Modify MPC 3000 bin files

I understand that this is a sensitive topic.

So excuse me for being naive, I was just hoping for some advice, but I'm starting to think, that I probably won't get any in here.

Clint wrote:If Roger can remember that after 20 years, I'll eat my hat!

Does Roger actually do the coding ?
I thought it was his idea's/concepts and he had other people do the programming and building.

steveomentals wrote:I understand that this is a sensitive topic.

Well asking to do anything illegal in public is a "sensitive issue".

steveomentals wrote:So excuse me for being naive, I was just hoping for some advice, but I'm starting to think, that I probably won't get any in here.

You'd probably be better asking software devs/programmers rather than musicians ,collectors and drum machine enthusiasts.

steveomentals wrote:@MPCHunter How would I do that? Is there some software or command line script, that can merge the files?

I have tried a bunch of hex editors and none of them seemed to have such a function.

The splitting of the OS file is dependent on the address decoding of the hardware. The service manual will give you clues on this. You can merge the files once you know how they are split.

Or if you open up both files at the same time in your favorite hex editor, you should be able to figure out how the files are split if you look at the same memory location and combine the data by alternating between the MS and LS files.

For instance look at memory location 00013190 for clues

LS File: Cne><net Dlt> Pa
MS File : acl.Isr><eee <ly

It should be very obvious how these should be merged.

Clint wrote:If Roger can remember that after 20 years, I'll eat my hat!

Wasn't the point, the point was that he wouldn't give permission to modify his OS.
Even something as simplistic as adding your name.

There are just too many reasons why people shouldn't be trying to help with this.
Then again people always put a loaded gun in someone's hand then won't to be surprised at the result.

Most software related hacks start out as a just to see if I can and evolve into something more or the something more was always the true goal.

Just seems like the work and risk involved in something as simple as adding your name to boot don't balance.

However we now know people will definitely buy bootleg or knock-off ROMs for the 60 or 3k so we can expect more people to try and pull it off.

Who knows maybe we'll also gets some sample packs and e-books too.

Acid Mitch wrote:
Does Roger actually do the coding ?
I thought it was his idea's/concepts and he had other people do the programming and building.

Thats the impression I get too Mitch, Roger is the designer, others make it happen. Otherwise why wouldn't he make some improvements to the 3.10 he sells? He obviously knows Rohan and Vailixi made a killing, he could easily sanction a 3rd party to continue developing 3.10 further.

I digress, so good luck to this thread...

Wow looks like I really started something here...

For all those doubting my intentions, I get it, there a lot of people out there selling copies of Rohans work. It's not right, but it's only possible in that magnitude, because he isn't selling it himself anymore.

Since I only wanted to do this for personal use and never intended to redistribute or resell it, I don't think there is anything illegal about it.
It's like ripping a dvd or burning a copy of it, as long as you don't make it available to others in any way, you can do with it what you want. You could even make your own cut of the movie and watch it on your tv at home.

But anyway, thanks for all the help so far.

Take care

steveomentals wrote:Since I only wanted to do this for personal use and never intended to redistribute or resell it, I don't think there is anything illegal about it.

Can you point to any software that isn't open source, where people have rights to copy and change the source code, even if it is for personal use ?

In the screen shot you posted, the bit where it says "copyright 1987-1996 Akai Electrical Co. ltd " is telling you that Akai own the copyright.
In order to look at the OS files in a hex editor ,you must have had to copy the data to your computer. At that point you've broke the law, before you've even modified the code.

Acid Mitch wrote:In the screen shot you posted, the bit where it says "copyright 1987-1996 Akai Electrical Co. ltd " is telling you that Akai own the copyright.
In order to look at the OS files in a hex editor ,you must have had to copy the data to your computer. At that point you've broke the law, before you've even modified the code.

He's potentially breaking the license agreement. Of course the 'Akai Electrical Company' doesn't exist anymore, so god knows who actually has the legal rights to enforce the license agreement and whether that entity would break a sweat over someone doing such a thing for their own private use.

It;s also interesting to see someone accused of 'breaking the law' when it's pretty much commonplace around here to use the MPC as a sampler to sample commercial music, which, even for personal private use is still considered copyright infringement in most countries. As is ripping DVDs or CDs to their computer, but most people have done that plenty of times as well. I believe most people around here don't see any real problem or harm sampling music for their own private projects, regardless of the underlying legality, so I'm not sure how someone privately tinkering with an OS is a problem either.

Historically many innovations come about from reverse engineering, it's a great educational tool. In fact I'm pretty sure if it was taken to court, such use could be successfully argued as fair use especially as the OS is now discontinued and the owner at the time of purchase doesn't even exist anymore. I am also aware the the DMCA has an exception regarding decompilation under certain conditions.

TBH taking this further, when it comes to what is an OS that is clearly abandoned by the copyright holder I don't have a moral nor ethical problem if someone comes along and hacks the thing to fix outstanding bugs or add new features. In fact in many countries it is legal to do so if the copyright holder is no longer able or willing to make 'error corrections' themselves. It seems pretty ridiculous that a copyright holder can sell a product to people, abandon it with no further support and development and then go 'legal' when people just want to tinker with the code to further improve it, be it for their own use or for the community.

To be clear, I am talking about people with good intentions here - what happened with the counterfeit Vallixi's or the 'new' MPC60 OS are clearly different matters.

Well if it's 3.11 as he said, I say "just do it".

Thing is having instructions on how to modify the code posted here could be used to personalise all the pirated Vailixi chips out there to make them appear legit. Most of the pirated copies have blank screens where Rohan would put the licensee details. Either the pirates didn't figure out how to replace these details or simply couldn't be bothered considering the mass copying they did.

Good luck, whatever happens.

MPC-Tutor wrote:It seems pretty ridiculous that a copyright holder can sell a product to people, abandon it with no further support and development and then go 'legal' when people just want to tinker with the code to further improve it, be it for their own use or for the community.

So if you stopped selling a sample pack or ebook it would be ok for someone else to start distributing parts of it?
I know it's not the best example but you get the point.
That's something that you worked hard on and should have the right to retain your ownership of.

Just because you stop selling or supporting something shouldn't forfeit your right of ownership.
I know as a consumer it can seems harmless but it's just not that cut and dry.

Remember the guys selling the bootleg Roms were also here asking some simplistic questions before they started selling the Roms on eBay.

It's just hard to know what a persons real intent may be, especially when on the internet.

Clint wrote:Well if it's 3.11 as he said, I say "just do it".

Thing is having instructions on how to modify the code posted here could be used to personalise all the pirated Vailixi chips out there to make them appear legit. Most of the pirated copies have blank screens where Rohan would put the licensee details. Either the pirates didn't figure out how to replace these details or simply couldn't be bothered considering the mass copying they did.

Good luck, whatever happens.

So Clint don't you think that it's strange timing on this?
The guys with the bootlegs just got caught up on the forum and if they could edit the registration information they would be able to really make their Roms seem legit?

In life we have to know when to walk away from something, this just seems like one of those moments.
Who knows MPCHunter may have already pointed them in the right direction to accomplish their task and he was just trying to be helpful.

THE ADVERSARY wrote:
So if you stopped selling a sample pack or ebook it would be ok for someone else to start distributing parts of it?
I know it's not the best example but you get the point.
That's something that you worked hard on and should have the right to retain your ownership of.
Just because you stop selling or supporting something shouldn't forfeit your right of ownership.

Who said anything about forfeiting right of ownership?

I did NOT say that the original copyright holder was giving up their ownership of the original product. They would still own the original product, nothing can change that, but IMO if they are refusing to do anything with it (and thus making no money from it) then it wouldn't do any harm if they changed the license to one where they allowed people to continue working and improving it.

If the copyright holder stops selling something and no longer supports it, then TBH it seems somewhat obnoxious for them to stop others from working out how to improve it (e.g. fixing bugs, adding new features). Only the customers lose out.

The problem is that much of the license you agree to when buying these products doesn't seem as relevant once the copyright holder decides to abandon them. IMO it would be great if copyright holders were somewhat more enlightened in these matters and were more willing to work with interested parties to grant them a new license. They can still add restrictions, control who distributes the software, and also ensure they don't lose their 'IP', but IMO it's ludicrous to turn down people who are more than happy to continue working on improving the product, at their own expense and time.

If I 'abandoned' one of my ebooks, I;d be doing so because it no longer made any money for me. At that point if someone came along and said they'd love to continue working on it and could bring new life to it, I'd welcome them with open arms and we'd work something out regarding distribution and ownership. Of course this is a tenuous analogy compared to the MPC3000 OS.

I've used a particular ecommerce software on some sites before, and the guy who develops it has recently announced he's going to cease development and support very soon. At that point, all existing customers are on their own. Some of the customers on his forum got together and asked for him to grant them a license to allow them to continue working on the software, which at the very least could be distributed to all registered owners. Unfortunately, he wont allow it. Instead, he's going to let the product die and sit on it while he goes off and does something different with his life. Very disappointing.

IMO if you have a community of people, who invested time and money in your product, who are all willing to continue developing the product you, you should let them do it. You should also let them make money from it if they can. You could also get some kick back and that way you continue to make money from a product you abandoned. You don't have to give up anything other than giving up a rather limited way of thinking.

It's still a complete mystery what happened to Rohan… He abandoned a great little business there.

If I bought a 3K with his OS installed it wouldn't personally bother me if it said 'Fred's MPC' on start up, even though I'd like it to say 'Canedrive's Booty Bouncer' or whatever.

It does seem as though all roads with this OS lead to people selling it without permission unfortunately.

THE ADVERSARY wrote:So Clint don't you think that it's strange timing on this?

As far as I remember micb was first to publicly ask about changing the name on 3.5, and first to sell it openly on ebay. That was what 18 months ago? Once he'd made a nice chunk of cash and gone into hiding, some of the people who'd bought it from him, began doing exactly the same thing. It's not exactly hard or expensive to duplicate EPROM's.

Its weird, because a lot of the people that bought the bootlegged Vailixi on ebay are actually members here. Some have been open and said "I wanted it so bad, so I bought it while it was available", while others keep quiet about the source of their 'new' chips.

Humans will generally engage in unethical or illegal activities when it appears likely they will get away scott free. And as Tutor stated the legality of this situation is quite complex, and unlikely to ever be contested in a court of law. Those people who sent money to Mansell Labs and received no product or refund in return similarly appear to have no legal remedy (only paypal protection, if within time limit). So there are a range of different issues here, which make it difficult to maintain a definitive opinion. My opinion is that the blatant selling of another persons work online is ethically and morally wrong in most cases, and you can hardly blame people for buying into the hype that once surrounded Vailixi. They were selling copies of Vailixi cheaper than a bag of weed at one point!

The horse has already bolted, so despite the polarised opinions often expressed here, I think this whole issue should be put to bed. Fortunately I have an MPC3000LE (well I have two actually), and I dont see anyone bootlegging those any time soon. I'll just have to be happy with that...

THE END.