VOGONS


First post, by TeaRex

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Alright, probably has been asked a thousand time before. On various forums I have read fairly nebulous statements about Roland taking legal steps against MT-32 emulation in the past.

Could somebody enlighten me, or direct me to a place on the net where an answer can be had, on what exactly Roland's objections to MT-32 emulation are (or were)?

Is it only that they object to the distribution of their copyrighted ROMs? Or do they claim that even an MT-32 emulator distributed without ROMs violates some right of theirs (a patent, a copyright on something else, or whatever)?

Thanks in advance!

tearex

Reply 2 of 11, by TeaRex

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Thanks for the info, hal. Unfortunately the thread, ending as it does, doesn't really answer the question on whether Roland claimed anything else except breach of their copyright in the ROMs, nor whether or not their consideration on allowing an emulator without ROMs included had merit or was mere legal FUD.

tearex

Reply 4 of 11, by TeaRex

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
DosFreak wrote:

DOSBox crew isn't interested in any legal complications.

While I don't like the fact that corporations can get away with baseless* claims simply because private citizens don't have the financial and legal means to defend themselves, I assume that that's how life works these days, and I certainly wasn't implying that DOSBox should take legal risks.

*I'm not saying the claims in this particular case are baseless - this is just a general statement.

tearex

Reply 5 of 11, by Serious Callers Only

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

My interpretation is that Canadacow was correct, but that it didn't matter, since the Roland legal team just took the view of ignoring it and vaguely threaten everyone in sight in the hope that the status quo continues. It worked too (except scummvm apparently).

Not that i give a shit about the roms. I don't recall exactly if the roms were being distributed - if so that is a large faux pas by the mt32 team even if their interpretation is correct.

Last edited by Serious Callers Only on 2010-08-27, 13:31. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 6 of 11, by Serious Callers Only

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Umm i read that thread. Restored work heh?

The plutocracy continues its onward march.

Reply 7 of 11, by Cloudschatze

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Serious Callers Only wrote:

The plutocracy continues its onward march.

Perhaps, if the original authors had attempted to contact Roland with an intent to assist in the creation of a marketable product, we'd have had the option of purchasing official MT-32 emulation years ago.

Also, I haven't seen it mentioned, but the PCM ROM samples in question are not exclusive to the MT-32, and might therefore be protected by existing copyrights for other Roland products.

Reply 8 of 11, by wd

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Author
Rank
DOSBox Author

Perhaps, if the original authors had attempted to contact Roland with an intent to assist in the creation of a marketable product, we'd have had the option of purchasing official MT-32 emulation years ago.

Unlikely because the correspondence was only with lawyers.

if so that is a large faux pas by the mt32 team

Whoa of course Canadacow is just stupid and stuff, we always knew it!
If you want to achieve something, stop posting things like that.

Reply 9 of 11, by Cloudschatze

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
wd wrote:

Perhaps, if the original authors had attempted to contact Roland with an intent to assist in the creation of a marketable product, we'd have had the option of purchasing official MT-32 emulation years ago.

Unlikely because the correspondence was only with lawyers.

It may yet be worthwhile to send a letter to the presidents of both Roland Japan and Roland US, and simply state that demand remains for the development of a software MT-32/CM-32L synthesizer, either as a standalone product, like the Virtual SoundCanvas, or licensed for inclusion with DosBox.

I'll willingly donate $1000 toward any such licensing fee.

Reply 10 of 11, by wd

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Author
Rank
DOSBox Author

Feel free to send such a letter, maybe talk to Canadacow before doing that though.

Reply 11 of 11, by TeaRex

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Cloudschatze wrote:

I'll willingly donate $1000 toward any such licensing fee.

Wow, are you serious? And do you mean United States dollars? If so, more power to you by all means.

Though I fear that any statement in such a letter along the lines of "there is demand for..." will just light up the $$$ signs in a company rep's eyes, rather than make them willing to give a license, whether for free or for $1000. It's a thin line to tread between making Roland interested enough in this for them to be willing to sell a license, but not so interested as to try to cash in on that perceived demand themselves.

IMHO, IANAL, YMMV, etc.

tearex