Slashdot Mirror
Roland Attacks MT-32 Emulator Project
canadacow writes "The MT-32 emulation project, which is an offshoot of the DosBox project recently received a cease and desist letter regarding the use of the PCM samples from the synthesizer. Normally this would be an open and shut case, but it just so happens that U.S. Copyright law (specifically 17 U.S.C. section 405) shows that Roland lost their copyright because nowhere did they explicity register it, and registering (or atleast copyright marking) was required before 1989. The MT-32, of course, was produced in 1987. You can find more details at the emulation forum on Vogons" In particular, read through this thread for Canadacow's response to Roland's lawyers, for the type of response that most lawyers probably don't expect from most programmers.
Here's the email I responded to roland with:
This email is in response to the cease and desist letter received by Colin and Vlad. I am responding because Colin and Vlad are minors. Me, Mr. Dean Beeler, am the only individual of majority age subject of this communcation.
Jun, I am very disappointed with you. I contacted Roland first to prevent such legal harrassment. Roland did not even seem to care about my work until I brought to attention the fact that Roland had lost the copyright on the said material in question. Your lawyer cites 17 U.S.C. section 102(a). "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." As stated in a previous conversation, this law only applies to works fixed after 1989. The MT-32 ROM was fixed in 1987. I refer your attorney to 17 U.S.C. section 405 regarding audio fixed before 1989. Since Roland failed to satisfy any of the three requirements in 405(a), Roland lost the copyright on the said samples. Jun, you argued that there are duplicate samples between the SC-55 and the MT-32. This is not literally true. Only a single audio sample matches between the SC-55 and the MT-32, and even this sample is not an identical copy due to format differences. Finally, I will bring Roland's attention to the fact that they filed the copyright on the SC-55 samples with no claim to the underlying work. As such, since the copies are not exact, and no claim is made on the actual sound a "tibale" makes (since it occurs naturally is hence something uncopyrightable), there is nothing in common between the MT-32 and SC-55.
Shame on you. As lawyers, you should know that the burden of proof regarding copyright lies with the individual claiming the copyright. Regarding damages, since I first contacted Roland demanding proof of copyright (which Roland failed to provide) our case would fall under one of innocent infringement. As such, any damanges Roland could claim would be nil. Since no money is being made regarding any use of the samples, no punitive damages what-so-ever can be claimed. Finally, since the MT-32 samples are no longer being licensed in marketable hardware, Roland will also have a difficult time proving they have lost income due to any proven copyright infringement. Again, I ask for proof that Roland satisfied any of the terms specified in 17 U.S.C. section 405. If Roland has not, than any case brought against us would be frivilous and would be subject to countersuit.
No offending material is presently on the site. The ROM is not available anywhere and can only be made available by making a copy using the description provided. The DMCA does not apply in this instance because no Digital Rights Management (DRM) hardware is built into the MT-32 or the ROM. The DMCA only applies when copy protection measures are circumvented to make copies. Copyright law does grant an individual one additional copy for archival purposes. As such, the simple act of copying the ROM does not constitute a violation.
With regard to the claim that reverse engineering has been done: No reverse engineering has been done. No DRM encoding or encryption is used in the ROM. The only conversion that needed to be done was converting the file from decibel measurements to PCM measurements. This is not copy protection. The ROM is stored this way because decibel measurements are a more efficent means of storage for the MT-32's design. It just so happens that PCM is now the most effective means of storage on modern machines. If this is illegal, then RF modulator use is illegal when used to convert the output of a DVD player's composite signal to coax in order that a person can watch DVD's on an older TV. No decryption is done, just conversion from one generation of technology to the other.
No, the ROM is not available and has never been made availble on the site. On clicking the link that reads, "Original ROM", a window pops up that reads, "On request only." This is to verify that the individual indeed owns their own MT-32, there by making copy ownership legal (and to hopeful
Copyrights only need to be registered when you are bringing a lawsuit against someone. If the infringement happened before your registration, however, you cannot get any statutary damages and attorney's fees. Seize and desist is possible if Roland wins the case.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
This is false. If you don't enforce trademarks you lose them. Copyrights are maintained by the holder whether they are enforced or not.
I can't believe how such an ill-informed trolling comment got a good score... I have to clarify something.
Roland, as one of the first synth company in the world produced many classic synthesizers which are, to this day still highly sought.
They actively participated in the ratification of the MIDI 1.0 protocol, an effort was initiated by Dave Smith of SCI. Yamaha, Oberheim, Korg and several others participated in this effort but SCI, Roland and Yamaha were the most active participants.
Here are a few classic from Roland:
-TB-303: the sound of Acid in acid house and techno, one of the most sought after synth of all time, selling now for more money than it originaly cost.
-TR-808, TR-909: the sound of Hip-Hop, house and techno, these drum machines have introduced an interface model and sample which are being (or have been) reproduced by most synth manufacturer or synth emulator out there.
-Juno-60: the most popular digitaly controlled analog synth of all time.
-JD-800: wavetable synthesis at its best, this machine is almost unequaled in possibilities and programming pleasure, another baby selling for more than it originally did.
-System 100m and 700: some of the most powerfull synthesizer of all time, the System serie provided synthesist with a complete sound creation/generation/recording setup with complete automation/automation recording. These systems were almost unequaled at the time. The MIDI philosophies are offshoot of system like these.
-Jupiter 6 and 8: very powerfull analog synth which are being sampled and reproduced (analog modelisation) to death.
And as for the late products of Roland, they indeed went into a dance instrument frenzy that just made them loose credits but some foray like the VP-9000 are more than promising, they actually deliver and are a joy to work with. Some other like the JV-2080 are becoming classics pretty quickly, almost every foley studio, sound creation and effects house own one.
Zero notheworty equipement? You have to be quite a newbie in synthesis, vintage synth, electronic music and their history to say something like you did...
their Romplers - the JV series are extreely popular in the pro audio world and are highly regarded by many producers - I hate them, though. they sound bland, imho. But that's just me.
However, they did make some noteworthy stuff. perticularly their VA synths 8000 and 8080 and the SP808 zip based recording device were pretty cool for their time, And the new V-synth looks and sounds very interesting.
but it doesn't matter much. these days the realy interesting stuff is done in software anyway (NI PRopellerheads and Ablton are my favorites..)
It should mean that the samples new to the 32L fell under copyright, and if the old samples were revised the new versions are under copyright. However, though IANAL, I'm almost certain that the release of the 32L wouldn't affect the status of the original samples, copyrighted or not.
A second edition of a work does not confer copyright protection to the first.
The available Windows software consisted of very bad ports of DOS software with a GUI. Most of them had bugs that would make an Orkin man salivate. But the big step for Roland was to replace the LAPC-1 with something more up to date. Their solution of course was to make another incarnation of the Sound Canvas. My interpretation from the letter, despite many years of denial from friends at Roland was that the SC line was simply resampled or format conversions of the MT-32. The correspondences seems to imply that Roland insists that the SC shared a lot in common with the MT-32.
Anyway, in their efforts to seal up the market and lack of true standards in the Windows world and those that figured they could write better standards, Roland created the RAP-10 and the SB-55. The Roland Audio Producer software attempted to bring it all into one nice little package. Unfortunately there were SO many problems on the technical support end that Roland had to re-examine their stance on a new branch of the company.
I know that they tried to gain marketshare against Creative's SoundBlaster line in the OEM market. The problem was that Creative used FM synthesis and really cheap converters whereas Roland used PCM and moderate quality converters. With those huge differences CL could manufacture boards extremely cheaply. Roland on the other hand had banked on quality. As we've seen in the past, as long as it gets the job done and it's really cheap, cheap ALWAYS wins in the consumer market. People weren't willing to shell out an extra $100 for betting sounding game music.
To add insult to injury, EMU Systems made a competing card that was priced in between the Roland and the SoundBlaster. The Soundscape, as it was called, got it's foot into the door with many computer manufacturers and licensing it's soundset to OEM card mfgrs. Turtle Beach was also a player in the consumer sound card market at this time. Both of these companies were assimilated by the giant Creative Labs corporation, leaving Roland as the stand alone competitor. Creative later sold off TB to Voyetra. Hence Roland USA and Japan lost interest in going after a market that they just couldn't effectively compete in.
Now don't count Roland out of the picture completely. They covertly persued the multimedia world through of all things Roland Canada, under the assumed name of Edirol. Edirol was viewed as a new company, being distributed by Roland Canada when in fact they were just being fed the products from Roland Japan. If you haven't noticed, but the majority of cheap consumer multimedia products are from either M-Audio (formerly MIDIMAN) and Edirol! And to boot, they have purchased the nations largest distributor of multimedia hardware and software, making then a huge player in the market.
Just a note of irony, Edirol distributes the Turtle Beach and used to sell SoundBlasters!
There is the fact that they'd waste resources chasing and MT-32 emulator. I mean for God's sakes guys, it's a 16 year old sample set that didn't sound that great to begin with!
Peace
The SC-55 did have a lot in common with the MT-32. Unfortunately for Roland, its sample set was not one of those things. This was because the MT-32 is half digital, half analog. All of the instruments are generated using both analog synthesis methods (square and sawtooth waves) combined with PCM samples (only sometimes, some instruments are PCM sample free). The resulting consequence for the MT-32's sample set is that the samples are only of the attack portions of instruments. In all cases the sustain and release portion of an instrument is handled by the analog synth. The SC-55, being a fully digital instrument, did not use analog synthesis and as such, the samples were modified so that they could loop and have an adequately sounding decay. On doing this though, the SC-55 ended up with a completely different sample set than the MT-32.
What an interesting interpretation of copyright law. The MT-32 Emulator team seems to be of the mind that, in the 80s, since people had to register copyrights for punitive damages, lack of registration must mean loss of all other rights, too. But the copyright laws on the books back then did not say, "fail to register and you're screwed." Instead, they said (from memory, this a broad paraphrase), "fix it in tangible form, and you can issue cease & desist letters, reclaim losses, and generally control use of your copyrighted items. But if you would be so kind as to register your work, we'll give you the additional bonus of being able to sue for punitive damages." In other words, you can sue 'em for lots and lots of cash just to hurt 'em, but only if you register.
So Roland didn't register. They can't sue you out of existence. But everything I've learned about copyright says they certainly do still have a copyright, and they can use it to be heavy-handed in court. They have not "lost" the copyright. You guys need a lawyer.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &