Chipmusic • Games • software

PXTONE crack deprotects “*.pttune” modules

PXTONE by pixel

PXTONE by pixel

PXTONE by pixel is an extended piano-roll sequencer for Windows based on the Cave Story sound engine.  The sequencer in PXTONE is called ptcollage; which is normally able to open up *.ptcop project files.  These files can be exported as *.pttune files which are essentially write-protected files sharing the same exact data — but with a different header containing the protection info.  CaitSith2, hacker extraordinaire, has recently cracked all current versions of PXTONE to allow the novice hacker to hex edit ptcollage.exe at the offsets mentioned by CaitSith2:

Version 0.9.0.3, Patch offset 0x28842 to 0xEB to disable the edit prohibit. (Not compatible with older format files though, but still, the protection is completely stupid, if it only checks one thing.)

Version 0.8.8.8, patch offset 0x29182 to 0xEB

Version 0.9.1.4, patch offset 0x293D2 to 0xEB.

Any other version, search for 0x3E E0 01 00 00 74. There should only be one instance, if so, replace the with 0x3E E0 01 00 00 EB.

(This took me less than 5 minutes to crack.)

You will then be able to open the previously edit-protected *.pttune files after selecting *.* from the file type on load; just as you would be able to edit the original *.ptcop project files.

I believe this opens an ethical debate.  How would you feel if you had previously felt your PXTONE created music was safe from n00bz editing and remixing your material?  How do you think pixel feels having his file format protection circumvented?  Do you think this does more good than it does harm to musicians?  Is anything really protected or safe?

What do you think?  Please comment. :)

6 comments to PXTONE crack deprotects “*.pttune” modules

  • yeah, this is interesting indeed. but i can’t really see this as problematic. most things can be opened up or reverse engineered, and therefore will be. i think the principle should definitely be that that is OK++, although exceptions might exist.

    but chip music people have always been a bit anal about their copyright, so maybe this will really upset people. (why do people never release chip music open source anymore?)

  • It’s good! I think the open source nature of module files have been of great importance for the chipmusic scene, because people can study other peoples music with great detail, their techniques and share their ideas. It’s good for everyone interested in chipmusic.

  • Anders- because they think they might’ve invented something new.

  • peter – yeah. and i guess it could also be that you don’t want ppl to see your lazy solutions (it’s like that for me sometimes anyway, hehe). and maybe the idea of open source music is not as appealing once it has been realised. ..

  • I didn’t even know about this program! But in my vision, the n00bz who are not ethic won’t even know about this, so it’s not a problem. But I dunno, it’s always good to learn tracking skills. Myself was studying some Random milky tricks. :P

  • Pretty much all music I’ve ever written has involved “lazy solutions” – I don’t know if I would want people to see that process every time.

    However, Anders has a point that many things can be opened up involuntarily of the original creators… so can anything really be done about it? Once this information is out there, it’s out there right?