The size of the rom is exactly 512k, or 524,288 bytes. The MD5 Sum is asking a bit much. Giving out info used to pirate the rom would be wrong (and against the rules on this board)....

On the other hand, if you are trying to make your own Public Domain Replacement, the file size is important...

Hi,

Well, I suppose this is a bit of a "grey" legal area. Can a MD5 sum be considered illegal?

How much "metadata" (data about data) can you divulge of a copyrighted file without breaching the law?

I think it's safe to publish the file size, time and date, for example. Maybe you can even reveal the byte order (big endian or little endian). But, where exactly is the limit?

What kind of "metadata" is forbidden by law?

Kind regards.
Cheers.

Well, I think it's safe to give you information that is useful in other endeavours, but an MD5 sum is going to tell you if your downloaded file is illegal. The MD5 sum isn't illegal in itself, but it's only purpose is to verify that you've downloaded the right file off the internet, or if you ripped it properly off your MT32. As the info site still being SLAPPED, I can't justify the MD5 sum. You either rip the rom and try it, or you are downloading it off the net, which isn't supported here...

At this point it's not about breaking the law, it's about damage control, and keeping Roland happy... Roland grudgingly allows this emulator to exist. Please read about being SLAPPED, and about the emulator being allowed back online due to lack of info on Roland's part, and the author's wishes not to piss off Roland, who, have been fairly open with old samples for other people(ie: software Wavetable that ships with Win/MacOS X)...

Knowing that the ROM is 512k is something you can figure out through many other means, so I think that's safe. It'll give you a good idea that your rom rip is good or bad, but it won't verify the data....

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it, statistically, nothing short of impossible to derive a correct version of a file from an MD5 sum? I don't see how the MD5 sum is any more sensitive data than the file's correct size in bytes or datestamp.

The MD5 sum is a Yes/No answer to the question of the ROM copy is exact. The size/date is a maybe.

OK, I understand. Publishing an MD5 sum is probably legal, but the issue here is to not disturb Roland and to keep a low profile regarding the MT32 emulator.

I won't ask for the MD5 sum, but I'd like to ask a related question:

Does the MT32 emu verify the ROM file in any way when loading it? Any CRC checksum or something like that?

I know that MAME refuses to run games that have been badly ripped. Does the MT32 emu have some kind of "protection" against bad ROM rips?

Thanks again.
Best regards.

Leolo wrote:

Does the MT32 emu verify the ROM file in any way when loading it? Any CRC checksum or something like that?

No.. There is no verification to the ROM file at all, it will either work and create nice sounds, or sound like fingernails screeching down a chalkboard. The emulator simply reads in to the end of file and translates the data where appropriate.

I love this form of inquiry: "Hi, I just illegally downloaded something off the 'net, Do you think you could verify that it is the right one?"

I suppose if you HAVE to ask, and don't mind trampling everyone's rights and wishes... Sheesh, you can get an MT32 nowadays for under $100!

Hi,

Yes, I know that an MT32 is cheap, but I don't feel comfortable buying a product that lacks any kind of warranty and comes without technical support. If I could obtain it in a shop with tech support and official warranty, I would buy it, honest.

However, it seems that Roland is no longer interested in selling the MT32 through normal retail channels because the device is rather old. I think that current copyright laws are doing more bad than good in this particular case.

Let me paste here a fragment of a very interesting review of the book "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig (available free of charge in http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/)

IMAGINE that drug companies were so successful at lobbying governments that they won an extension of their patents from 20 years […]
Show full quote

IMAGINE that drug companies were so successful at lobbying governments that they won an extension of their patents from 20 years, as they are today, to 100 years; and that the scope of those rights was extended so that future medical discoveries were in effect blocked. The ensuing public outcry would almost certainly result in the law being rewritten in favour of scientific advancement.

Yet this is actually happening (and with little public scrutiny) in a different area of intellectual property: copyright law. As more and more forms of content go digital, the owners of that content are becoming more possessive and turning increasingly to the law for help. The result is a “permission culture”, argues Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School and a leading authority on internet law, where creators increasingly need legal approval for their works, not a “free culture” where creativity is presumptively allowed, as was the case in the past.

Copyright was originally designed to restrict publishers from exerting too much control over information; today it constrains individuals from creating new works. This is because, in America at least, the duration of copyrights has increased (from 28 years in the 19th century to as much as 95 years today), and their scope has widened (to include all works, not just the minority that used to be registered). It now also applies to almost all media, not just printed matter, and to derivative works. Such broad application was never intended, nor existed, in the past.

Although Mr Lessig's analysis sticks to America, the problem he identifies is increasingly a global one. As the internet and computing technology allow more efficient ways to create, share and transform content, large media companies are lobbying for laws and filing law suits to preserve their businesses. Recent suits by the Recording Industry Association of America for millions of dollars lost thanks to music piracy are but one example.

Instead of adapting to the internet, media companies are using the law to change the very features of the internet that make it so successful. Mr Lessig is no cyber-utopian promoting piracy or an end of copyright. Instead, he argues for a more reasonable balance, by redefining copyright law closer to the function that it served in the past. “A society that defends the ideals of free culture must preserve precisely the opportunity for new creativity to threaten the old,” he writes.

The author himself is a partisan. Seeing the deficiencies in copyright law, he co-founded an organisation in 2001 called Creative Commons to allow content-creators to license their works in ways that are open rather than restrictive. (Fittingly, “Free Culture” is available free online for non-commercial use under this system; within days of its release, the book was reproduced in numerous formats, including audio recordings.)

Mr Lessig took his arguments all the way to America's Supreme Court in October 2002. He lost, and the book in many respects is a reply to the majority of the bench who ruled against him. Free culture in Mr Lessig's view is akin to free markets—it does not mean a lack of regulation; it is just a vital platform for progress. Indeed, last year The Economist argued in favour of a return to the 28-year maximum copyright term as a decent starting point for reform. Among the solutions that Mr Lessig proposes—unconvincingly, alas—are copyright marking, registration and renewal, as was done in former times. His final suggestion: “fire lots of lawyers”.

Ultimately, “Free Culture” is about neither law nor technology, the author's areas of expertise. It is about power. Specifically, it concerns the way in which financial and political power are used by corporations to preserve the status quo and to further their own commercial interests. This may be to the detriment of something more socially valuable: a loss of creativity that can never be measured.

This is surely a very controversial subject, but Mr. Lessig's ideas seem quite reasonable to me.

Cheers.
Kind regards.

MD5 (MT32_PCM.ROM) = 89e42e386e82e0cacb4a2704a03706ca

I was going to post it as soon as I got the chance. 😀 MD5 is a one-way hash... it isn't a parity. As for the legality, I wouldn't worry about it. If an individual owns an MT-32, they have a right to a copy of the ROM.

Ok, Didn't want to step on your toes there CC. I'd rather err on the side of caution than cause you another SLAPPing without your consent. Who knows what you'll get SLAPPed with these days...

Cheers!

Hi again,

OK, the MD5 sums of both files match. Thank you very much.

And above all, thanks for your nice emulator!

Cheers.