> What everyone calls encription is not functionally and
> practicially different from compiling.
It's very different, and after 30+ years in the software business, I think I'm qualified to judge that, having worked on compilers and encryption both. Bob, you don't seem to know what you are talking about when it comes to the technical issues of software..
Well, I was speaking in the metaphorical. The sensibility is to mask all that goes on upstream and to accept the product at face value.
I don't think you see the fundamental difference between a compiler and encryption software (or you're simply not expressing yourself in a way that indicates such understanding).
A compiler takes human-readable instructions to the computer and compiles those instructions in a way that the computer can understand. The result may very well be human-readable, too, there is no need to hide what actually goes on.
Encryption software attempts to make it extremely hard or impossible for any unauthorized entity to get at the encrypted data. This includes computers and software, not just humans. Encrypted data is nothing to accept, even at face value, it's intentionally inaccessible
Or, in over-simplified brevity: a compiler deals with computer programs, encryption deals with data. Your image in NEF format is not
a program, it's data.
Of course, in some instances, the encryption is a product of ineptitude, and is easy to break, q.v. DeCSS, and apparently also the NEF format. But that does not affect the legal issue at hand; Nikon has intentionally placed a constraint on the practical use of photographers' works of art, and the use of "circumvention devices" to get at your own data is practically necessary if you don't want to use software provided by Nikon. Mind you, this is currently only an issue in nations with the DMCA or similar legislation.