VOGONS


MT32 ROM file

Topic actions

First post, by Marco

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Hi,

I want to install my mt32 soud drivers within win xp but it always asks for the mt32 rom. Ok, I do have a mt32 but how can I extract the rom to a file which the driver installation prog do recognize? *confused*

Reply 3 of 19, by canadacow

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Let me spell it out for you:

THE ROM IS NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE ITS COPYRIGHT STATUS IS PRESENTLY IN DISPUTE. ONCE THIS DISPUTE IS SETTLED WE WILL LET EVERYONE KNOW THE RESULT AND GO FROM THERE.

Sorry... just had to be said.

Reply 8 of 19, by teamster1975

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

From what Snover said I think it's an infringement to even extract the ROM. I can't imagine why if it's for your own use although I would imagine you get the usual "do not reverse engineer or disassemble" message in there somewhere.
It's a crying shame because Canadacow is so close to perfecting the emulation.

Teamster:mad:

Last edited by teamster1975 on 2003-10-31, 01:13. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 10 of 19, by Qbix

User metadata
Rank DOSBox Author
Rank
DOSBox Author

I think Snover,Vlad and canadacow are just playing safe now.

I don't blame them. I'd actually recommend them to do so.

Posting stuff about things that might be illegal in times when you are being "attacked" isn't a wise thing to do. Maybe rebelious, but not wise

Water flows down the stream
How to ask questions the smart way!

Reply 11 of 19, by canadacow

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Fop wrote:

You can sue for anything, doesn't mean you'll win. Just because canadacow was sued for it it doesn't mean it's illegal.

Roland has not sued me. Though they could have if they wanted to. Instead they graciously sent me a cease and desist order to get my compliance without litigation.

Reply 13 of 19, by Tau

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
teamster1975 wrote:

From what Snover said I think it's an infringement to even extract the ROM. I can't imagine why if it's for your own use although I would imagine you get the usual "do not reverse engineer or disassemble" message in there somewhere.

How then do you explain the legal legitimacy of all the other emulators that are available - ie. Mac/Atari/ZX-80/etc. emulators?? Without ROMs how could they work? If it is illegal to extract ROMs in all such cases (ie. when you already own the equipment) then all those emulators must - of necessity - be illegal also.

Canadacow: Have you considered negotiating with Roland that you be allowed to release the emulator sans ROM, and ask them to set up a means whereby people can legitimately purchase copies of the ROM directly from them? If it is losing money that concerns them, surely they cannot argue with this?

Some people also seem to forget about ASKING Roland for permission to copy the ROM for their own personal use with the emulator (where they already own an MT-32). They might actually say yes...

I once sent a fax to the publisher of a street directory asking if I could make a photocopy of a couple of pages for my own use, and they replied within a few HOURS saying no problem, provided that I write a small notice on the bottom of each copy saying "Copied by permission, etc." And it was fun to see the expression on the guy's face at the office supplies store where I first went to get the pages copied (he wouldn't let me), when I came back with an official fax from the publisher granting me permission. 😀

Of course I don't know if Roland would be so friendly, but it is worth a try.

Reply 14 of 19, by canadacow

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

Originally posted by Tau
How then do you explain the legal legitimacy of all the other emulators that are available - ie. Mac/Atari/ZX-80/etc. emulators?? Without ROMs how could they work? If it is illegal to extract ROMs in all such cases (ie. when you already own the equipment) then all those emulators must - of necessity - be illegal also.

A lot of anti-piracy organizations would argue such use is illegal, even if the parent company no longer supports it. Again, its not really a matter of whether the activity is legal or not, but rather if the allegedly infringed company feels they should pursue some sort of legal action. If Atari and Activision don't care that Stella exists and that one can play Seaquest on it, then legality doesn't matter. Since copyright law is a civil matter, the Fed's won't come after you unless a company feels they have a case against you.

Canadacow: Have you considered negotiating with Roland that you be allowed to release the emulator sans ROM, and ask them to set up a means whereby people can legitimately purchase copies of the ROM directly from them? If it is losing money that concerns them, surely they cannot argue with this?

I can't comment to much on this except that I would assume that Roland would request some sort of DRM placed on the ROM. With my code intended to be open source, DRM becomes a near impossibility.

Some people also seem to forget about ASKING Roland for permission to copy the ROM for their own personal use with the emulator (where they already own an MT-32). They might actually say yes...

I already tried that route. In fact, it was the first thing I did. Their response was to send me a cease and desist letter... so I'm pretty confident their answer was no.

Of course I don't know if Roland would be so friendly, but it is worth a try.

Roland, like other major corporations, values its intellectual property (in this case, sound files) long after they have lost their real commerical value. This is a real shame in my opinion and demonstrates the severe imbalance in copyright law. Companies should be held accountable (i.e. able to demonstrate continuing commerical value) to maintain their copyrights after a certain amount of time.

Reply 15 of 19, by Tau

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
canadacow wrote:

I already tried that route. In fact, it was the first thing I did. Their response was to send me a cease and desist letter... so I'm pretty confident their answer was no.

I was actually referring to Marco's original question up above. Marco is an end-user, and Roland may deal differently with individual end-users requesting permission to make personal copies of ROMs than with someone who is developing the emulation software that puts those ROMs to use.

From what I understand, you were not asking for permission personally, but instead asking for permission on behalf of all potential users of the emulator - which is rather a different thing.

If people ask individually, at least Roland has some idea - by the number of people asking for permission - whether the scale of possible financial loss warrants the effort of adding the ROM to their sales catalogue and making it available for purchase. And doing things this way also helps them avoid creating any legally ambiguous interpretations of their stance on the use of their intellectual property.

You make an interesting point about DRM though, I hadn't thought about that. I don't know what other solutions there might be. But - isn't there work underway on incorporating DRM into future Linux distributions? If so, I would assume there would have to be open-source implementations of it - if not now, then soon.