Ok... now I think I can comment. Today it was finally pointed out to me that the Roland's ROM is a restored work. Per a bill signed into law by Clinton, works that had fallen into the public domain (for whatever reason, including notice omission) but were still copyrighted elsewhere (in this case, Japan) had their rights restored to the original owners. The last remaining bit of contention is the release date of the ROM. If the ROM/MT-32 was released to the United States before or at the same time it was in Japan, then the ROM is still in the public domain. On the other hand, if the ROM/MT-32 was available for more than a month in Japan before it was available in the states, it's a restored work. If only Roland had pointed this out to me in the first place. I did not seek to antagonize Roland in the first place, hence the reason I contacted them first in good faith. Most likely though, the ROM is indeed a restored work, and as such, I fully intend to respect Roland's rights and not infringe on any of their property. This means that I will most definately cancel the project.

Even if Roland is ok with me going ahead with an emulator based on a similar public domain patch set (Roland is still considering their position on this), it will take a lot to convince me to pickup the project simply because I was about ready to retire before all this stuff happened. People were complaining about pointless things and I didn't really feel like my work was being appreciated anyway. (No, I didn't want people to bow down at my feet, I simply wanted more coding and techincal support than I was receiving.) Using an unauthentic patch set will offset the sound and more or less defeat the purpose of the emulator to begin with (particularlly with regard to percussion sounds).

So that's all she wrote folks. I'll keep everyone posted if anything else develops.

Oh, and Snover, if in the end it appears that Roland indeed retains the copyright on the sounds (which is most likely the case) then this wouldn't have been a "SLAPP" suit in the true sense of the definition, since Roland would have a real point and a real case.

Sounds like they used the C&D so that they could stall for enough time to dig up a legal loophole to shut you down with. If it's legit then there's nothing that can be done about it I suppose. Frustrating.

HunterZ wrote:

Sounds like they used the C&D so that they could stall for enough time to dig up a legal loophole to shut you down with. If it's legit then there's nothing that can be done about it I suppose. Frustrating.

No, I think that's giving them too little credit. Jun Yamato isn't an intellectual property lawyer and as such didn't know the law in this matter as well as their representation does. Their representation did initially feel that they could take the easier route and cite the current copyright law, expecting me to not have any better of an understanding. Of course, once he understood where I was coming from he was able to demonstrate where in the law such property is returned to foreign countries and their entities. You have Bill Clinton to thank for that. 😁

It was good while it lasted. Thanks Roland!

canadacow wrote:

Their representation did initially feel that they could take the easier route and cite the current copyright law, expecting me to not have any better of an understanding. Of course, once he understood where I was coming from he was able to demonstrate where in the law such property is returned to foreign countries and their entities.

So the lawyer was talking down to you because he assumed that the differences between the technicality they're now using and the normal copyright law would be splitting hairs from your point of view?

You have Bill Clinton to thank for that. 😁

Didn't vote for him either 😜

Maybe the next generation will realize that public image is much more important than clinging to copyrights on dusty, forgotten technologies and humankind will then actually be able to make cool new stuff with cool old stuff that's lying around 😉

Canadcow, I can understand that all this makes you want to drop the emulation project. I was and still am very enthusiastic about this project, perhaps I didn't make that clear enough in my posts. And I am still convinced that we should try to get Roland to let you finish your emulator. After all, one day the last MT-32 will fall apart and then no one will ever be able to listen to one (If only Roland could understand this).

I had a very hypothetic idea and I'm not sure if it will do any good, but perhaps we could try to write to some composers who wrote game music for the MT-32 and convince them to support your project. Perhaps having Michael Land on our side would change the way Roland would view the case. You may not like this idea, but I think we should support this project and perhaps others can think of better ideas.

Canadacow:

I don't understand why you have removed your site. Surely only the ROM is copyrighted, but not all your programming efforts?

Many other emulators are freely available despite the fact that the ROMs integral to their operation are copyrighted. They can do this because they do not provide the ROMs, but rather make the assumption that you will be acquiring the ROMs from equipment you own already, which as I understand it is not illegal (ie. for backup purposes), and often give instructions on how to do this. Why can't your emulator remain available in the same way?

It seems like such a waste of time and effort for you to now just give up and forget about the whole thing.

I am seriously reconsidering my view of Roland in light of these recent developments, and any synth purchases I may wish to make or recommend to others in future will be reconsidered accordingly.

Perhaps in time companies will realise they are losing more customers than they are gaining by pursuing such needlessly selfish courses of action. It reminds me of little kids that hold on to all their toys (including old toys they don't even play with anymore) saying "Mine, mine, mine!!!" Who wants to be around or deal with someone like that?

Well, this is result of one effort to make "legal" emulator. People making other emulators (Amiga/NES/SNES etc.) never ever tried this and they have no problems. CANADACOW did and it led just to problems.
How can be Roland considering whether to allow emulator with possible free samples? This is far too much from them! They can have point only with ROM but NOT with anything else - emulation is legal (see for example unsuccesfull attempts by Sony to sue creators of PS1 emulator BLEEM - Sony failed).
Good experince for future emulator authors - do not try "legal" way. It brings just unnecessary problems. Every good intention will be punished...

Mirek

Canadacow, it's a bit of luck they DIDN'T point out the restored copyright to you in the first place, if so the emulator wouldn't sound anyway near as good as it does now cos you would have dropped the project!!
This is a sad day indeed. Innovation squashed by corporation. Hopefully enough people have downloaded the source code that the project can continue elsewhere.

canadacow wrote:

People were complaining about pointless things and I didn't really feel like my work was being appreciated anyway

A shame you felt this way? I don't program in any sense of the word, but I do have a good ear, and if something sounds out of tune is it not right that we should have passed this onto you? I certainly couldn't tell you how to fix it, but as the creator of the emulator surely you wanted feedback?

On a much lighter note, I wish you every success in the future with your family and your new job, as a father to be I understand how busy life can get (especially come 1st January when the baby is due!!!!) and I thank you for all of the hard work that you've put into this.

Best Regards

Matthew

I don't program in any sense of the word, but I do have a good ear, and if something sounds out of tune is it not right that we should have passed this onto you? I certainly couldn't tell you how to fix it, but as the creator of the emulator surely you wanted feedback?

I totally agree with this. I have nothing but the highest respect for canadacow and what he has done, but even as a (IMHO fairly good) programmer, contributing to this project is simply not in my skillset.

I mentioned (as did others) that I would be willing to donate to canadacow to help out, but a paypal link was never set up. What more can I do? The technical knowledge required to implement an MT-32 emulator is fairly specific and I doubt many programmers have it (I certainly don't).

Canadacow, I appreciate everything you have done enormously, but I feel a little let down by your attitude. Just because no one contributed technical assistance does not mean no one wanted to contribute. I for one would have contributed in any way I could (which, as far as I can figure, is basically money).

Feedback from users complaining about quality does not mean they disrespect your efforts. As teamster1975 said, it is only fair that people offer feedback on the quality of the sound provided by the emulator, otherwise how is it supposed to be a decent emulator???

I have a feeling, though I wouldn't want to put words into canadacow's mouth, that he's referring more to the punctilious bobbins people were spewing about compliance with the GPL rather than feedback intended to improve the emulator - after all, that's something that he actually requested.

I'm kind of annoyed that I didn't download a Dosbox source or build before it went down :p However I do agree with the earlier comments regarding the actual emulator - regardless of what, say, Nintendo likes to think, there is nothing illegal with the emulator itself, it's the distribution of copyrighted material that is needed to make it work that's the problem. In light of this, I would query whether or not the situation might be given a more objective consideration once matters have calmed down. If nothing else, this very fact might be considered for use as leverage if Roland do prove particularly hard-nosed in coming to an agreement of some sort or other.

Can't the source code be uploaded somewhere? As long as the ROMS aren't included there shouldn't be any problems legally.

I'll be writing to Roland about this as I'm extremely dissappointed with their attitude towards this project. I've used Roland gear professionally for over 20 years but probably won't in future. If more people write to them perhaps they'll change their mind. Do you have an email for Roland?

The source code is presently unavailable because I do not want to give any reason for Roland to pursue legal action against me. They are still considering their position on my emulator as a whole whether their opinion has legal merit or not. Once they have told me their position on the emulator, I will go from there.

If you would like to contact Roland, the information is publicly available on their website @ http://www.rolandus.com. Call their corporate number and ask to speak to their general counsel. Good luck!

Hold on a sec.

The *only* copyrighted items at issue here are perhaps three samples, correct?

Wouldn't replacing these few samples completely remove *all trace* of Roland's IP, thereby completely removing any say in the matter?

orenwolf wrote:

Hold on a sec.

The *only* copyrighted items at issue here are perhaps three samples, correct?

Wouldn't replacing these few samples completely remove *all trace* of Roland's IP, thereby completely removing any say in the matter?

Canadacow already expressed his opinion on using public domain samples in place of the official MT-32 samples - look about a half-dozen posts back.

My $0.02...

canadacow did a good emu. He reacted correctly to the C&D, as well as the copyright owner's request. He's worked on the emu his way, and got it working damn well. If he didn't want to be 100% GPL, that's his RIGHT as the author. If he doesn't want to continue, that's his RIGHT as the author. I'm sorry to everyone who didn't get a chance to test the emu out, but please don't start bitching him out if he decides not to update/re-upload it. Let the man have a break, step back, and resume his real life 😜 :->

Let the flaming (of me) begin.

Ok.. here's my flame 😉
I'm not taking a break. And though it has been my goal to please everyone most of the time, right now what I'm doing is strategy. Included in that strategy is not giving Roland any reason to pursue legal action against me, nor does my strategy include antagonizing Roland.

I quote from the Tao Te Ching, chapter 69:

The generals have a saying "Rather than to make the first move it is better to wait and see. Rather than advance an inch it is b […]
Show full quote

The generals have a saying "Rather than to make the first move it is better to wait and see. Rather than advance an inch it is better to retreat a yard."

This is called going forward without advancing, pushing back without using weapons.

There is no greater misfortune than underestimating your enemy. Underestimating your enemy means thinking that he is evil. Thus you destroy your three treasures (simplicity, patience, compassion) and become an enemy yourself.

When two great forces oppose each other, the victory will go to the one that knows how to yield.

Can't agree more 😀

Wonderful words 😀
You are quite the philosopher Dean!

I've been lurking on these forums for a looooong time now, and I thought it was about time I registered and voiced my own opinion. Although i'm right in the middle of exams I'm going to keep this short but sweet.

Just thought I'd send my luck on to Canadacow, And hope that all of this kinda gets sorted soon. I've been playing Sierra and Lucasarts adventure games for god knows how long ( the first game I ever played was Heros Quest, AKA QFG 1) and i've never had the pleasure of owning an MT-32.

in any event, up until now you've been doing excellent work, and I hope all this works

Best of luck.