Roland Attacks MT-32 Emulator Project

reply to roland: by herrvinny · 2003-10-11 08:26 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Re:reply to roland: by squiggleslash · 2003-10-11 08:38 · Score: 1

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.
Now, IANAL, and I haven't read Roland's original request so I don't know what the context is, but the above comment is, by itself, flat out wrong. The DMCA is a substantial body of copyright law intended to reform copyright law as it existed at the time the bill was passed. It includes the "circumventing access control mechanisms" law, cause of so much anguish for the free software community, but that's just one of its provisions. Indeed, given the intent of that law, it wouldn't surprise me if most modern violations of copyright fall under its remit.
Roland's case may or may not have merit - especially if, as you claim, their works were not protected by copyright because of the lack of registration coupled with the necessity of registering at the time of their creation, but seriously get in touch with a lawyer. The above comment about the DMCA concerns me somewhat.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:reply to roland: by kronosaurus · 2003-10-11 11:25 · Score: 1

Thanks for the post. This is a pleasure to read. Facts are the best way by far to stop legal harassment.
Re:reply to roland: by S.Lemmon · 2003-10-11 11:51 · Score: 1

Ok, I know I shouldn't be baited by an AC, but what you say here isn't even internally consistent.

If the MT32 sounds are so horribly outmoded and useless for even "retro kitch", then why are copies of it (as you point out) so popular? It's obvious *someone* must want to use them.

Believe me, with musicians still diging up the musty old corpses of Mellotrons and the like, no instrument is ever completely forgotten or outmoded. Hey, the flute, for example, is based on technology thousands of years old, yet last time I listened, people were still using that.

Still, I have to agree Roland doesn't have much of a case - no one would buy a new MT32 simply because they can get the sounds elsewhere. Still, profit through litigation is the hallmark of many a dead and dying company nowdays.

In general music hardware companies of all kinds tremble in fear of obscurity. From synths to effect units, what once cost thousands of dollars can now be emulated on any lowly PC. Sure it's not quite as nice as having a brick of knobs to twiddle, but it does mean far fewer are willing to spend a small fortune for the latest hunk of plastic with a nice friendly logo on the front.
Re:reply to roland: by canadacow · 2003-10-12 03:42 · Score: 1

Yes, they lost the copyright. Read this from www.copyright.gov:
Absence of Copyright Notice

For works first published before 1978, the complete absence of a copyright notice from a published copy generally indicates that the work is not protected by copyright. For works first published before March 1, 1989, the copyright notice is mandatory, but omission could have been cured by registration before or within 5 years of publication and by adding the notice to copies published in the United States after discovery of the omission. [Roland did not do this, hence they lost what they could have copyrighted] Some works may contain a notice, others may not. The absence of a notice in works published on or after March 1, 1989, does not necessarily indicate that the work is in the public domain.
It seems to be plain English if you ask me.
Re:reply to roland: by mr.Spike+(edd+sonic) · 2003-10-14 05:10 · Score: 1

Wanted to emphasize one little thing i've noticed Well maybe there is some sense in fact that Roland get into bed with Microsoft some time ago (1995 if i remember right). they called it "collaboration", and as i think ms fucked them once (by taking VirtualSoundCanvas into directx) at least. Maybe Reaktor, Rebirth, and lots of sample libraries hanging around net are not being attacked just because they run only on windows. Problem arised when DosBOX and that dirty emulation appeared on other then microsoft os, and ms told Roland *get him!* and this is it! ;) i don't see any other reason on that. as please mark that ANYBODY OF US have FULL SET OF ROLAND GS samples on our hardware along with DirectX! (which contains irtual soundcanvas with it's full gs soundset.... HOW ABOUT THAT???? And it is not encrypted or anyhow packed or encoded..... :\

Bizarre for a synth by tgv · 2003-10-11 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

For those of you who don't know: the MT-32 is a synthesizer module. So it's normal use is to generate sounds that people are going to use on commercial records. If you buy the box, you get the sounds. There are tons of sample CDs out there that contain samples of Roland instruments. So why is the PCM (sound) set of an MT-32 suddenly such a problem to them?

Re:Bizarre for a synth by gl4ss · 2003-10-11 08:56 · Score: 1

**. So why is the PCM (sound) set of an MT-32 suddenly such a problem to them?**

because it makes their lawyers able to bill them for 'protecting' ther property.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Bizarre for a synth by oever · 2003-10-11 09:31 · Score: 1

It also means that from now on it's unsafe for musicians to sell records that contain samples from a Roland sound card. And this means musicians will stop buying Roland gear if this case gets more media attention.

--
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
Re:Bizarre for a synth by requim · 2003-10-11 10:49 · Score: 1

Does that mean that if I were to write a program that were to parse and say "interpret" and apply some conversion to it, like say a visual display, to any sort of document, paper, book, article. That all works read in by the interpreter would then be considered source, because of the resulting stream (visual display) that came as a result?

I could easily write a program to read any input stream as binary and then apply some algorithm in which the incoming stream created some sort of 3d or 2d graphical display or anything else and those images would be a product of the combination of the two. Which looks to me just like what the Roland is doing, now if I were to write custom documents and copyright it and then feed it through the program, those resulting images would might also have some protection (assuming only a single possible sequence could create a resulting display).
Re:Bizarre for a synth by joto · 2003-10-11 17:55 · Score: 1

For those of you who don't know: the MT-32 is a synthesizer module. So it's normal use is to generate sounds that people are going to use on commercial records. If you buy the box, you get the sounds. There are tons of sample CDs out there that contain samples of Roland instruments. So why is the PCM (sound) set of an MT-32 suddenly such a problem to them?
Obviously, because there is a difference between (a) making music using an MT-32 as an instrument, (b) taking an MT-32, connecting it to a midi keyboard and a hardware sampler or soundcard, and then sample every sound at various pitches, loop them, and build fully workable patches from it, and (c) just using extracting the actual finished patches from the hardware.
Alternative (a) is always legal. Alternative (b) is questionable, but quite common. Personally, I would not distribute such patches widely unless I got written permission from the manufacturer, but this depends on a lot of things, such as whether the hardware synth you are using uses samples or not (if not, it should be ok, as long as you created the patch yourself (the MT-32 does not fit into this category, by the way)).
Alternative (c) is clearly very different from the last two. Unless he has permission, or there actually is no copyright on the samples, then he is in big trouble. Simple as that!
Oh yeah, if you can find a legal sample CD containing all the MT-32 sounds as fully workable patches in a format that is possible to convert to whatever the emulator uses, with a copyright that allows redistribution, then that is of course also ok, but I kind of doubt that exists. (If I were to create a sample-CD cloning an entire rom-based sampler, I would probaly choose something a bit more interesting than the MT-32, and besides, I would never get permission from Roland to allow it to be distributed freely :-)
Re:Bizarre for a synth by joto · 2003-10-11 18:19 · Score: 1

It also means that from now on it's unsafe for musicians to sell records that contain samples from a Roland sound card. And this means musicians will stop buying Roland gear if this case gets more media attention.
I assume that by "records", you mean "sample-CD's", and not actual music (or you would sound like an idiot). For your information, that has always been a grey area. If you clone factory-made patches, and sell them, you'd better get permission from the manufacturer, whether it's Roland or not. Or just hope that they don't discover you, or care enough about it to take you to court. But even sampling is quite different from extracting the raw patches from the hardware, and even if sampling was ok, extracting would not be legal.
Musicians rarely have any use of samples of an MT-32 piano or timpani, they are more interested in samples of an actual piano or timpani (or an actual piano or timpani) But then again, I've seen sample CD's with samples of kitchenware, so you can use a $5000 sampler to reproduce the sound of two spoons hitting each other, whatever the advantage would be... I would suspect that most sample-CD's with samples of factory-made patches of favourite synths are either not entirely legal, or that part of the price you pay for it goes to the original instrument manufacturer for paying royalties.
Creating a cool patch for an analog synth, and then sampling it is always ok, and also quite common in the sample-CD arena. Samples of factory made patches is like samples of samples, a grey area.
Re:Bizarre for a synth by tgv · 2003-10-12 20:13 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's what it should be like perhaps, but how are you ever going to define the difference between a, b and c?

Um, maybe I'm not clear... by Khaed · 2003-10-11 08:28 · Score: 1

But if they don't have a copyright on it, what grounds are they suing for?
Someone explain. It still should be open and shut; no copyright, no lawsuit.

You don't need to register... by Comatose51 · 2003-10-11 08:32 · Score: 1, Informative

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 /.

Re:You don't need to register... by Comatose51 · 2003-10-11 08:55 · Score: 1

Sorry, I'm not actually familar with Roland's products, etc. so I assumed that they weren't distributed in large numbers. Otherwise, you are correct and I am wrong.

--
EvilCON - Made Famous by /.

me am too! by quonsar · 2003-10-11 08:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Me, Mr. Dean Beeler, am the only individual of majority age subject of this communcation. me, mr. quonsar, am not the only individual of majority age to know that these lawyers will be laughing their asses off at your sentence construction impairment.

--

Sacred cows make the best burgers.

Re:me am too! by canadacow · 2003-10-11 09:24 · Score: 2

Sorry, I wrote my reply at 3:00AM. Anyway, who cares? Wasn't there an article recently on here about how people can read words with scrambled/missing characters?
Re:me am too! by kamog · 2003-10-11 12:09 · Score: 1

What people can and cannot do bears little relevance to the abilities of lawyers. Esteemed canadacow, pay no heed to the grammar police - you are fighting on the side of righteousness, and this is what matters.
Re:me am too! by Benwick · 2003-10-12 16:06 · Score: 1

I thought this was Legalese...

Hermes' son: I heard alcohol makes you stupid.
Fry: No I'm ... doesn't.

So what? by Eric+Ass+Raymond · 2003-10-11 08:33 · Score: 1

You don't think a company investigates a case better before suing someone? Was the reply written by a real lawyer or someone pretending to know the law?

It doesn't matter if it says 1989 somewhere. That is always a matter of interpretation.

--
BOO! TERRO

Re:So what? by MrLint · 2003-10-11 09:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, I am of the opinion that less an less investigation is going into cases before suing someone. I don't wish to go on ad-neasueam here. But please recall the alleged (then dropped) DMCA charges by Vivendi against bnetd, the group alleging that GenToo was distributing PACMAN. Please recall that DMCA allegation are made under the onus of perjury. If you make a DMCA claim you are stating that you believe this to be infringement. if its not you have perjured yourself. Then we have the whole SCO circus who aren't even following established practice as to stop the alleged infringement.

So in short, no I believe less and less companies are researching before they file suits.
Re:So what? by vegetablespork · 2003-10-11 09:30 · Score: 1

Please recall that DMCA allegation are made under the onus of perjury.
The coporate enforcement agents^W^W^W copyright lawyers at the FBI argue that only the statement that the sender represents the copyright holder is under penalty of perjury.
This is of course, bullshit, but it also means we won't see any of these corporate jackbooted thugs justifiably tried for perjury.

--
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Re:So what? by SpaceLifeForm · 2003-10-11 09:39 · Score: 1

So in short, no I believe less and less companies are researching before they file suits.
Likely true, and just as likely is less and less companies have enough clueful management to stop their in-house lawyers from filing frivolous lawsuits.

--
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Re:So what? by smiff · 2003-10-11 12:34 · Score: 1

But please recall the alleged (then dropped) DMCA charges by Vivendi against bnetd
When did Vivendi drop the bnetd case? I've heard nothing about it. As far as I can tell, the EFF is still working on it.
the group alleging that GenToo was distributing PACMAN.
That was a DMCA takedown notice. They didn't file suit.
Please recall that DMCA allegation are made under the onus of perjury.
According to the law, the only claim the lawyer has to make under penalty of perjury is that they represent the person they claim to represent. They only have to have a "good faith belief" that the rest of the notice is correct.
Re:So what? by MrLint · 2003-10-11 16:10 · Score: 1

Vivendi dropped DMCA charges. IIRC they refiled under copyright, or something.

Your point on Gentoo is well taken. i didn't actually said they sued tho:)

Well, if anyone tell honestly tell me that in good faith they did the scantest of research and determined that GenToo was distributing pac-man, then i would have to say that both that person and the Entertainment Software Association are a pair of grade a fools. And making such a 'good-faith' claim deserves to have the book thrown at them. Its the grossest of abuses of power.

Point is this is the track record, and its not going to get better.

Is the emulator any good ? by zymano · 2003-10-11 08:34 · Score: 1

how about a review from someone ?

Re:Is the emulator any good ? by Iffy+Bonzoolie · 2003-10-11 09:06 · Score: 1

I don't think it is really ready for "prime time"... You can download a sample of the emulator output here. Some parts are spot-on, but others are off-tune or the wrong sound or something.

-If

--
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!

silly by GoatPigSheep · 2003-10-11 08:36 · Score: 1, Redundant

The mt-32 sounds are so generic, why would roland even care about it?

Their now dated piano, organ, and guitar sounds have already been copied by hundreds of other people and companies...

Nobody would buy an mt-32 now, because you can get 100x the features simply using today's computer based sampling programs.

--
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups

Re:silly by MisanthropicProggram · 2003-10-11 08:44 · Score: 1

What I gathered from the site, they made the emulator so that they can hear the sounds that are created on older games. And since the MT-32 isn't being made any longer or that there isn't many that still work, these guys got together to make an emulator so that they can enjoy their older games.
It's unfortunate that the way our legal system works forces IP owners to take drastic measures such as this. I'm sure that Roland's mgt. really didn't want to go after those kids, but if they didn't wouldn't they be in effect saying that anyone can go ahead and take their IP property? Legally speaking of course. Any lawyers out there to correct me - please? I'd like to know for sure myself. I'm just going by my Biz law class I had over the Summer and we just breezed over IP law.
IP - intellectual property.

--
There is no spoon or sig.
Re:silly by nate+nice · 2003-10-11 08:48 · Score: 1

They feel they have to. Lets happen to say they don't enforce this. Later someone else starts making emulators for equipment they currently make money from. They would lose a bit of an edge in court because the defendant could cite their previous ignoring of emulation of their products. If you don't enforce your copyrights you lose them.

--
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
Re:silly by Spoons · 2003-10-11 08:53 · Score: 2, Informative

If you don't enforce your copyrights you lose them.

This is false. If you don't enforce trademarks you lose them. Copyrights are maintained by the holder whether they are enforced or not.
Re:silly by MisanthropicProggram · 2003-10-11 08:58 · Score: 1

Then again, would it kill Roland to give these people a free license to create what is basically a product that augments their own line of products - all for free?

--
There is no spoon or sig.
Re:silly by EvanED · 2003-10-11 09:20 · Score: 1

"...if they didn't wouldn't they be in effect saying that anyone can go ahead and take their IP property? Legally speaking of course."

Nope. Of trademarks, patents, and copyrights, you are only required to actively protect trademarks. (I think; maybe patents as well. But I'm *positive* there's nothing in the statutes that obligate holders of copyright to do so.)

IANAL, but follow many aspects of law quite closely.
Re:silly by WWWWolf · 2003-10-11 09:46 · Score: 1

Nobody would buy an mt-32 now, because you can get 100x the features simply using today's computer based sampling programs.

I don't know... Ultima VII the way it was meant to be played...
Nah, I think I'll just use Exult and it's .ogg renditions =)

How did you learn this stuff? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-11 08:37 · Score: 1, Interesting

I'm impressed with the apparent command of the relevant law here, and would assume it's going to bring some respect as well as a good resolution to the case.

What I'm wondering is how you acquired it. This kind of stuff seems so opaqe to me...

Re:How did you learn this stuff? by BobTheLawyer · 2003-10-11 23:49 · Score: 1

Perhaps you're being sarcastic.

They're misunderstanding the law completely - copyright is created automatically and failure to register has certain procedural consequences (in the US, at any rate) but does not effect the creation or ownership of copyright.

Whether Roland is morally in the right is questionable. Whether they are legally in the right is indisputable.
Re:How did you learn this stuff? by canadacow · 2003-10-12 03:45 · Score: 1

This is getting really old... once again, to quote from www.copyright.gov:

Absence of Copyright Notice
For works first published before 1978, the complete absence of a copyright notice from a published copy generally indicates that the work is not protected by copyright. For works first published before March 1, 1989, the copyright notice is mandatory, but omission could have been cured by registration before or within 5 years of publication and by adding the notice to copies published in the United States after discovery of the omission. Some works may contain a notice, others may not. The absence of a notice in works published on or after March 1, 1989, does not necessarily indicate that the work is in the public domain.

Me am? by xenoweeno · 2003-10-11 08:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Me, Mr. Dean Beeler, am the only individual of majority age subject of this communcation.

"Me am?" This is probably not the best way to begin a fuck-off letter...

Re:Me am? by canadacow · 2003-10-11 09:28 · Score: 1

So what? All Your Base Are Belong To Us!
Re:Me am? by 91degrees · 2003-10-11 09:52 · Score: 1

If the lawyer is at all competent, then it shouldn't make any difference. It's either someone who can't quite use correct English who thinks he knows the law, or someone who can use correct English who thinks he knows the law. either way, it's up to the lawyer to determine whether he thinks correctly.
Re:Me am? by Zed2K · 2003-10-11 10:05 · Score: 1

I think the point is if you want to be taken seriously in the initial impression you should have taken the 10-15 minutes to proofread your reply. If you don't have the ability to do this you should have found someone to do it for you. Then go take some writing classes. Even programmers need to be able to write and speak correctly.
Re:Me am? by jrockway · 2003-10-11 10:16 · Score: 1

Very, very good point. Why is it that slashdoter's fuck-you emails are always un proofread? Post them here first and THEN send them!!! We'll help you guys write nice, English :) letters.

--
My other car is first.

Re:So what?-SCO logic by Eric+Ass+Raymond · 2003-10-11 08:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Judges interpretation, not Rolands

A company hires lawyers, lawyers convince the judge and judge judges accordingly.

Now, if a company has a even remotely competent lawyers who research the case and the denfendant has a hack of a lawyer who really thinks that whatever it says in the lawbook is the law, the company has already won.

Law is not like programming. The law in the book means whatever a skilled lawyer wants it to mean. Wake up!

--
BOO! TERRO

Roland CM-32L by Spire · 2003-10-11 08:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

The original Roland MT-32 was released in 1987, but what about the Roland CM-32L? The CM-32L was a later model that was internally identical to the MT-32, except that it had a larger ROM space that contained twice as many ROM samples: the original MT-32 set, plus a bunch of new sample banks unique to the CM-32L.

I've never owned an original MT-32, but I do own a still-working CM-32L, and I can confirm that it is 100% backward-compatible to the MT-32, and sounds exactly the same as an MT-32, even when programmed to use custom MT-32 patches (instrument definitions). Many games from the MT-32 era used such custom patches extensively, as did the sequencing software I used at the time, Ballade.

I'm not sure exactly when the CM-32L came out (I can't find the information on Google), but there's a good chance it was 1989 or later. If so, then how does that affect the copyright issue?

--
begin 644 .sig22&%I;"P@9F5L;&]W(&=E96 LA`end

Re:Roland CM-32L by EvanED · 2003-10-11 09:16 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
Re:Roland CM-32L by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-11 09:21 · Score: 2, Informative

A second edition of a work does not confer copyright protection to the first.
Re:Roland CM-32L by SydShamino · 2003-10-11 09:45 · Score: 1

For example, I can print a copy of Moby Dick, edit it by adding line notes, making grammar changes, and adding extensive commentary, then copyright the new work as my own.

That does not, however, give me any claims of copyright over the original work, which copyright law very clearly says is now in the public domain.

This case doesn't sound any different.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:Roland CM-32L by EvanED · 2003-10-12 04:31 · Score: 1

And indeed, if the changes fall under the requirements for copyrighted work (they must be creative), the new versions are under copyright. That's why arrangements of copyrighted pieces are protected. However, if a company simply prints up classical music, that is really not copyrightable, so you are free to copy.

In any case, that doesn't have anythnig to do with the matter at hand since even if printing the music would mean that the printed version was copyrighted the *original music* would still be public domain.

Wasn't there a similar case with some Linux synth? by Doomrat · 2003-10-11 08:55 · Score: 1

Wasn't there a similar case with some Linux synth? I believe that some Rebirth style synth was killed off because it used a drum synth's samples. Strange, as normally a synth's sounds are later used on records and such, so they can't really sue for releasing their audio on a non-profit application...

Re:Wasn't there a similar case with some Linux syn by runderwo · 2003-10-11 08:57 · Score: 1

Yes, it was called ReBorn, but the site is dead now.

--
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web

Too much blabber by PCM2 · 2003-10-11 09:03 · Score: 1

Once again, another case where a four-page rant is used when a simple, two-paragraph response -- or better still, conspicuous silence -- would have sufficed. If anything, you should have had a lawyer draft a formal acknowledgment and refusal of the C&D letter.

By sending a letter like this one, written by yourself, complete with atrocious grammar, it seems to me that all you're doing is sending Roland the message that you feel you're legally in the right but have not contacted an attorney. In other words, you're just chumming the waters.

--
Breakfast served all day!

Re:Too much blabber by kungfuBreaks · 2003-10-11 09:56 · Score: 1

You make a good point, but I think your jab at canadacow's grammar is unwarranted. It may not be perfect (though I myself didn't notice any significant errors), but 'atrocious' it certainly isn't.
Re:Too much blabber by kungfuBreaks · 2003-10-11 12:51 · Score: 1

All I'm saying is that canadacow's grammar is far from atrocious. In fact, I didn't notice a single grammatical error. Perhaps I missed some; could you please point them out?
Re:Too much blabber by Fnkmaster · 2003-10-11 17:47 · Score: 1

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. I've dealt with many lawyers whose mastery of English is far below this standard, and for whom a letter of this quality would be entirely out of reach. Sure, lawyers usually have a few stock phrases at their disposal, but very, very few of them can craft a decent legal argument about technically sophisticated topics such as applicability of copyright law to old sound card ROMs.

I think the best takeaway here is that you should always retain a lawyer and get them to edit and send the letter on your behalf, and let them be the asshole. I still think it's generally preferable to come up with your own argument in a case like this, and find a lawyer who'll work with you and realize that your domain knowledge is far superior to their own, and that their understanding of specific laws (though perhaps not the general gestalt of the law) is nothing that a guy bright enough to emulate an MT-32 ROM can't pick up in a day or two.
Re:Too much blabber by canadacow · 2003-10-12 04:01 · Score: 1

Granted the spelling mistakes are inexcusable. Its too bad that the vast majority of forums don't have a spell check/grammar check and doing so manually takes too much time when you've already spent more time than you wanted to. The redundancies, on the other hand, came about because they were preceeded by specific quotes from the C&D. Since I didn't want to quote directly from the C&D, I simply removed the relevant lines.

Re:The last one *I'll* buy... by drdreff · 2003-10-11 09:07 · Score: 1

I actually have quite a few mboards hanging around here with ISA slots. I could sell those cheaply too I suppose...

--
As seen on Wired: Get a free desktop PC

Re:The last one *I'll* buy... by Iffy+Bonzoolie · 2003-10-11 09:09 · Score: 1

I managed to get my roland cm32-l working over my SB Audigy game/midi port. I had to buy a $20 midi converter cable from fry's. I also had to use VDM Sound to get my dos games's midi output to get sent over the audigy's midi port. Supposedly my motherboard has a built-in MPU-401 compatible midi port, but it would drop data when sending it to the roland.

Nice not to need some crappy old ISA computer to play my old games.

-If

--
Run a pencil-and-paper RPG campaign with your far-off friends: Gametable!

Re:roland sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-11 09:10 · Score: 4, Informative

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...

OOps! by obfuscated · 2003-10-11 09:11 · Score: 2, Funny

He forgot to say "IANAL" before starting.

--

-- dK ... Narf Poit!

Re:OOps! by The+Munger · 2003-10-13 16:50 · Score: 1

But he is planning on making a beowulf cluster of MT-32s when he's finished.

--
Refuse to make a statement in your sig!

Re:roland sucks by eshefer · 2003-10-11 09:13 · Score: 2, Informative

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..)

Sad by jd · 2003-10-11 09:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

It realy is sad. The MT-32 is old. The LAPC-1 was an ISA card, and I am unaware of any PCI version of this particular hardware series.

Having said that, thse devices blew the competition out of the water, at the time. The LAPC-1's sounds were vastly superior to the early Soundblasters. There was absolutely no serious alternative, if you wanted good music.

That earned Roland a lot of respect, at the time. If you wanted to play the original Wing Commander, you used the LAPC-1 for the music, if you wanted even remotely acceptable quality, or any credibility with other games players.

Since then, Roland have not done anything to keep up the momentum. They could have crushed Soundblaster so badly, that Creative simply ceased to exist. They could have improved their MIDI interface, keeping pace with the evolving standards. They could have moved to 20-bit sound even then, and be into 24-bit or 26-bit sound today.

They could have done these things. They chose not to. They chose to let the PC end of things die out. They chose to ignore potential future earnings.

They've made their choice, and I'm sure everyone respects that. I don't think it's a wise choice. I think it's foolish. But it's their choice to make.

But the past happened. They can't turn around and change it now. Nor can they pretend it never happened. Well, they can, but it doesn't alter anything. The MT-32 and the LAPC-1 were real, and remain realities.

The attempt to crush what amounts to digital archaeology is beyond stupid. The only rational explanation is an attempt to conceal the past, to deny their involvement with PCs, by obliterating any trace or reference to the past.

Dear Roland Corp, don't hide from what you've done. Embrace it! It was an amazing success that Roland can - at any time - follow up on. Don't waste dollars chasing emulators of the forgotten and abandoned! Put that money to work for you. Build a soundcard using cutting-edge technology and cutting-edge samples. Utilize the low cost of processor power to add high-quality sound rendering. I promise you that a good product will earn more money for Roland than a bad lawsuit. The first rule of marketing is that every dollar spent should earn you ten. I don't see the technology in question being worth that, even if the people involved had that kind of money. Invest in something that will make you money. Invest in your future. Leave the past alone.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

Re:Sad by tigeba · 2003-10-11 10:06 · Score: 1

"Since then, Roland have not done anything to keep up the momentum. They could have crushed Soundblaster so badly, that Creative simply ceased to exist. They could have improved their MIDI interface, keeping pace with the evolving standards. They could have moved to 20-bit sound even then, and be into 24-bit or 26-bit sound today."

Yes! bring on the 26 bit sound!
Re:Sad by midifarm · 2003-10-11 11:20 · Score: 4, Informative

The main reason that "Roland" abandoned the PC sound card market was because of two problems. One was the RAP-10. It was their first serious attempt at a prosumer recording product. You must remember that at this time the bulk of music software was Mac and Atari based, Atari on it's way out.
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
Re:Sad by AKnightCowboy · 2003-10-11 11:48 · Score: 1

Put that money to work for you. Build a soundcard using cutting-edge technology and cutting-edge samples. Utilize the low cost of processor power to add high-quality sound rendering.
They'd really be wasting their money. The average $2 audio chipset embedded on any AC97 compatible motherboard sounds just peachy. The one on my Soyo motherboard is even 5.1 surround sound. I doubt many people even buy third-party sound cards anymore unless they get a motherboard that doesn't come with on-board sound (unlikely these days). Computer generated audio is really one of those things that has been tapped out to it's max.
Re:Sad by Superfarstucker · 2003-10-11 12:03 · Score: 1

you, my friend, haven't a damn clue about audio
Re:Sad by canadacow · 2003-10-11 12:56 · Score: 2, Informative

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.
Re:Sad by cduffy · 2003-10-11 12:59 · Score: 1

Beg to differ. Almost all motherboard-integrated audio has a s/n ratio somewhere between "bad" and "horrid", and at least half of them either depend on software MIDI synthesis or include hardware synth so bad that most people today think MIDI sucks. (I happen to have a Roland RS-9 hooked up to my system I use for MIDI synth -- it's also a damn fine keyboard for the price).

Yes, if you're using the speakers that came with your computer and not going anywhere near MIDI synthesis, the onboard audio probably is fine for you. That's not to say it's fine for everyone.
Re:Sad by midifarm · 2003-10-11 13:09 · Score: 1

It wouldn't surprise me if the sample set in the SC series were all samples of the MT-32! The cheaters!
Re:Sad by Kris_J · 2003-10-11 13:17 · Score: 1

That earned Roland a lot of respect, at the time. If you wanted to play the original Wing Commander, you used the LAPC-1 for the music, if you wanted even remotely acceptable quality, or any credibility with other games players
I did exactly this. The compared to the LAPC-1, the Soundblaster's FM synth is barely functional.
(More recently though I've been playing with a PCI card that allows me to play music on a real C64 SID chip.)
Re:Sad by tzanger · 2003-10-11 14:43 · Score: 1

Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but didn't the Gravis UltraSound (Max) eat into this market as well? I know it sure as hell blew the doors off of the SBPro/16 and did honest wavetable synthesis before it was the norm.
Re:Sad by obi · 2003-10-11 16:51 · Score: 1

you're right, I remember being very surprised that such short samples combined with simple tone generation could generate such good results.

I had (actually, I still have) a LAPC-I. I played with the SC-55 and variants, and from what I could tell, they were indeed entirely PCM based - by definition the sample sets of the MT32/CM32L/LAPC-I and the SC55 are totally unrelated.

This really is a worthwile project. I hope there will be more softsynth projects for Linux. This one is worthwile because a lot of games and music pieces were written with these in mind, and got _excellent_ results. (Most of these used their own rearranged "instruments" on the mt32, to get their results.)

I wonder if this project is fully compatible, sysex messages and all.
Re:Sad by Cecil · 2003-10-11 17:07 · Score: 1

I beg to differ. I have a Soyo DRAGON too, and yes it certainly does have 5.1 outputs. Assuming you're not interested in using a microphone or line-in (you've lost me already). It's also crappy fake 5.1 audio. Taking two channels of sound and running it through a 'Concert Hall' filter is not what I consider 5.1 audio, sorry. Nor does it have any digital outputs, it uses 3 analog outs to get the 5.1.

There is a group of computer users who is desperately waiting for the death of Creative Labs and the rebirth of computer audio. Marketers would probably call us "prosumers" or "audiophiles". Regardless, we want better audio, we want more features.

The feature I'm waiting for personally? DirectSound/EAX/A3D to DTS encoding. Want your game to sound just like you're in a movie? I know I sure as hell do. nVIDIA's nForce2 APU had a DTS encoder chip, but it seems to have been abandoned. If only they had put that damn APU onto a PCI card, I would've bought three.

The revival of MIDI would also be nice.

--
Random and weird software I've written.
Re:Sad by statusbar · 2003-10-12 15:11 · Score: 1

Uh. No, the MT-32 was fully digital. The brilliance was that it used the old analog style subtractive synthesis as well as sample playback. But it was all done digitally.

--jeff++

--
ipv6 is my vpn

LAPC1... by WIAKywbfatw · 2003-10-11 09:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

The MT-32 was the heart of the Roland LAPC1 sound card. Most older PC gamers will remember it, as the Roland LAPC1 was the sound card, back in the days of Wing Commander, X-Wing, etc.

Combined with a SoundBlaster, the LAPC1 was all the sound you needed. Ahh, those were the days, fighting the Kilrathi and the Empire with nothing but the stars as your audience...

Of course, it didn't come cheap. My LAPC1 cost 300 pounds, which was/is around $450 US. Heck, I've still got it lying around, intact with its original packaging and documentation. I wonder what this baby's worth on eBay?

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg

Re:LAPC1... by praedictus · 2003-10-11 10:48 · Score: 1

A couple of other cool points about the LAPC-1 (PC-card ver of MT-32):
A/ Velocity sensitive: Slap bass that worked!
B/the drum kit rocked! You could sustain the open hi-hat and stop it with the closed and get a nice satisfying slap. Even keyboard my keyboard at the time (a Yamaha SY-22) didn't have that kinda class.

Unfortunately the MIDI that comes with 99% of computers these days sucks The Giver.

--
Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
Re:LAPC1... by Gabrill · 2003-10-11 12:15 · Score: 1

My Gravis Ultrasound did a pretty fair job with those programs. I still have it, but I don't think it still works.

--
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.

Next company to sue them: by Bunji+X · 2003-10-11 09:32 · Score: 1

Lucasarts, for using Monkey Island MIDI files as proof of sound quality.

--
---
The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.

Re:Next company to sue them: by canadacow · 2003-10-11 09:55 · Score: 1

Nah, this falls under fair use. Even though I posted a whole song, I haven't prevented you from still needing to buy the game if you want to get the whole "Monkey Island 1" experience. Now if I posted a copy of Monkey Island 1 so people could try out my emulator, that's another issue.
Re:Next company to sue them: by iantri · 2003-10-11 11:33 · Score: 1

Be very, very careful. If I post, say, a song that is played during a movie, does that still fall under fair use?
After all, you need to buy the movie to get the whole "Movie X" experience..
I think you see the problem..

Hmm by Halcyon-X · 2003-10-11 09:58 · Score: 1

If Roland were to begin producing the MT-32 again, I would see absolutely no point to my emulator. However, since the MT-32 is now a rare commodity (due to so few working ones in existance), an emulator serves a purpose for those unable to obtain one. But since an original MT-32 is required (for the ROM), how could this benefit those who are unable to obtain one? I think this should be for those who are unable to use one in their PC (i.e. no ISA slots, or if they have a different PC under which it is not supported). Was it offered in PCI?

--

.sig: Open Source, Open Mind

Re:Hmm by Daniel_Staal · 2003-10-11 10:29 · Score: 1

An original MT-32 is required to legally obtain the ROM. A working one isn't...

--
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Re:Hmm by midifarm · 2003-10-11 11:23 · Score: 1

At the release of all the old Roland Multimedia products, PCI slots weren't even an issue. I believe the two standards at the time were VESA Local (Loco) Bus and ISA. PCI was much later.
Peace

Re:Wasn't there a similar case with some Linux syn by FiloEleven · 2003-10-11 10:09 · Score: 1

When you purchase a synth, you also purchase the right to use sounds from that synth in your music and pay no royalties. Generally, the manual or user's guide will contain a paragraph stating as much. Unfortunately, all my manuals are somewhere else, so I can't provide an example.

An interesting question is this: what is the difference between using a synth's sounds on a record and using them in a softsynth of your own creation? Is there a legal difference between using a synth in a musical album to sell and using a synth to create a sample library to sell? In essence, making a softsynth using the original file format _is_ creating a sample library with a nonstandard navigation interface, unless I am mistaken.

--
Your brain is not a computer.

more than silly by LinuxGeek · 2003-10-11 10:19 · Score: 1

After reading the article, what I really wonder about is "why is Roland upset about information they have no copyright for?".

If the response from canadacow is correct, then this is plain harrasment from Roland. The three authors contacted Roland before starting their project and got no response about the copyright concerns. They even let Roland know that there was no valid copyright on the MT-32 rom info and got no response. Seems like the Roland legal team has been asleep on the job.

In short, Roland can't license what they don't own copyright for (see SCO for more examples).

--

Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain

Re:A CALL FOR TROLLS AND SPAMS!: TAILSTEAK.TK by SynKKnyS · 2003-10-11 10:32 · Score: 1

Any troll knows, Linux blows and Windows is superior.

Re:roland sucks by midifarm · 2003-10-11 10:34 · Score: 1

Just to let you know they have made a few good products over the years. These would be limited to the JX-10 (Super JX) and the JD series. These are also the last "pro" pieces Roland Has made. Peace

Re:A CALL FOR TROLLS AND SPAMS!: TAILSTEAK.TK by SynKKnyS · 2003-10-11 10:34 · Score: 1

I don't think anyone is gonna get the irony in that. ;)

Re:umm... WHO CARES?!! by midifarm · 2003-10-11 10:41 · Score: 1

I just want to know how Roland is DYING? If you look at annual sales in the MI, Roland is amongst the top, not only in keyboard and module sales, but in stand alone DAW's and multimedia products. Keep in mind that Roland's offshoots consist of Edirol and Boss products.

You mentioned that PCM is finished as well. What other format would you suggest in realtime playback of samples? Technically CD's use PCM.

For the record the MT-32 never sounded good, but was reincarnated for years by Roland. Ah well.

Peace

What about Webster's? by mangu · 2003-10-11 11:04 · Score: 1

I have a CD-ROM called the "Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary". It contains most, if not all, the words in the English language. These tiny "nuggets" of data are the core of the system, and can be argued to be "software" and thus copyrightable. Does this mean that Random House has the copyright of everything that can possibly be written in the English language?

Re:What about Webster's? by canadacow · 2003-10-11 12:37 · Score: 1

Webster's dictionary is different. Like a telephone book, a dictionary present facts. Prior case law has tested this in cases where companies have copied other telephone books verbatim. The only thing a telephone book publisher can effectively copyright is the arrangement of the telephone numbers (outside of normal alphabetical arrangement). Thus, the same would apply to Websters. They can copyright the definitions, but they can't copyright the words themselves.
Re:What about Webster's? by Kolgoth · 2003-10-11 14:53 · Score: 1

No - there was a copyright on the definitions Webster used to define the words in the dictionary. The words themselves are, in a strange way, public-domain. I can say any word I please, however, on a very very technical, and assinine level, Webster could possibly copyright the EXACT definition they provide in their dictionary, and thus require citation or reference if quoted directly. This is very similar to the MT-32 situation in the fact that they are trying to claim copyright on something they can't. Their claim of a copyright on a sound producable naturally, would be akin to someone attempting to claim copyright on a dog's bark!

--
"The Samurai who does not fear death becomes invincible."

Re:roland sucks by midifarm · 2003-10-11 11:31 · Score: 1

Yamaha did it best with the VL-1 about 10 years ago. Roland really hasn't invented anything new in a long time. BTW the D-Beam is licensed technology from a company called Interactive Light. The little touch pad is a variation of vectoring used by Sequential Circuits and later by Korg when they purchased them.

Peace

Re:Wasn't there a similar case with some Linux syn by harlows_monkeys · 2003-10-11 11:37 · Score: 1

Strange, as normally a synth's sounds are later used on records and such, so they can't really sue for releasing their audio on a non-profit application...

Several people have brought up similar points, and they all make no sense.

Say a synth or a sound card or whatever has a particular sound, and you use it on your record. That use is not substituting for the synth or sound card. E.g., if another band likes the drum sound you use, and they want it, they go out and buy the same drum synth you used. They don't just buy your record and use the sound from it.

An emulator, on the other hand, does substitute for the original. That band that hears the sound on your record and goes out and gets the emulator doesn't need to get the original synth or sound card or whatever.

A little hyperbolic, aren't we? by sandalwood · 2003-10-11 11:39 · Score: 1

"The same mistake the RIAA and MPAA are making?" Don't make me laugh. Roland isn't suing Grandmas and children who live in a housing project. How many customers do you think Roland will lose because of this? The several of you? Anyone with any connection to classic game emulation? A horde of righteously indignant Slashdot users, who will rise up and firmly resolve to never again purchase Roland products? Sorry, I don't buy it.

Barratry by alispguru · 2003-10-11 11:53 · Score: 1

You know, the act of filing a lawsuit that anyone with an actual clue about the law in question would know was invalid, solely to threaten the recipients?

Doing this is illegal in almost every jurisdiction. It's also grounds for disbarment if a complaint is filed with the appropriate bar association.

I will bet the hackers in question know this, given their demonstrated knowledge of the law to date, and are waiting to see if it's necessary to use the really big hammer to swat these clowns.

--

To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.

Re:Barratry by EmagGeek · 2003-10-11 12:58 · Score: 1

Judge: Be seated. This is case number 8675309, ACME Widget Corporation v. Medesky, Martin, and Wood, Copyright Infringement of Intellectual and Atristic Works. Prosecuting Counsel, opening arguments?

Def. Counsel: I OBJECT! This is BULLSHIT!

Judge: There will be order! Counsel, one more outburst like that and I'll find you in contempt! Counselor, you may continue.

Pros. Counsel: Your honor, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants...

Def Counsel Interrupts: Your HONOR! I renew my objection!

Judge: Counselor, be quiet! Where did you go to law school, anyway?

Counsel: I went to SCL, your honor

Judge: SCL?

Counsel: Yes, your honor

Judge: I've never heard of SCL. What is it?

Counsel: I'm surprised, your honor. Hasn't everyone heard of the Slashdot School of Law?

Judge: Oh christ, here we go again.... :))

Re:roland sucks by statusbar · 2003-10-11 12:08 · Score: 1

Thing is, most of the coolest stuff Roland did was in the 80's. I'd still love to have a JD800 though. I've been a Roland nut ever since I had an MPU-401 interface for my Apple ][ connected to a Juno-60 via a MIDI to DCB converter.

I have been disappointed with Roland's products since the JD-800, though.

They have a KILLER R&D department, I expect better stuff from them!

--jeff++

--
ipv6 is my vpn

Acceptable Use? by NeilNeilOrangePeel · 2003-10-11 12:08 · Score: 1

I forked out $1500 for a MT-32 back in the late 80's and another $2000 for a Roland piano (now both gathering dust as is my piano playing skills). Does that mean the I can use the MT-32 emulator out of acceptable use?

Re:roland sucks by proj_2501 · 2003-10-11 12:34 · Score: 1

you obviously didn't bother to actually READ my post, did you?

*almost* a good response letter by EmagGeek · 2003-10-11 12:50 · Score: 1

However, Canadacow shot himself in the foot legally. He makes a very strong, well-researched case that Roland in fact does not own the copyrights to the MT-32 sample set. However, in a later paragraph, he acknowledges that it is not legal to offer the ROMs for download - citing that they are doing due diligence to protect Roland by verifying downloaders own their own MT-32. If Roland does not have a copyright, why nother? Put it up on Kazaa and let it rip.

Granted, some judge might agree that they do own some kind of copyright, so maybe they're just protecting themselves, but it completely destroys the letter's credibility to contradict itself. They should have mentioned nothing other than Roland's failure to legally protect the sample set.

OOPS!

BTW: IANAL, YMMV, DEMATP

Re:*almost* a good response letter by canadacow · 2003-10-11 13:04 · Score: 1

I don't think I shot myself in the foot. I followed up that paragraph by stating that we were in compliance because (and I quote myself), "there is still the issue regarding whether or not the MT-32 samples were indeed copyrighted." In our case, we were simply erroring on the side of caution.
Re:*almost* a good response letter by EmagGeek · 2003-10-11 14:07 · Score: 1

I did speculate to that effect, but I just think it would have been a stronger letter having been left at the copyright issue and not going into justifying your actions. I agree with being cautious, but there's no reason to say "hey, we're being cautious because we think you might be right," ya know? :)

I sincerely hope you guys will dispatch Roland quickly. I certainly seems like you've done your homework.

Re:Why are Roland bothering? by darketernal · 2003-10-11 13:00 · Score: 1

They're probably taking SCO's example that shows that any industry power can make a colossal fuss over untrue claims, and for a very, very long time at that. *grin*

Hardly? by Sycraft-fu · 2003-10-11 13:52 · Score: 1

It's not hardly, it ISN'T. Roland doesn't sell MT-32s any more, haven't for like 10 years. They renamed their computer MIDI division to Edirol and currently the only products they sell are the StudioCanvases, SD-20, SD-80 and SD-90. It's the modern incarnation of the SoundCavnas SC-55, which was significantly different form the MT-32. None of the StudioCanvases have any MT-32 sample sets (they have GM2, GS and XG sets).

This emulator will have NO impact on Roland sales. The MT-32 is very, very dated. Teh sounds are crap by today's standards. A $30 SBLive and the 8MB Emu sample set will get you better sound, never mind a more expensive synth. Roland doesn't sell the MT-32 and they aren't going to.

Re:Hardly? by gilesjuk · 2003-10-11 23:56 · Score: 1

True, but there's bound to be some sitting in a second hand shop somewhere minus manual. Roland does sell manuals and videos, perhaps they sell a few power supplies, manuals for their old products like the MT32?

Re:The last one *I'll* buy... by Hrothgar+The+Great · 2003-10-11 14:18 · Score: 1

Uh.... I havent checked this year, but I'm still running a PIII 600EB from last year on an old Tekram board (p6pro a+) that has ISA slots.

Of course, you put a card in one of those slots and Windows XP crashes. Whaddaya know?

For those of us who aren't musicians by 0x0d0a · 2003-10-11 15:15 · Score: 1

For those of you who don't know: the MT-32 is a synthesizer module. So it's normal use is to generate sounds that people are going to use on commercial records.

My understanding is that this is some sort of MIDI synth device. I've always wondered what exactly what these things did that was special. Surely any old soundcard also can do MIDI synth, as well as software like timidity?

Or is it one of those "other" synths, where you slide sliders around and produce new waveforms? Isn't there software that can do the same thing now?

Either way, it seems strange to want to use old synth equipment -- either case seems to be outclassed by modern software. Yet I know that people pay crazy amounts of money for it.

The only real possibility I can think of is if you spent years with a synth and don't want to throw away all that experience...

--
May we never see th

Re:For those of us who aren't musicians by tgv · 2003-10-11 17:38 · Score: 1

It is a 10 channel MIDI sound module, somewhat like an external sound card. And it was wonderful at the time, but outdated right now. It did have a few nice sounds, though, but it was not that special kind of synth you readlly would buy if you had the money...
Re:For those of us who aren't musicians by norsk_hedensk · 2003-10-11 18:24 · Score: 1

theres a big interest in analog ( and analog 'like') synths. especially the amazing roland juno's, and the juno 106, one of the first hybrid analog filter, digital osc synth. a very basic synth, but its stability while retaining that warm analog sound is very sought after. the 106 is one of the first to implement midi also.
Re:For those of us who aren't musicians by joto · 2003-10-11 18:42 · Score: 1

My understanding is that this is some sort of MIDI synth device. I've always wondered what exactly what these things did that was special. Surely any old soundcard also can do MIDI synth, as well as software like timidity?
It's a pre-GM synth. It contains more or less the same set of sounds, but in a different order. Some very old DOS games probably support it, and not GM soundcards or modules. If you only care about functionality, it would be easier to just remap the sounds, and maybe choose an old and awful-sounding soundset for timidity or other software synth. You would have to be half-crazy to start such a project anyway, but aren't most people doing emulators that anyway?
Either way, it seems strange to want to use old synth equipment -- either case seems to be outclassed by modern software. Yet I know that people pay crazy amounts of money for it.
The only real possibility I can think of is if you spent years with a synth and don't want to throw away all that experience...
Probably some truth to that. But it is also possible that they actually enjoy the sound and "feel" of them. Many do, even if they are not old enough to have used them when they were new. And if you want to sound like Vangelis or Kraftwerk, you might as well use the same equipment (which was NOT a cheap MT-32 by the way, the old classic synths sell at prices mostly comparable to what they were originally sold at). Compare it to how strange preferences people have for guitar amps, the older and crappier, the better :-)
Besides, untill a few years ago, most new synths were just samplers and everyone sounded similarly, so there actually was some sense to choosing an old synth if you enjoyed programming new sounds, or twitching the knobs to change the sound in real-time. Today, there are plenty of more modern alternatives.
Re:For those of us who aren't musicians by Monkelectric · 2003-10-12 03:57 · Score: 1

Some very old DOS games probably support it, and not GM soundcards or modules
Yes and no. In 1987 the Roland MT-32 was *THE* synth to have. Unfourtanatley you had to be pretty wealthy or lucky to have one -- their new price was somewhere around 600$. The MT-32 was light years ahead of then-current sound cards, and even today it still sounds pretty good.
Now the reason you want an MT-32 today is as we said, the MT-32 was top of the line shit -- its what the soundtrack to your classic videogame was *written on*. Wanna play monkey island and hear exactly what the composer intended? Get an MT-32 because it was written on that, and monkey island even has custom patches it uploads to the MT-32.
Long story short, most games of the day were written specifically for the MT-32, so it's like keeping a car all stock, wanting to experience the original thing just like it might have been.

--
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Re:For those of us who aren't musicians by joto · 2003-10-12 04:47 · Score: 1

Yes and no. In 1987 the Roland MT-32 was *THE* synth to have. Unfourtanatley you had to be pretty wealthy or lucky to have one -- their new price was somewhere around 600$. The MT-32 was light years ahead of then-current sound cards, and even today it still sounds pretty good.
Sounds like you're right. After some further research, it sounds like the MT-32 was more or less a D-50 for the sequencing and gaming market. Some minor preset differences, and completely useless without a computer, but still, more or less the same hardware. The D-50 is after all one of the big classics people still like to drag around or keep in their studio.
Now, despite Rolands advertizing, the D-50 never sounded very good when emulating analog instruments, which is what sample-players and GM soundcards do pretty well. But as a synth in it's own right, it is still somewhat sought after. So yes, if you had music written especially for it, with custom-made patches, it is likely that you will never even get close to that on a GM soundcard.
I suspect that if the author(s) ever clears the legalities up with Roland, and modify it to emulate a D-50, and add a DXi or VSTi interface, it would actually be pretty easy to sell that thing... Wouldn't have to be crazy at all!

Very creative by Anthony+Boyd · 2003-10-11 16:35 · Score: 3, Informative

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 &

Re:Very creative by canadacow · 2003-10-11 16:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Title 17 of U.S.C. section 405 reads:

405. Notice of copyright: Omission of notice on certain copies and phonorecords5 (a) Effect of Omission on Copyright. -- With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the omission of the copyright notice described in sections 401 through 403 from copies or phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner does not invalidate the copyright in a work if --

(1) the notice has been omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public; or

(2) registration for the work has been made before or is made within five years after the publication without notice, and a reasonable effort is made to add notice to all copies or phonorecords that are distributed to the public in the United States after the omission has been discovered; or

(3) the notice has been omitted in violation of an express requirement in writing that, as a condition of the copyright owner's authorization of the public distribution of copies or phonorecords, they bear the prescribed notice.

(b) Effect of Omission on Innocent Infringers. -- Any person who innocently infringes a copyright, in reliance upon an authorized copy or phonorecord from which the copyright notice has been omitted and which was publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, incurs no liability for actual or statutory damages under section 504 for any infringing acts committed before receiving actual notice that registration for the work has been made under section 408, if such person proves that he or she was misled by the omission of notice. In a suit for infringement in such a case the court may allow or disallow recovery of any of the infringer's profits attributable to the infringement, and may enjoin the continuation of the infringing undertaking or may require, as a condition for permitting the continuation of the infringing undertaking, that the infringer pay the copyright owner a reasonable license fee in an amount and on terms fixed by the court.

(c) Removal of Notice. -- Protection under this title is not affected by the removal, destruction, or obliteration of the notice, without the authorization of the copyright owner, from any publicly distributed copies or phonorecords.

Logically, this says that if the entity corrects the omission using one of three remedies, they retain copyrights, on the other hand, fail to do so invalidates the copyright. The later part of the section also mantains that even if Roland does have the copyright, since the matter is unclear, I incur "no liability for actual or statutory damages under section 504" And no, the current law as it stands only grants punitive damages when a copyright has been registered before the infringement. The law as it was in the 80's required a visible copyright on the fixed work to retain any rights what-so-ever.
Re:Very creative by Watts+Martin · 2003-10-11 19:00 · Score: 1

That's my recollection, as well. Copyrighting work could be done simply by writing "Copyright (c) 1987 Joe Blow" and publishing the work. And the thing is, that copyright may mean that Roland can sue them out of existence--the fact that the copyright isn't registered may not matter, because the copyright is easily provable.
I think people are also forgetting that the Sound Canvas is intended to be "backwards-compatible" with the MT-32 (even though there's a discussion in this thread talking about the differences, I know). And Roland still sells a software version of the Sound Canvas... which means that this freeware emulated MT-32 probably is competing with a current product in Roland's eyes.
Re:Very creative by DerekLyons · 2003-10-11 20:24 · Score: 1

Let's hope that you have something better up your sleeve than what you've shown so far. Rants in replies to legal communications are a good way to prove to the court that this will eventually end up in of your bad faith. Logical howlers like attempting the 'innocent infringment' defense, when you *deliberately set out to copy and distribute the subject material* won't help much either.
Re:Very creative by canadacow · 2003-10-11 23:17 · Score: 1

How about this then, to quote from the Library of Congress website:

As originally enacted, the 1976 law prescribed that all visually perceptible published copies of a work, or published phonorecords of a sound recording, should bear a proper copyright notice. This applies to such works published before March 1, 1989. After March 1, 1989, notice of copyright on these works is optional. Adding the notice, however, is strongly encouraged and, if litigation involving the copyright occurs, certain advantages exist for publishing a work with notice.

Prior to March 1, 1989, the requirement for the notice applied equally whether the work was published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner. Compliance with the statutory notice requirements was the responsibility of the copyright owner. Unauthorized publication without the copyright notice, or with a defective notice, does not affect the validity of the copyright in the work.

Advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office is not required before placing a copyright notice on copies of the work or on phonorecords of a sound recording. Moreover, for works first published on or after January 1, 1978, through February 28, 1989, omission of the required notice, or use of a defective notice, did not result in forfeiture or outright loss of copyright protection. Certain omissions of, or defects in, the notice of copyright, however, could have led to loss of copyright protection if steps were not taken to correct or cure the omissions or defects. The Copyright Office has issued a final regulation (37 CFR 201.20) that suggests various acceptable positions for the notice of copyright. For further information, write to the Copyright Office and request Circular 3," Copyright Notice," and Circular 96, Section 201.20, "Methods of Affixation and Positions of the Copyright Notice on Various Types of Works."

www.copyright.gov

And yes, though you mock resortment to "innocent infringement", you forget the context in how this happened. I was the one to first approach Roland for a license to use the Roland ROM's, again, erring on the side of caution. They denied my request. I did my homework and realized that due to the omission of a copyright notice anywhere on the work in question, Roland may have lost their copyright ownership. Again, to quote the law that deals with such situations, Title 17, section 405(b):

(b) Effect of Omission on Innocent Infringers. -- Any person who innocently infringes a copyright, in reliance upon an authorized copy or phonorecord from which the copyright notice has been omitted and which was publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, incurs no liability for actual or statutory damages under section 504 for any infringing acts committed before receiving actual notice that registration for the work has been made under section 408, if such person proves that he or she was misled by the omission of notice. In a suit for infringement in such a case the court may allow or disallow recovery of any of the infringer's profits attributable to the infringement, and may enjoin the continuation of the infringing undertaking or may require, as a condition for permitting the continuation of the infringing undertaking, that the infringer pay the copyright owner a reasonable license fee in an amount and on terms fixed by the court.

This law states that in short, even if Roland is found to have copyright ownership, their failure to make proper notice or register, combined with their resistance to provide proof of copyright, frees me of all "liability for actual or statutory damages under section 504".
This is really starting to bother me. You're interpreting the law just as the Roland lawyers are doing, forgetting that what were dealing with is not contemporary. Different laws apply because the "optional notice/registration law" is not retroactive.
Re:Very creative by canadacow · 2003-10-12 03:51 · Score: 1

You're mistaken on two points. One, I agree that all Roland would have had to do was place a copyright notice on the work and the issue would be settled. Only they did not do this. There is no notice of copyright and no registration. They have personally admitted this to me. They also claim that registration is not required. This is only true for works produced after 1989. The MT-32 was produced in 1987. Please see billion other posts where I actually quote the law that says this (I'm tired of repasting it). And surprise, Microsoft's softsynth that's been included with Windows since DirectX 7.0 came out, is a Roland SC-55 emulator, complete with SC-55 patches. I don't they would see this as competition as everyone who owns a PC with Windows automatically owns an SC-55 emulator.
Re:Very creative by SuiteSisterMary · 2003-10-14 06:11 · Score: 1

But doesn't it free you from having done it, but prevent you from continuing to do it?

I.E. you did it, but it's OK, because you didn't realize it was copyrighted, due to them failing in some way, but now that they've remedied it, further use becomes copyright infringement?

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.

I wanted one... by kyoko21 · 2003-10-11 17:28 · Score: 1

When I was growing up I took piano lessons at a piano store where they had the MT-32. I used to come in early and play around with it. I have always wanted because of its great sound and sequencing. It's a great little device. :-)

Re:roland sucks by darien · 2003-10-12 02:10 · Score: 1

Roland also = Boss, and some of their kit is pretty ace. I have a GX-700 and a DR-770, and I wouldn't exchange them not for the entire world I wouldn't no.

Re:umm... WHO CARES?!! by enigmals1 · 2003-10-12 07:10 · Score: 1

Who's the one posting anonymously?! And I've never even seen BSD... I'm a diehard Windows guy.

Re:umm... WHO CARES?!! by enigmals1 · 2003-10-12 07:16 · Score: 1

Man... you guys are rough! Guess you can't take tongue-in-cheek comments.

But that's okay. I still love EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU!! :*

wait...was that gay? that sounded gay. ;)

Re:Live sounds worse, even with an 'optimal' set(u by Sycraft-fu · 2003-10-12 11:30 · Score: 1

No see, I'm talking for composing, which is what the parent was talking about. Sure, the MT-32 is still the best for games compsed for the MT-32. Duh. That's the point of an MT-32 emulator, many games were composed for it and don't really sound proper when played with a general MIDI card (MT-32 was not GM, though it was MIDI). However, that does NOT mean it is the best for composing new music. I can play you some GM2 tunes that are totally and completely superior to anything the MT-32 is capable of.

So, while the MT-32 emulator is of intrest to gamers, who want teh sound of the orignal games, it is of no intrest to composers, who would rather have a better synthesizer. Hence, it is of no threat to Roland's profits. No composer is going to not buy a Roland keyboard or an Edirol sound module to use an MT-32 emulator instead. The gamers aren't going to buy the sound modules since they don't give the sound you want.

Now if Roland decided to re introduce the MT-32 to sell to gamers, they'd have a legit complaint. Of course if they reintroduced the MT-32, the programmers would probably have not embarked on their quest, since anyone that wanted one could buy a new one.

Re:It sucks that they HAVEN'T done this. by Technician · 2003-10-12 19:38 · Score: 1

Not to mention that Roland could then license this capability to manufacturers of soundcards (a licensed version of the emulator would come with LiveWare!, for example).

I have a Yamaha DB50XG. It has the Roland SC and MT32 sounds in it. It's true that not all manufactures have included the sounds in their products, but some have. Since my newer machines no longer support wavetable daughterboards, I've had to make it into an external MPU-401 stand alone unit to enjoy the sounds. The SC and XG sets are awsome.

--
The truth shall set you free!

Roland is in the right, whether we like it or not. by casio282 · 2003-10-13 07:13 · Score: 1

It is made quite clear over at LawMeme...Here is a quote from that article:

"Well, Roland nastygrammed the Project, claiming copyright in the sound samples embedded in the MT-32's ROM. In response, the only adult member of the Project team fired back a letter pointing out that Roland had never registered that copyright. And since the MT-32 had been distributed before 1989 (when the pre-Sonny round of copyright "reform" went into effect), 17 U.S.C. section 405 meant that Roland had lost its copyright, according to the Project team.

Use it or lose it, right?

No! No! No! This meme must be killed NOW! The Project's home page seems to indicate that they've already backed down from this stance and won't contest in court the enforceability of the copyright. As well they shouldn't, because they would lose. Painfully so."

--

:wq

SB16/WB Emulation by vasqzr · 2003-10-15 06:35 · Score: 1

WBMODE MT32
Remember using that to play DOS games?

Slashdot Mirror

Roland Attacks MT-32 Emulator Project

129 of 219 comments (clear)