the PBMPLUS utililties. The
original author felt that a file format isn't proprietary, so he wrote a
utility to decode it, and released it for free. Kodak tried to come down
on him at first, and (I believe) then has left him alone since then. Are
you suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to decode file formats?
As a developer, you'd have to have second thoughts about any platform that
supported this free PBMPLUS utility, wouldn't you? It would sure be hard
to be a developer without a machine.
Steve
The point I was making in my original post to Dale Strang was that I was
suprised that Amiga World would consider the cracking of code and unauthorized
use of Kodak technology a major breakthrough for the Amiga and worthy of the
front cover of the magazine.
If this code is available for other platforms, at least their magazines didn't
consider a major breakthrough and feature the news as a cover story article
they are proud of. We publish applications that feature licensed and official
Photo CD on two of the platforms you mention. Sales have been above
expectations on both platforms.
My message to Dale Strang was that articles like the one run in the October
issue are not in the best interest of the platform.
Photoshop from Adobe system has decoded a propietary format called Amiga
IFF. So, what's the big deal about decoding Photo CD?
-Jonathan
// Amiga online via Autopilot
\\// MAC IIcx & 486 emulation via Amiga!
IFF is a public format. It's not proprietary. I'm not arguing one way or
the other here; but your description of IFF was in error.
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
You may be correct, OK, poor example… but I think the point has
been made. There is nothing illegal or for that matter unethical
about decoding file formats.
Hmmm. Well, lets look at a couple of issues with regard to "legal and
ethical". First, the development of a new file format takes time and
effort. This translates directly into costs to the developer. This
seems clear.
Now, if company B makes use of that effort without permission, company
B is, without compensation, gaining from the fruits of company A's
effort.
There are grey areas; for instance, company B's loading a proprietary
file type seems to enhance the USE of such a thing, and so directly
benefit company A's bottom line by encouraging the use of said
format. Saving a file type may also enhance company A's bottom line,
because again, it promote's compatibility with company A's "wares".
If company A's intention was to generate revenue from the exclusive
use of a file type, then company B is behaving directly contrary to
company A's wishes (although they may STILL enhance company A's
revenue… wanting to make money a particular way and ACTUALLY making
money that exact way are two different animals, I promise you).
Either way, we have to start talking about the term "intellectual
property" as an abstract. Comparing to land is fruitful here. If you
walk across my land on my footpath, you've damaged nothing in
particular, but you have walked on MY land. The law says that I can
say you can't do that, period – and I can prosecute you if you do.
Ownership and the right to manage the resources and objects that own
are the underlying concepts. Land ownership is an intellectual
convention. The land's not directly changed by ownership, and it'll
be there when you're long dead. When a company develops a file
format, do they – or better yet, should they – have the right to say
"this is ours, you can't use it"? For a time, or permanently?
Finally, should people (or companies) have the right to decide for
themselves on a case by case basis, what "properties" they "should"
be allowed to use no matter what the feelings of the "owners"?
There is law addressing some, perhaps all, of this. I don't know if
it's appropriate law, nor do I have a good answer to these questions.
But I do get uncomfortable when declarations are made either way. A
very good caase can be made from either side of the fence.
Black Belt has been on both sides: We've decoded and supported as a
result several "proprietary" formats; toaster framestores and DCTV
both come to mind. In neither case have we used the knowledge in such
a way as to work against the inventors; we've done things that
clearly enhance the usability and distributability of those formats.
Further, neither of these formats had worth in and of themselves;
they were byproducts of the hardware technologies of both companies.
Nonetheless, they were proprietary, and both "owners" of the formats
were uncooperative.
OTOH, Black Belt Systems has produced very useful new file formats
for images which offer capabilities heretofore unavailable to users
of image file formats (specifically high lossless compression). We
worked long and hard to develop these capabilities, and consider them
"ours" as a result. These file formats have worth in and of
themselves (because of the lossless compression gain). What should
our reaction be if another company reverse engineers them and so
gains from our efforts? It's hard to say, and we might jump either
way.
I personally beleive that some kind of standard could – and should –
be developed around the concept of worth that is a direct result of
the format in question. That seems to be a good metric to use to
determine what the real "worth" of a particular file format is.
The issue is just not simple enough to point at and say "This here is
how it be."
Well said. You saved me a long posting. We do agree from time to
time, don't you relish it? 🙂
Sure do. :^)
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
The law doesn't ALWAYS say that you can keep people off your land. If
your land blocks access to a beach or river I can cross anytime I
want. Like land, it depends on where you are and how big the toes
are. Like Mel Profit says, only the toes knows 🙂
Yep. And I'm not saying that it's always appropriate to keep people
off your file format, either. But perhaps sometimmes it is.
That's only because this country said that waterways are "public."
It's unfortunate. Our waters are much the worse for it.
Absolutely untrue. If someone's land blocks access to a beach or
river, that's too bad. There is no automatic right to access via
private land.
Depends entirely on the jurisdiction, Don. In many places, access to
waterways, including rivers, lakes, and oceans, is guaranteed, and
one or more landowners will have to provide access. The number who do
often depends on the appropriate law, but it often goes by distance,
providing a number of access points for a particular length of
waterway.
In some jurisdictions, as well, access is granted along the
shoreline, regardless of ownership of the land in question, up to a
particular distance, usually based on the high-water mark.
In the U.K. it's very simple. the littoral (the land between low and
high tide) belongs to the Queen. 🙂
Correct…depends on the jurisdiction (I presume…I know it's
not the law here in Colorado). That's my point…a blanket statement
that access to waterways is somehow or other guaranteed is wrong. It
*may* be guaranteed in some jurisdictions, but it also may not be
guaranteed.
Depends on where you are. Here in California, there may be an
automatic public easement across private land (generally depending on
how close the next closest access is) in order to get to the beach.
I'm not sure I agree… Although I'm not trying to defend the
decoding of the PhotoCD file format, I'm not convinced that you can
protect a file format. A common example described in software
copyright books is that you can't protect the organization of a
pre-printed form, like a bookkeeping form. Isn't that more like a
file format than, as you described, my backyard?
In real life, Syndesis has never had to reverse-engineer a format,
we've always had the cooperation of the company involved. Some of
them went into it kicking and screaming, though… mostly because
they didn't have the format documented themselves.
And we've honored several company's requests not to decipher their
proprietary file formats. In one case, a company cut a deal with a
3D-model-making company. They sell a low-priced bundle of their
models in a proprietary format. Buying them in a more popular format
would cost much more. People want ICP to support it so they can get
the models for the discounted price.
As for your defense of decoding undocumented formats, it sounds a bit
like you want the ends to justify the means. If "Company N" didn't
publicize their file format, said "no" when you asked for it, isn't
it possible that they are trying to prevent some kind of damage they
feel they'd suffer if someone else knew about it? (Imagined or
actual damage, of course.)
Yet you went ahead and reverse-engineered their efforts and now
clearly understand presumably private parts of their algorithms, you
are saying it's OK because you're not using the information against
them. Who gets to judge that nebulous concept? LightRave says
they're not "hurting" NewTek, and pirates say they're not "hurting"
sales because they wouldn't buy it anyway. Wouldn't it be an
injustice if your deciphering was incomplete and you weren't quite
properly supporting their format? Or that you were writing incorrect
files?
Just trying to keep you consistent, my old friend. 🙂 At least you
recognize why you "might jump either way" if someone deciphered
*your* proprietary formats.
Yup, good points all. That's why I described what we've done in the past,
and the circumstances surrounding those actions. I do think the end can
justify the means, IF the "end" doesn't involve direct competition or
violence to the source of the format.
Judgement is indeed the issue. I'm personally of the opinion that NewTek's
nd Digital Creation's judgement were faulty in those regards. And I freely
admit to using that as the justification to do the support. You might be
interested to know that Digital Creations is co-operating with us most
nicely at this time – it's an interesting datum, is it not? <grin> newTek,
of course, isn't, and probably never will, although they would be welcomed
if they chose to.
As for the injustice of improperly supporting a format, no, I don't think
so. Unfortunate, perhaps, but not an injustice. After all, they didn't
want it supported, anyway. :^)
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
Well, it is simple, really, in terms of the law as it stands today.
A file format is not patentable or copyrightable, as far as I know. A
program that produces it might be copyright, and it might also
contain patented algorithms. The same might be true for a program
that uses the file format. Obviously, a copyright does not prevent
anyone from writing a similar program, but what of the patent? That,
of course is up to the courts to decide. Since an algorithm is
patentable, the judge will decide if the algorithm was used in the
infringing program, and if it wasn't, and the file can be used in a
way that does not require the patented algorithm, then the
infringment isn't one at all.
On the other hand, things get a little more complex when the file
format contains code to look at itself and do something with itself.
🙂
When compression is involved, the file format is an expression of the
algorithm. :^)
Here's part of the license agreement of the Silicon Garden, a fractal
plant generating system for 3D Studio: "The animations and images
you make with these routines may be reproduced in any form you wish.
However, the plant models and structures you've created with Silicon
Garden's L-system algorithms in 3D format (i.e., 3DS, PRJ, DXF or any
other face/vertex list) are copyrighted objects due to their
algorithmic structure. You may not re-sell these models in any
format for use with any 3D modeling or rendering system."
To top it off, many of these supposedly copyrighted L-system
algorithms were taken from someone else's published, copyright book
on L-systems. 🙂
I was going to mention that (where L-Systems came from) but you knew. :^)
As a programmer, reading "The Algorithmic Beauty Of Plants"
(Prusinkiewicz/lindenmayer) was a trip. As someone who apprecites beauty,
it was a stunning experience.
Copyright the algorythms, indeed. <snicker>
–Ben
…via AutoPilot
I have to disagree.
What about the customer's rights the data stored in that format
belongs to the customer. The customer should be able to do with the
data as he pleases. All file formats should be able to be read and
converted at will. The only place I see a problem is if some one
started to produce PHOTO-CD compatable cd's.
The customer's rights? Is this going to become a pseudo
constitutional discussion, now? EGads.
I think you're lumping too much under 'file format' If you've
developed a superior compression algorithm, that algorithm is clearly
protectable, it is new technology. It could be used by several file
formats or by hardware or software applications without ever even
becoming a file. An analogy may be the Adobe Type 1 PS font format,
where Adobe retained secret and proprietary technologies for hinting
chars so they look nice at low point sizes. At the same time,
un-hinted fonts and type 3 font specs were available and in wide
use. The toaster's framestores probably make use of some d2 encoding
tricks which NewTek is very protective of, and even if their encoding
algorithms are patented, developing another way to generate the data
in the appropriate form would create virtually identical files, of
the exact framestore format in a way which i think would be very
difficult to prosecute. I'd like a distinction between file format,
and some underlying technology which made the format necessary or
desirable. heck, I could generate framestores just by making files
of random bytes and trying to load them. eventually I'd get a
framestore, and a while after that I'd get a framestore of the mona
lisa redone by andy warhol.
> eventually I'd get a framestore, and a while after that I'd get a framestore
> mona lisa redone by andy warhol.
What a great idea! Random generation of all possible pictures. I
think we ought to talk Ben into trying it. Heeheeheeheehee
In a programmer's magazine, they were talking about compression
methods. In one puzzle, an alien looks at an encyclopedia, decides
he wants to compress it, then measures a distance very precisely on a
stick, makes a notch, and presto, he's compressed the encyclopedia.
What did he do?
Sounds to me like he filed it. 🙂
No idea, actually.
-larry
Yes, but it wasn't until the secret Type 1 encoding and encryption
methods were deciphered / reverse-engineered / stolen that Adobe ever
considered documenting the Type 1 file format.
I thought it was the emergence of TrueType and the big players jumping
behind it which pretty much forced Adobe to open up the type 1 format in
order to maintain its market dominance.
I believe that Type 1 was revealed before TrueType ever shipped
(although it had already been announced). More likely, it was the
ever increasing flood of low quality Type 3 fonts that were giving
the Postscript font standard a bad name.
Decoding a file format and 'cracking of code' and 'unauthorized use of Kodak
technology' are not, of necessity, equivalent.
-larry
The article in question was about CD ROM technology, and didn't focus
nearly has much on Photo CD has you imply. The cover was merely a picture
of a CD ROM player with a Photo CD in it. You act like they hearlded the
second coming.
There was no "cracking of code" (they decoded a file format) and
"unauthorized use of Kodak technology" is really stretching it. Kodak is
licensing code to decode it's file format, and some companies in the PC
and Mac world have decided to buy that technology instead of developing it
themselves. If Kodak truly felt this was a problem, they would have
pursued this. They have not.
Cracking of code?
That's ridiculous.
PhotoCD is a file format. It's a graphic file. Just like word processors, Paint
programs and all kinds of other programs have their own proprietary type
format. Yet, when a company publishes a program that reads all of these
proprietary formats, do you not cheer with delight?
I don't see how PhotoCD is any different. Please do enlighten me.
Jim
Greg,
as an addendum to what Steve posted, the last time I looked, most all
software packages for existing platforms support the decoding of multiple
file formats, many of them proprietary to other corporations. If one were
to advocate that one would not work on any platform that ran software that
accepted proprietary file formats as input, one would not have any
machines to program on.
It has been accepted for years that saved file formats are open game
for any program. The user interface is (lamentably) taboo, not the saved
file format.
Yes, the PBMPLUS utility that can read Kodak Photo CD's probably isn't the
best way to go about getting Photo CD support. I would much rather see
official support from Kodak itself, but they have chosen to ignore the
Amiga so far. As I understand it, CBM was negotiating with Kodak but
haven't heard much about official support yet. I think most of the holdup
has to do with Philip's crying that CBM would incorporate Photo CD support
in CD32, thus competing with their own CD-I players.
// John – (Flying via AutoPilot)
\X/
It goes deeper than that. Kodak has an agreement with Phillips which
essentially has Phillips acting as the agent for Kodak Photo-CD
support on computing devices to most of the world. And with all the
money they are dumping into the 30 minute infomercials for CD-I, they
are not about to let anyone (even someone as inept as CBM) into a
market that will compete directly with CD-I.
I would bet the situation is that Phillips would not give Commodore
International a Photo-CD license so CBM is trying a North American
Internal route, but Kodak probably isn't seeing enough in it to
jeopardize a realtion with Phillips.
That doesn't make any sense 3DO has a Photo-CD licence and they are
phenominal competition to CD-I. So that can't be it.
When I spoke to Lou E. at CBM about this very topic, that was the
reason he stated. Back then, Phillips had a HUGE ax to grind with
CBM. Based on what I've seen and heard, that's exactly the reason
CBM hasn't been able to get it licensed.
Well that can't be the reason today, I just can't see kodak refusing
the licence (and fee) for fear of competition, then sell it too an
eve even BIGGER competitor.
You'd be surprised how some companies hold grudges. I've seen
weirder things happen (outside of the micro world) when it comes to
licensing.
But 3DO is an American company, isn't it? If I remember correctly,
(and there is a possibility I've got it twisted) Phillips
'jurisdiction' is international. Therefore, they could have worked
directly with Kodak without worrying about Phillips. Since CBM is
part of CI Ltd, there would be a possible infringement on the
Phillips domain.
Just guessing, of course. But unless you're inside its useless – it
is probably that someone at CBM ticked off a key player at Kodak so
they just won't give in. Or more likely CBM has been trying to get
it for nothing on the promise of "helping" to sell Photo CD in the
multi-media world since (in CBM's mind) CBM is the multi-media
machine leader.
wmc – via Autopilot!
I'm the guy who wrote that article. I didn't have the privilege of composing
and shooting the cover. I chose the word "renegade" to imply that this
software effort was not necessarily approved by Kodak. What was I supposed to
do, spend ten paragraphs explaining that several companies (Xetec, Asimware)
have felt secure enough to ship this software in their software, and then
explain the difference between someone spending $100K to register with Kodak
and someone on the Internet who cracked a file format that must'nt have been
very hard to crack?
Greg: Kodak has agreed to license official PhotoCD code to a number of
platforms but so far has resisted Commodore's interest in same. I actually
spoke with a Kodak employee who told me the company simply didn't care if
PhotoCD support ever came to the Amiga. If software support is faltering,
in this case it isn't because Amiga commercial software developers haven't
been trying legitimate avenues.
As someone else noted, Kodak has a deal with Philips, whose CD-I machine
that competes with Commodore's CD32. There is suspicion that this
prevented Commodore's acquisition of a PhotoCD license. Odd, since even
poor little Atari Computer apparently has been able to acquire one. This
suspicion is based on an incident several years ago when Commodore
introduced CDTV ahead of CD-I, making it the first TV-ROM machine on the
market.
As I recall published reports, Commodore demonstrated CDTV's ability to
show PhotoCD images at a computer show and said it was talking to Kodak
about a license. Philips apparently was put off by this, since CD-I's own
PhotoCD capability wasn't ready to be shown. The rest is history.
Understand that C= never marketed PhotoCD code in CDTV. It now says CD32
is PhotoCD-ready, meaning the hardware is up to the task. Nevertheless,
several years have passed and still no movement on a license from Kodak,
as far as anyone knows.
Meanwhile, when third party Amiga developers saw PhotoCD viewers appearing
on other platforms, they naturally jumped right in to offer an
alternative. In that respect, how is a PhotoCD viewer different from, say,
Microsoft Excel being able to import/export Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet files?
— Ron Legro from Milwaukee via AUTOPILOT
(The only way to fly)
I was at the Consumer Electronics Show in Chicago working in the CBM booth
when CBM was showing PhotoCD pics running on a CDTV unit. The demo CDTV at
that time was equipped with an internal version of DCTV and was showing a
slide show of hi-resolution images with a large Kodak logo over the CDTV
unit. When the Phillups camp got wind of it, they came upstairs and took a
look and were VERY upset, as their literature stated CD-I was the ONLY
platform that could do PhotoCD. There was some raised voices and one
Phillups rep tried to yank the disk out of the CDTV drive before he was
dragged off by his fellows.
Not long after this incident, some Kodak people came into the booth and
went into the inner office to pow-wow with the big wigs of CBM. A few
minutes later, CBM managers took down the Kodak logo, but left the demo
running. For the rest of the show, we all talked about how mad Phillups
was, and had fun relating the story of the one *very* angry rep! 🙂
Vernon Graner
Graner Sound Multimedia Studios, Austin Texas
My guess is that Commodore can have the PhotoCD license any time they
are willing to pay for it. Money, tis all there is to this issue.
I called Kodak, and they confirmed that – they'll sell the first
license on a platform for $100,000, and subsequent licenses on that
platform are much much less, like $300 or so. I admire the
sneakiness of the person who came up with this – I'm sure they didn't
actually charge Microsoft or Apple, yet they can keep CBM and Atari
at bay.
Perhaps Commodore is saying: Why bother to pay out money to Kodak
for a license when someone will come along and put it in the public
domain?