audio greetings from mount needaplotpoint

With Vozme, you can turn any chunk of English text into an MP3 file by clicking one button. It’s far from perfect, and isn’t as clear as using the "speak" thing on my Mac (Oh, Vicki, tell me that you love me!) but it gets the job done quickly and easily, especially if you’re supposed to be working and really want to be screwing off instead.

I just amused myself by converting a bit of my forthcoming Angel One review for TV Squad into a weird robotic voice.

Enjoy: Download mp3_angel_one.mp3
(136KB mp3 file)

(Vozme was found via Lifehacker)

DRM and the DMCA: so stupid it makes me want to punch babies

I hate DRM. I hate it so much, I want to punch babies. DRM’s mere existence infuriates me, because it’s anti-consumer, turns honest customers into criminals, and does nothing to stop dedicated pirates.

You’ve read my blog before, so this is nothing new. DRM is in my mind today, however, because of two links I read at boingboing.

Link the first:

Wellington Grey has a great little slideshow about the idiocy of the DMCA’s “anti-circumvention” measures, which prohibit breaking the digital locks off the stuff you own. In it, Grey recounts how offended he was when he bought a TomTom GPS that came with a CD in a sealed envelope, the seal on which read, “By breaking this seal, you agree to our contract,” but the contract itself was on the CD, behind the seal. In other words, the CD said, “By breaking this seal, you agree to a bunch of secret stuff.”

I saw this on Reddit last week, and meant to link it then. Whoops. Anyway, I love how this guy explains just how fucking stupid and pointless DRM is, and that he shows us what would happen if DRM and the DMCA were applied to real world objects. It’s good perspective that’s useful for explaining to technophobes (and congress critters) why these things need to go away. Now.

Link the second:

Techdirt reports that Steve Jobs has been pitching studio execs on a scheme whereby DVD owners can pay extra for the “privilege” of ripping their DVDs — but only for playback on iPods and iPhones. The thing is, Jobs fought the music industry back in the early iTunes day, arguing that people who buy CDs should have the right to rip them without paying anything extra.

So what’s the difference? DRM — Digital Rights Management. This is the anti-copying software that studios put on DVDs, allegedly to “stop piracy.” But DRM isn’t doing anything to stop piracy (people who want to pirate DVDs just break the DRM, because it’s impossible to stop determined attackers from copying bits on their own computers). It seems like the primary use for DRM is to sell you back the rights you used to get for free, so that the studios can pick your pocket every time you find a new way to use the media you buy from them.

That second link reminds me of the first time I encountered some sort of restrictive, proprietary “software”: when I was 9, my mom let me buy this really cool cap gun. It was so awesome! It looked just like a real gun (this was in 1979, when things like this were harmless fun for a suburban 9 year-old) and you could load this strip of plastic caps into a clip that went into the handle. When you fired it, it went off with a satisfying bang, and ejected one spent cap like it was a shell.

I didn’t want to ever shoot someone for real, and as an adult I don’t have any interest in owning a gun, but when I was 9, this thing was the coolest toy, ever, and it was the perfect addition to my James Bond superspy roleplaying adventures with the other kids in my neighborhood.

The thing was, I could only load the gun with a particular type of refill, and if the store was out of those refills — but flush with all of the “standard” strips and rings of caps — my really cool gun instantly became a useless piece of plastic and metal that only made whatever “bang bang” noise I could create myself . . . just like the kids up the block who used Legos to make guns that didn’t make an awesome “BANG” but more of a 9 year-old vocalized “bang”.

Of course, the proprietary caps were more expensive than the standard caps, and after a few months they went off the shelf, never to return. The cap gun became a paperweight, and was sold at a garage sale.

It’s not exactly a 1:1 on DRM, but I believe the fundamental concept is the same: a manufacturer uses some restrictive bit of technology to lock consumers into one format and one device. It’s stupid, it’s anti-consumer, and it makes me stabby.

RIAA, through SoundExchange, is lying to webcasters

The RIAA and its goonsquad, SoundExchange, is working very hard to destroy internet radio, by forcing webcasters to pay royalties that will run from 60%-300% of their annual revenue. For context, satellite radio pays 5%-7%, and over-the-air broadcasters pay nothing.

Why is the RIAA trying so hard to destroy Internet Radio? I wrote in a Geek in Review a while ago:

Because the
RIAA (which is essentially the major labels) has spent a lot of time
and a lot of money building a monopoly with a few media conglomerates,
and it’s been very profitable for them all for decades.

This effort to wipe out independent online radio has nothing to do with
protecting artists, and everything to do with protecting a status quo
that supports a very few top 40 acts at the expense of everyone else.
In their effort to protect their outdated business model and insanely
corrupt relationship with a few broadcasters, the RIAA is happy to
prevent their artists from having a magnificent way to reach potential
customers who will buy albums, merchandise, and concert tickets.

I am rather worked up about this because I believe it’s about choice.
The airwaves in the United States are supposedly
owned by the American people, and licensed out to broadcasters for use, but in practice, that’s not the way it works at all. In practice, the airwaves are owned by Clear Channel, and they work hand-in-hand with the big four record labels to limit our choice of music. It’s a great scam they’ve got going, and it’s been a very profitable system for all of them for a very long time.

For the rest of us, though, this system sucks. For guys like me who can’t stand top 40 music, who can’t stand the utter crap they play on KROQ these days, and who want some fucking variety in their music, we’re screwed . . .

. . .with the notable exception of Internet radio, where we have choices as diverse as Radio Paradise, WFMU, Groove Salad, and Indie Pop Rocks.

Indie webcasters like SomaFM have been working tirelessly with the Save Net Radio Coalition
to educate our representatives in congress so that legislation can be
passed which would make it possible for these indie broadcasters to
stay in business. The RIAA doesn’t like this, so they’re trying to fight it, but in a surprisingly competent move, Congress is forcing RIAA and its goonsquad SoundExchange to negotiate realistic and fair royalty rates with webcasters.

That brings us more or less up to today, where we discover that the RIAA is getting desperate, and doesn’t like that it can’t get its way simply by threatening a lot of people and paying off a lot of congressmen.

Rusty Hodge, the GM of SomaFM, has been in DC for a couple of months, working like crazy to save his business and an entire industry. He’s been blogging about his experiences, sharing the little victories and big frustrations during the fight.

The RIAA must be afraid of Rusty and everyone who is working to save internet radio, because they’ve now resorted to outright lying to webcasters, in their latest efforts to threaten and scare them:

RIAA has SoundExchange issue press release to try and trick congress
into thinking the royalty situation has been solved. Nice work guys.

The reason many people are signing is because they fear lawsuits
from the RIAA. RIAA representatives have been calling webcasters and
telling them if they didn’t sign by Sep 15th, they would be operating
in violation of the law. That’s the only reason they signed. It’s like a Sporano’s episode.

The only way that webcasters can escape the high royalty rates is by signing this current agreement and only
playing SX affiliated label music. This means less independent music,
and more big label music. Which is exactly what the RIAA wanted.

The press release Rusty is referring to is reprinted in his blog, but here’s the short version: 24 webcasters signed an agreement with SoundExchange that gives them slightly-better royalty rates now, but expires in three years, putting them right back where they are today. If SoundExchange can scare enough indie webcasters into signing this horrible agreement, the RIAA will be able to go to congress and tell them that they really don’t need to pass the Internet Radio Equality Act, which would permanently save internet radio by preventing the RIAA and SoundExchange from jacking up royalty rates so high, it would force indie webcasters out of business.

And this "deal" is actually a giant load of bullshit. According to Wired’s Listening Post:

However, the agreement only covers artists and labels who are
SoundExchange members. Webcasters who sign the agreement but still
want to play music from other bands would have to pay SoundExchange the
higher per-song rates originally specified
by the CRB for those songs, because that music is not part of the
deal. In essence, small webcasters who sign have an economic incentive
to avoid lesser-known music.

So that’s what this is all about: stopping lesser-known music from even having a chance at finding an audience. The RIAA’s major members — Universal, Warner, Sony BMG, and EMI — are trying to put indie webcasters out of business. They’re not working to protect artists. They’re working to protect their monopoly, and now they’re lying to do it.

learn to swim

Eventful is getting lots of press, which is great for Brian and his entire team, because I believe that it’s a tool that indie artists and guys like me will be able to use to connect with our audiences in ways that just weren’t possible as recently as a year ago.

But I’m getting really tired of reading things like this:

The Eventful demand system is still new, and right now the system is overwhelmed by a collection of demands to hear former Star Trek actor Wil Wheaton speak. But don’t let that put you off.

I’m sorry, but why would that put anyone off? Because it’d be better if Eventful was filled with demands for huge artists that don’t care about meeting their audience, and wouldn’t listen to demands, anyway?

Yeah, it’s a really terrible thing that I hopped on board with Eventful, and consulted with Brian before it even launched, because I believe in it, and my upcoming trips to Montreal and Boston are perfect examples of how it can work, right? And it’s equally off-putting that because of Eventful, the people who read my blog and I have a way to figure out where and when I should come perform, right? Yeah, that’s just terrible! It’s so off-putting!

And excuse me if this puts you off, Mr. Web 2.0 writer, but could we maybe retire the phrase "former Star Trek actor?" I know it’s hard for you mainstream media types to understand that I’ve done a few things with myself since Star Trek ended over a decade ago, (like publish two books, write several weekly columns, and provide voices for several video games and animated series,) but I have a lot more in my life than just being a "former Star Trek actor," which you would have known if you’d done your homework.

Update: The article’s author has apologized:

I’d like to apologize to you, Wil. I did not mean to offend nor to diminish your work. My tongue-in-cheek comment about how a ton of Eventful Demand posts to see you might be overwhelming to people trying to set up their own demands was not meant as a slight to you personally (although I can see how it was insensitive). As I said to one person who wrote an email to me, it’s clear that you’ve done a lot for Eventful and Eventful has done a lot for you. That’s how good business gets done.

I’ll buy a ticket to see you when you come to SF.

Thank you, Rafe. Whenever I hear "former Star Trek actor . . ." without any mention of anything else I’ve done with my life, I do feel diminished and slighted. Apology accepted and appreciated very much.

why network neutrality matters, and is worth fighting for

For weeks, I’ve been trying to write about why Network Neutrality is so important, and why everyone who spends even three minutes a day online should be writing, calling, and faxing their representatives in Congress relentlessly until the so-called First Amendment of the Internet is guaranteed and becomes law. But whenever I start, I end up angry and depressed and frustrated, and the words just won’t come.

Today, Adam Green has a brilliant post at HuffPo that puts into simple language exactly why Network Neutrality is so important:

As the New York Times editorialized today:

"Net neutrality" is a concept that is still unfamiliar
to most Americans, but it keeps the Internet democratic. … One of the
Internet’s great strengths is that a single blogger or a small
political group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as
accessible to the world as Microsoft’s home page. But this democratic
Internet would be in danger if the companies that deliver Internet
service changed the rules so that Web sites that pay them money would
be easily accessible, while little-guy sites would be harder to access
and slower to navigate. Providers could also block access to sites they
do not like.

If Net Neutrality is gutted, Google, eBay, and YouTube
either pay protection money to companies like AT&T or risk that
their sites process slowly on your computer. Comcast could
intentionally slow access to iTunes, steering Internet customers its
own music service. And the little guy with the next big idea would be muscled out of the marketplace, relegated to the "slow lane" of the information superhighway.

This isn’t just speculation — it’s already happened in places without Net Neutrality. Heck, AT&T’s CEO blatantly announced, "The Internet can’t be free."

That’s why an Internet revolt has begun–a revolt that [Telecom spokesman Mike] McCurry belittles. Folks as diverse as Craig from Craigslist, MoveOn, Gun Owners of America, Google, eBay, and Amazon are all fighting back. 350,000 people signed a petition demanding Congress preserve Internet freedom, over 2,000 blogs have rallied the public, and even some celebrities are chiming in.

Craig Fields from Gun Owners of America hit the target right-on when he said

"Whenever you see people on the far left and far right
joining together about something Congress is getting ready to do, it’s
been my experience that what Congress is getting ready to do is
basically un-American."

(Emphasis mine)

There’s much more to his post, including a smackdown of Mike McCurry, who has become and outright lying shill for powerful telecom interests like AT&T who want to force a fundamental change to the way the Internet operates. Please read it. I think it’s the most important thing you’ll read today, and should help everyone who’s heard about this issue (but doesn’t know exactly what it is — which includes a lot of people, including myself until about last week) understand why it’s so important.

On a personal note: without the Internet, I’d be just another failed actor struggling to make ends meet. Because I had the same ability to put together a website and reach an audience as anyone else, I was able to put my words on your screens, and eventually into a book that got into many of your hands. If AT&T or some other big telecom decided that regular guys like me had to pay some sort of protection money to have the same ability to reach you as Google or MSN does, I never would have been able to get WWdN off the ground, much less found Monolith Press, publish Dancing Barefoot, and start an entirely new career as a writer.

We’ve all taken for granted that we’ll have equal access to the Internet, both as consumers and as creators of content. Right now, very powerful, very greedy, and very un-democratic businesses are trying very hard to take that away from us. They must be stopped.

Again, Adam Green:

The only way to protect Net Neutrality is for Congress to take
action now, as it re-writes our nation’s telecom laws. Senators Olympia
Snowe (R-ME) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Representative Ed Markey
(D-MA) have introduced legislation to do this. Mike McCurry and his
clients like AT&T are fighting it tooth and nail.

If you are outraged, don’t just sit there . . . take these steps:

1. SIGN a Net Neutrality petition to Congress:

2. CALL Congress now:

3. BLOG about this issue, or put our "Save the Internet" logo on your Web site:

4. MYSPACE: Add "Save the Internet" as a friend:

5. WRITE A LETTER to Congress:

6. VISIT our coalition Web site for more information, SavetheInternet.com