Every slashdot post that mentions Gates and his predictions or opinions on technologies always has someone quoting the "640K ought to be enough for anybody." He never said that. When will people learn?
I was using it in the euphamistic sense, not in the "stealing a CD is the same as downloading an MP3". I've been in copyright battle so I know the difference.
To clarify what I meant to say though, was that the Bible clearly condemns theft and promotes pro-social behavior. Hence, those who would steal a Bible and read it seriously would benefit from the message. Equally, one would think the same thing could happen with "The Passion".
Finally, before I get pranced on by fundamentalist atheists, I want to make it clear I am an atheist. I just see that religious books do have some value to them. And now, before I get pranced on by some fundamentalist Christians for not seeing the Bible as the word of God, I want to make it clear that I was a Christian for nearly 20 years before I deconverted.
Slashdot is silly because one can't really say anything without someone else taking it the wrong way.
Interesting how Mel Gibson actually cracked down on peer-to-peer distribution of "The Passion of the Christ" (techincally the equivalent to stealing Bibles) where as Moore supports the free sharing of his movie.
Absolutely not. No more than your sunglasses need to be "refreshed". That's basically what an LCD screen is, two layers capable of a variable amount of polarization infront of a light source. A white pixel has the polaroid filter completely open (all light pases through), where as a black pixel has the polaroid filter completely closed (no light gets through). There is no need to refresh the positioning of the LCD polaroid position.
I'd vote for you but seeing as you're anti-choice (read, pro-life) negates any pro-technology stance you could take. I value women's rights much, much higher than my right to download music off the internet.
Probably the only safe exception to the general rule that games based on movies suck is the classic PC game Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The Graphic Adventure. They kepted very close to the movie yet were creative enough so that it was challenging even if you'd seen the movie.
That's the very point of this emulator. It implementes the MT-32 sysex and is not simply a MT-32 patch set. The emulator works exactly as the original hardware did, combining analogue waves with PCM sounds. In otherwords, yes, it supports custom patches and on playing any of the games you'll hear the real sounds, not the "incorrect patch" being played instead.
Likewise, even though I'm the primary developer for the MT-32 project, not being a musician I'm completely unfamiliar with those "three much-sought after pieces of Roland gear". The MT-32 was the piece of music hardware for gamers 20 years ago. Think of it as someone emulating the SB Live in 2024. And yes, most likely since those programs are for profit they probably did strike a license agreement with Roland. Roland, on the other hand, completely objects to my creation of an emulator and has made it clear they have absolutely no intention of licensing the ROM (if the ROM were in fact copyrighted) to me.
Read my page to get an understanding of the relevant law here. While you're correct with regard to the current method of how copyright works, such policy is not retroactive in this case. And before you think I'm just talking out my butt since IANAL (no pun intended), remember that both the EFF and Roland's counsel agree with me on this interpretation of the law.
Up to this point I've been using DosBox as a springboard. Its easier to tweak emulation parameters from inside DosBox than it is in a Windows or Linux driver. Ultimately this code will be separate from DosBox and only in driver form. This way other projects like Exult and ScummVM will be able to use the MT-32 emulation as well.
Yes... a port is planned. Right now I'm just working to get the audio perfected before I work on seriously porting the code myself. If anyone else wants to help, let me know.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Slashdot Mirror
Every slashdot post that mentions Gates and his predictions or opinions on technologies always has someone quoting the "640K ought to be enough for anybody." He never said that. When will people learn?
I was using it in the euphamistic sense, not in the "stealing a CD is the same as downloading an MP3". I've been in copyright battle so I know the difference. To clarify what I meant to say though, was that the Bible clearly condemns theft and promotes pro-social behavior. Hence, those who would steal a Bible and read it seriously would benefit from the message. Equally, one would think the same thing could happen with "The Passion". Finally, before I get pranced on by fundamentalist atheists, I want to make it clear I am an atheist. I just see that religious books do have some value to them. And now, before I get pranced on by some fundamentalist Christians for not seeing the Bible as the word of God, I want to make it clear that I was a Christian for nearly 20 years before I deconverted. Slashdot is silly because one can't really say anything without someone else taking it the wrong way.
Interesting how Mel Gibson actually cracked down on peer-to-peer distribution of "The Passion of the Christ" (techincally the equivalent to stealing Bibles) where as Moore supports the free sharing of his movie.
Absolutely not. No more than your sunglasses need to be "refreshed". That's basically what an LCD screen is, two layers capable of a variable amount of polarization infront of a light source. A white pixel has the polaroid filter completely open (all light pases through), where as a black pixel has the polaroid filter completely closed (no light gets through). There is no need to refresh the positioning of the LCD polaroid position.
I'd vote for you but seeing as you're anti-choice (read, pro-life) negates any pro-technology stance you could take. I value women's rights much, much higher than my right to download music off the internet.
Probably the only safe exception to the general rule that games based on movies suck is the classic PC game Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The Graphic Adventure. They kepted very close to the movie yet were creative enough so that it was challenging even if you'd seen the movie.
That's the very point of this emulator. It implementes the MT-32 sysex and is not simply a MT-32 patch set. The emulator works exactly as the original hardware did, combining analogue waves with PCM sounds. In otherwords, yes, it supports custom patches and on playing any of the games you'll hear the real sounds, not the "incorrect patch" being played instead.
Likewise, even though I'm the primary developer for the MT-32 project, not being a musician I'm completely unfamiliar with those "three much-sought after pieces of Roland gear". The MT-32 was the piece of music hardware for gamers 20 years ago. Think of it as someone emulating the SB Live in 2024. And yes, most likely since those programs are for profit they probably did strike a license agreement with Roland. Roland, on the other hand, completely objects to my creation of an emulator and has made it clear they have absolutely no intention of licensing the ROM (if the ROM were in fact copyrighted) to me.
Read my page to get an understanding of the relevant law here. While you're correct with regard to the current method of how copyright works, such policy is not retroactive in this case. And before you think I'm just talking out my butt since IANAL (no pun intended), remember that both the EFF and Roland's counsel agree with me on this interpretation of the law.
Up to this point I've been using DosBox as a springboard. Its easier to tweak emulation parameters from inside DosBox than it is in a Windows or Linux driver. Ultimately this code will be separate from DosBox and only in driver form. This way other projects like Exult and ScummVM will be able to use the MT-32 emulation as well.
Alex isn't my name. Alex is the name of the after hours AI tech support program that used to reside in that directory.
Yes... a port is planned. Right now I'm just working to get the audio perfected before I work on seriously porting the code myself. If anyone else wants to help, let me know.
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.
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.
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.
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):
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So what? All Your Base Are Belong To Us!
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?