Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Music Software News Your Rights Online

Roland Attacks MT-32 Emulator Project 219

Posted by timothy from the smart-responses dept.
canadacow writes "The MT-32 emulation project, which is an offshoot of the DosBox project recently received a cease and desist letter regarding the use of the PCM samples from the synthesizer. Normally this would be an open and shut case, but it just so happens that U.S. Copyright law (specifically 17 U.S.C. section 405) shows that Roland lost their copyright because nowhere did they explicity register it, and registering (or atleast copyright marking) was required before 1989. The MT-32, of course, was produced in 1987. You can find more details at the emulation forum on Vogons" In particular, read through this thread for Canadacow's response to Roland's lawyers, for the type of response that most lawyers probably don't expect from most programmers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Roland Attacks MT-32 Emulator Project More

Roland Attacks MT-32 Emulator Project

Comments Filter:

  • reply to roland: (Score:5, Informative)

    by herrvinny ( 698679 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @03:26PM (#7191169)
    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

    • How did you learn this stuff? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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...
      • 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.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Roland CM-32L (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Spire ( 101081 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @03:50PM (#7191282)
      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?

      • Re:Roland CM-32L (Score:3, Informative)

        by EvanED ( 569694 )
        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 (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        A second edition of a work does not confer copyright protection to the first.
      • 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.
    • 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 wor
      • 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.
    • Thanks for the post. This is a pleasure to read. Facts are the best way by far to stop legal harassment.

  • Bizarre for a synth (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tgv ( 254536 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @03:27PM (#7191175) Journal
    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?
    • **. 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.
      • 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.

        • 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

    • 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 ca
      • 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 aw

        • 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 *writ

          • 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 o

    • 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

  • roland sucks (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by proj_2501 ( 78149 )
    they have produced zero noteworthy equipment, instead naming their wanky new equipment (that yamaha does better) after their classic machines from the early 80's.

    • Re:roland sucks (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 11, 2003 @04:10PM (#7191369)
      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...
      • 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++
      • you obviously didn't bother to actually READ my post, did you?

    • Re:roland sucks (Score:3, Informative)

      by eshefer ( 12336 )
      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 PRopellerhea
    • 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
  • 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.
    • It is made quite clear over at LawMeme [yale.edu]...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, accord
  • 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.

  • me am too! (Score:5, Funny)

    by quonsar ( 61695 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @03:33PM (#7191205) Homepage
    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.
  • 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.

    • Re:So what? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MrLint ( 519792 )
      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 [iu.edu]. 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 w
      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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 [eff.org] 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 [cornell.edu], the only claim the lawyer has to make under penalty of perjury is that they represent the per

        • 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
  • how about a review from someone ?

  • silly (Score:2, Redundant)

    by GoatPigSheep ( 525460 )
    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.
    • 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

      • 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?
        • 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 c
      • "...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.
    • 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.

      • Re:silly (Score:2, Informative)

        by Spoons ( 26950 )

        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.
    • 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 =)

  • Me am? (Score:3, Funny)

    by xenoweeno ( 246136 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @03:40PM (#7191240)
    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...
    • So what? All Your Base Are Belong To Us!
      • 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.
    • 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.
  • 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...
    • Yes, it was called ReBorn, but the site is dead now.
    • 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
    • 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. The

  • OOps! (Score:2, Funny)

    by obfuscated ( 258084 )
    He forgot to say "IANAL" before starting.

  • Sad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipakNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Saturday October 11, 2003 @04:26PM (#7191430) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • "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 (Score:4, Informative)

      by midifarm ( 666278 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @06:20PM (#7191890) Homepage
      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 (Score:2, Informative)

        by canadacow ( 715256 )
        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

        • Re:Sad (Score:2)

          by obi ( 118631 )
          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 game
        • 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++

    • 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 (unlik

      • Re:Sad (Score:2)

        by cduffy ( 652 )
        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

      • Re:Sad (Score:2)

        by Cecil ( 37810 )
        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

  • LAPC1... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @04:28PM (#7191437) Journal
    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?
    • 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.
    • My Gravis Ultrasound did a pretty fair job with those programs. I still have it, but I don't think it still works.
  • Lucasarts [lucasarts.com], for using Monkey Island MIDI files as proof of sound quality.

    • 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.
      • 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..

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

  • 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.
    • 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 qu

  • Very creative (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anthony Boyd ( 242971 ) on Saturday October 11, 2003 @11:35PM (#7192909) Homepage

    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.

    • Re:Very creative (Score:2, Informative)

      by canadacow ( 715256 )
      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 invali
      • 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.

    • 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 diffe

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close