Wal-Mart Music Download Service Launches

nns6561 writes "Wal-Mart launched their music download service today. They are providing wma files for 88 cents. I was able to download and play the test file with MPlayer and Linux. Finally, a music service for us geeks." While it may be only another online music seller, I'd hazard a guess that Wal-Mart has the name recognition to be the most prevalent music download service, especially among the tech-unsavvy.

Comments

Less Restrictive Than Some

[digitalvengeance]

They seem to be a bit less restrictive than Napster2.

From their usage agreement:

You may download music to a single computer. You may then transfer music files and backup license files to up to two (2) additional personal computers. You may play music an unlimited number of times on up to three (3) personal computers. You shall be entitled to 1) burn Products solely for personal, non-commercial use up to ten (10) times and 2) export Products solely to a portable device capable of playing Windows Media (TM) Audio ("WMA") files such as a WMA-compliant MP3 player an unlimited number of times. WALMART.COM is a reseller to you and does not accept orders from music dealers, exporters, wholesalers, any businesses of any kind or other customers who intend to resell.
Emphasis mine.Still, I won't pay for any music until I can burn it to CD in MP3 or Ogg format. My car has an MP3 player and changing CDs every hour or so has become as objectionable to me as following the speed limit.

As for the submitter's claim that wal-mart might be able to make this the "most prevalent online music service," whatever happened to the ISP that wal-mart tried to float? I rest my case.

Censorship

[MikeCapone]

I'd never buy anything from wal-mart just because they have been a major promoter of censorship in music (and films). I suspect their online music store is the same.

Re:Censorship

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

For the record, it's not censorship for a retailer to choose what they're willing to sell.
It bites, and the fact that they don't clearly label the "WalMart Edit" as such is bordering on deception, but it's not censorship.

A Government saying that no retailer can sell the unedited version, that'd be censorship.

--

Re:Censorship

[MikeCapone]

For the record, it's not censorship for a retailer to choose what they're willing to sell. It bites, and the fact that they don't clearly label the "WalMart Edit" as such is bordering on deception, but it's not censorship.

censor ( P ) Pronunciation Key (snsr) n.

1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

I don't care how they do it, they are still forcing artists to modify their vision and keep lots of people from accessing the original piece of work.

Sure they can select what they sell, but it doesn't mean that it's not censorship. When they throw their economic weight around to get people to re-record songs, or when they alter artwork and lyrics. That's censorship.

When the biggest store in the USA decides that it won't carry any album what has X or Y on it, it's pressure put on the artists to conform or suffer huge losses of money and exposure.

For joe mullet that lives in a small town that doesn't have indie music stores and such, wall-mart is often the place when he first discovers music (at age 11 or whatever). If all they carry is a "weeded out" selection, it could affect his tastes for years and reduce his horizons quite a bit.

For geeks?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Somehow I doubt Wal-Mart has "geeks" in mind as the target audience. It does not help the geek community to patronize an online music store that provides WMA files. When those WMA's start including Palladium-enriched goodness, you won't be able to play them on Linux anymore. And maybe by then, Wal-Mart and Microsoft will have put iTunes and the more legit shops out of business.

Think about the big picture. Demand MP3 and OGG files. This cannot be understated.

Re:88 cents!

[Paulrothrock]

1) Apple doesn't kow tow to M$ by using wma. They use their own format, with decent DRM policies. That's more than enough for me to keep using them.

2) They bundle their store with free burning/ripping/playlist software and seamlessly integrate it. The only thing Wal*Mart is good at integrating is their supply chain.

3) Apple is a company that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when I buy their products. Did Wal*Mart create the first music store? No. Did Napster develop a really great MP3 player? No. Apple innovates, and that's why I like them.

Re:Profit?

[Billly Gates]

Wallmart is losing money and only doing this to turn their competitors under. They will raise the costs afterwards. Walmart does this more then Microsoft and the DOJ can't touch them because Americans would have a fit since it would raise the cost of goods there.

Re:Quick look

[herrvinny]

All rights in the Products are owned by WALMART.COM or its licensors and you have only a limited, nontransferable, nonexclusive, revocable, nonsublicensable right to use the Products for personal use in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

What the fsck is "revocable" doing in there? Why should I pay Walmart one red cent if they can just roll back my rights whenever they want to? That has to be against some law, right? Or else you're not really "purchasing" the song, more like it's being leased to you.