Slashdot Mirror
Wal-Mart Ditches DRM, Keeps Censorship
Smiley Face writes "Wal-Mart has hopped on the DRM-free bandwagon with today's announcement that it will be participating in Universal's DRM-free sales pilot. The quality looks good: 256Kbps MP3 for 94 cents apiece, but customers are likely to be turned off by the retail chain's continued censorship. 'It's a bit hard to believe that all the customers who shop at the world's largest retailer want censored versions of music, though, but that's what they get. Only edited versions of albums with parental advisories are available, just as they are in Wal-Mart's offline stores. This isn't a new policy; Wal-Mart's online music store has carried only edited versions for years, but it's worth pointing out to potential new users tempted by the lower prices and lack of DRM.'"
That is the reason I never buy music from wal mart, as much as I may not like the words to some of the songs, the weird noises they replace them with are even worse.
And worse yet, sometimes they edit out things that aren't offensive at all.
Does Wal-mart at least label their CDs in retail stores and disclose in their online store that the songs are edited versions? The politics of it aside, as long as they are upfront about selling edited versions of songs, then I have no problem with it. However, if they are not being honest about selling songs that aren't the "real" ones, then that is plain deceptive.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
"Wal-Mart ditches some crap, keeps other crap."
From the 'its-crap-anyways' dept.
Why is this under "your rights online," and why is the word "censorship" used in the summary? Censorship is when the government infringes on your free speech. If a private organization doesn't want to sell you a particular item, that has nothing to do with the first amendment. Joe's Bar and Grill doesn't offer any CDs for sale -- does that constitute censorship? No, it just means that Joe didn't choose to offer a particular item for sale at the bar. It seems particularly ludicrous to complain about this at a time when there are so many real and horrible civil liberties problems in the U.S., e.g., the attorney general declaring that there is no right to habeas corpus in the constitution.
Find free books.
There are lots of ways of creating clean versions. The policy of recording alternate lyrics goes back at least fifteen years, and all the way back to the 60's if you consider negotiations between labels and artists over controversial lines. Another common solution is reversing and chopping up contested lyrics, which does not leave a hole in the melody line and does not require re-recording the line.
How is this censorship? Like any other store, Walmart chooses what they will and will not stock. Regardless of what you personally think of Walmart, they got where they are by making smart (perhaps sometimes ruthless) business decisions. I know this might be hard for some Slashdotters to believe, but what about people who want censored, or a 'radio edit' of a song? Besides, nobody is forcing you to shop at Walmart, and if you want to buy music there then you get what they sell. I don't see how the "censorship" issue is news at all.
Hurrah for dropping DRM though. Be interesting to see how long this will last and if there is any repercussion. One nice thing about Walmart is that it's big enough to just smile give the bird to the RIAA.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
I dont like the store either, but this is NOT really censorship.
As a store that is owned by someone(s), managed by someone(s), they have the right to decide what it is that they will and wont sell. Its ashame that our society doesn't care that these are not the true songs that were released, but
1) Walmart has the Marketshare
2) Record Companies want to be in those locations
3) Record Companies bend to walmart.
Its not like they dont have a choice. And obviously its what many people want. If you want to call something worthless, call the Artist that allows their intellectual property (which they have most likely sold to the Label) to be modified from its orig. artistic form, Assuming they arent just out for money as well.
The important distinction is that, in this case, censorship adds value for some consumers, while DRM does not.
I doubt all customers want any particular product or service. The more important question is whether or not enough want this product in order for it to be worth offering.
Speaking for myself, I do want this service. The absence of crude songs is completely irrelevant to me because I wouldn't want them anyway. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Ok, so Walmart is selling MP3s @ 256kbps for $0.94 and Apple is selling AACs @ 256kbps for $1.30. I like Apple and all, but is the quality of AAC _really_ that much better than MP3 to warrant an extra $0.36? I can barely tell the difference between 160kbps and 256kpbs MP3s, but maybe it's just me... ~B
MP3 vs AAC
256kbp vs. 256kbp
"censored" vs. "non-censored"
94 cents vs #1.29
For those who care about the "clean" tracks, it's still 3 of 4.
Of course Apple still has the edge with the iPod community, and perhaps ease of use. But no one should be fooled: this is very good for the digital music marketplace.
That dude thought the Holy Bible has sections too racy for children and young people and so he brought out an edited version.
Censorship is when the Govt uses its power to silence an expression. As others have noted, Walmart is not preventing the record companies from selling profanity laden songs in other places.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
My local Christian book store doesn't sell Hustler! That's Censorship! Those Nazis!
My local adult bookstore doesn't sell the Bible! That's Censorship! Those Nazis!
My local country radio station refuses to play "Tooling for Anus" by The Meatmen! That's Censorship! Those Nazis!
And on and on...
Can we get over this "Store X sells items that are profitable since they're desirable to their target customer" and stop calling it censorship for once and for all? Because a business uses their legal right to choose what they do and do not sell hardly fits into the definition of censorship. On the most technical level, yes. But the word has long overgrown it's Webster dictionary definition in modern society.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Playing devils advocate, WalMart do have very low prices, and if you're on a low income, they are a great place to shop. There's always the argument made that they kill local businesses. That much is true, sort of, but there was a story recently about a town that didn't want WalMart, but they opened anyway. Then after a few years, for whatever reason, it closed down, and the town wanted it BACK. It didn't KILL local business. It changed it. Other stores opened up near the new WalMart etc...
Their album censorship is nuts. I've known about since I saw a piece on TV about Rob Zombie's "Hellbilly Deluxe" and it played the regular version, and the WalMart version.
Of course what's interesting is they do this with Parental Advisory stuff. The recent Nine Inch Nails album "Year Zero" has no such label on it, despite having quite a few incidences of the F word on it. I wonder if that got past them?
WalMart are considerably evil. But for many, they are an evil necessity.
As a store that is owned by someone(s), managed by someone(s), they have the right to decide what it is that they will and wont sell. Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body.
censorship - deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances
censoring
deletion - the act of deleting something written or printed
Bowdlerism - censorship in the form of prudish expurgation
Comstockery - censorship because of perceived obscenity or immorality
Not all censorship is equal, nor does all arise from government or external force.
censorship, official prohibition or restriction of any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order. It may be imposed by governmental authority, local or national, by a religious body, or occasionally by a powerful private group.
I don't know who taught you to think that it's not censorship when it's done for profit, but you were lied to. Censorship is done by whoever has the power to do it, no matter if the power used to do it is by nature political, capital or personal.
You can't take the sky from me...
Yelled while pounding my desk, in a passable Bela Oxmyx imitation: "I got rights!"
I got rights! On one side of the street is a Rasputin's Music. On the other is the Evil Rapacious Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart doesn't sell CDs with vulgar lyrics, Rasputin's does. This is censorship! My rights are being violated! I am being oppressed because I have to walk across the street to buy an albumn where someone says "fuck"! Think of the children!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
products that cost less:
is this evil (as so many walmart haters like to label)? and dont say that chinese products are shit, there is some very high quality stuff coming out of china (despite the fear campaign the media is pushing)
putting people who barely make enough money to survive out of business:
maybe these people need to do something else to make a living if it is so bad. how about if I move into town and open a tiny store that takes away their customers? does that make me evil, or am i just another guy with a successful small business? how large does my business need to be in order to be classified as 'evil'?
being anti-union:
shutting down a store to curb what could be an epidemic in their organization? you know what unions do, right? they organize workers so that they can pressure the organization for more benefits/money/vacation/whatever, otherwise the workers dont work. whether this is necessary at walmart, i do not know, but i do understand entirely why walmart canned them: because that was the only way to handle it.
im not a regular walmart shopper. hell, there isnt even a walmart IN my town (closest one is 100 miles away), but there are some (not all of them, of course) shitty small businesses either running local rackets or offer little service/products because they can get away with it. a walmart (or any other nationwide store) would force these shops to either improve their service or get shut down. the small store has every advantage when walmart moves in on them. they have an existing client base, a reliable location (and if not, they should have fixed that long ago), prices that arent exorbitant (if its a good business), and hopefully a good reputation in the community. if walmart can pop into any town and knock some barely-functioning businesses out, then where is the real problem?