Wal-Mart Ends DRM Support

An anonymous reader writes "So, you thought you did well to support the fledgling music industry by purchasing your tracks legally from the Wal-Mart store? Well, forget about moving these tracks to a new PC! Since they started selling DRM-free tracks last year, there's no money to be made in maintaining the DRM support systems, and in fact, support is being shut down. Make sure you circumvent the restrictions by burning the tracks to an old-fashioned CD before Wal-mart 'will no longer be able to assist with digital rights management issues for protected WMA files purchased from Walmart.com.' Support ends October 9th."

Comments

refund

[poopdeville]

I don't know Wallyworld's terms of service, but are the customers within their rights to demand refunds?

Re:refund

[CastrTroy]

They can demand all they want. Doesn't mean they will get it. Also this is yet another reason why DRM is evil. There is no money in continuing to maintain the DRM servers once you stop selling music. Once whoever you buy from decides to stop support, you are out of luck. This is the third service that I have heard of shutting down. I'm sure more will come in the future. I'm not sure how long it will take for people to realize just how bad DRM is.

Re:refund

[moderatorrater]

If you can't get money back on those tracks, there are a lot of ways to abuse their returns policy. My friend bought some games from Gamestop when they were running a really good, 2 for $40 sale on nearly new games and returned one of them to Wal Mart for a $40 gift card. Even if you don't like the store, you can at least get your cold cereal with a gift card.

Re:refund

[EastCoastSurfer]

Wal-mart for all its problems is pretty liberal with its return policy. My guess is that if you could talk to someone who even knew they sold music online they would either a) give you a refund or b) give you the tracks again DRM-free.

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

So the moral of the story is that if you are willing to commit fraud you can get free cereal.

Re:refund

[poopdeville]

They can demand all they want. Doesn't mean they will get it.

You ignored my question in favor of going on a rant.

Obviously, they have the right to say what they want. I was asking if their demands are supported by law. Perhaps under an implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for purpose. Also, the TOS could have terms relating directly to the shutdown of the service.

Re:refund

[Techguy666]

I don't know Wallyworld's terms of service, but are the customers within their rights to demand refunds?

I suspect it depends on whether they use the term "purchase" anywhere on the eula or site...

Re:refund

[Ritchie70]

Have to agree with this.

Walmart has very customer friendly return policies in their bricks-and-mortar stores.

The stores are pits, and the actual customer service sucks (I've stood at the pickup desk for a half hour just waiting for someone to show up and get my web order) but when you need to return something, they're very, very good about it.

Got some ugly crap for Christmas from your mother who, somehow, doesn't understand the concept of "gift receipts" and just says "if you don't like it, I got it at...." instead like it's still 1982?

If they can scan that particular piece of ugly crap and identify it as something they might have sold her, they'll give you back the current sale price on a gift card, so you can go buy juice and cereal. No hassles.

Target, on the other hand, are a bunch of bastards with crazy rules like "we'll take it, but you have to find something else to buy from the same department."

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

He did answer it really. You can ask all you want but you can be damm sure that the walmart lawyers have already thought of this.

In a license or eula SOMEWHERE is a clause that lets wallyworld get away with this without giving refunds.

Really. one of the worlds biggest corporations vs. a bunch of suckers who downloaded DRM music. Who do you really think is going to get the short end of the stick? I mean really...

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

A better choice would be to sue Walmart (and all other DRM providers that shut down. Since they "sold" you a song, if they remove the ability to listen to it, then there was a fraudulent transaction (i.e. they represented it as a sale, but it was not a true sale).

This would be a very interesting court batter with profound implications for the industry.

Re:refund

[ijakings]

Its not really free cereal, More like half price cereal.

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

Returning merchandise to a retailer the goods were not purchased from is unethical. That doesn't leave one much room to criticize Wal Mart for their ethics. This behavior shouldn't be supported or proposed as a reasonable course of action.

DRM can be fought without resorting to thievery.

Re:refund

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I don't know if its a coincidence or not, but I had some well connected friends at Yahoo relay my message of an impending class action lawsuit in light of them shutting down their drm servers. Shortly there after they announced that you could get the same tracks from other services with out drm for free. Sadly, I never bought anything from walmart nor do I know anyone there. But if you have been burned I suggest you look into it. It won't end up helping you recoup many losses, but I think a successful class action lawsuit against drm would cause other potential users of it very weary. I used to be one of the biggest defenders of DRM'd music here on slashdot. Then yahoo schooled me in its stupidity. I'm simply not going to use anything that has DRM on it ( exception made for dvd's as they are easily converted to a drm less format).

Re:refund

[Just Some Guy]

Walmart has very customer friendly return policies in their bricks-and-mortar stores.

BS. I bought a package of baby diapers in our local store before going to a conference in another city. I managed to buy the wrong size, so we went to exchange them at a Wal-Mart in that town. I was civil and polite from the very beginning. The difference in price was $0.07, but they absolutely positively would not exchange them without my driver's license. This resulted in one of the very rare occasions where escalation to a few well-chosen f-bombs to the manager got them to cooperate. Now, keep in mind that I wasn't asking for a refund or anything else even possibly fraudulent. I was giving them an unopened package of baby diapers (of all things) in exchange for a similarly-priced package of the same brand. If I were a thief, I would have just stolen the right size in the first place, and in any event it was an even swap.

No, Wal-Mart is not always customer-friendly.

Target, on the other hand, are a bunch of bastards with crazy rules like "we'll take it, but you have to find something else to buy from the same department."

I've had the opposite experience. I bought an LED flashlight at Target that broke in the "on" position and melted down. When I returned it (having already lost the receipt), they offered my money back before I even brought it up.

Re:refund

[PlatyPaul]

To play devil's advocate: committing fraud may be a moral action in this case, assuming that Walmart is itself immoral.

Re:refund

[MooUK]

A second wrong may seem justified, but it does not make a right.

Morality is, of course, completely relative.

Re:refund

[electrictroy]

Most likely Walmart music is only warrantied to work for 90 days, after which time Walmart is no longer required to "fix" it when it stops working...... similar to how Walmart is not required to replace my old 1990s-era cassettes if they happen to tear in half.

I have not bought any DRM'd music yet, but if I had, I would keep those legally-purchased copies & download "backup" copies off bittorrent. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that we are allowed to have backup copies as long as we have the original purchased song (or video or game or whatever).

.

Re:refund

[electrictroy]

Sometimes in order to catch a thief, you have to use the tactics of a thief (deception, buying black market goods, and using weapons). Example: Dish Network sold me a digital tuner box which was so poorly-programmed, it barely worked. A few months later Dish released v1.06 with all the bugs removed, and since my warranty was still good, I asked to exchange boxes.

Dish refused saying they had no record of me as a customer. They lost the sale! Idiots. So since Dish effectively defrauded me, I decided to borrow a page from the same book. (1) I bought a brand-new revision v.106 box. (2) When the package arrived, I swapped the tuners and returned my defective v1.00 box. (3) I contacted my credit card company, explained the situation, and provided proof the item was returned to Dish. (4) The credit company reversed the charge. (5) It costs me about 5 dollars in postage, but at least now I have a working digital tuner.

Dish tried to scam me via selling a defective box, and failed. And now Walmart's trying to do the same thing; if necessary I would find a way to recover the money. Perhaps the credit card company could reverse the charge for this now-broken DRM and worthless Walmart music. If not there are other ways your credit card could help you recover the money you lost.

Re:refund

[King_TJ]

I've experienced the exact opposite before, just like the other person who posted a reply to you.

I think it has more to do with the type of neighborhood a particular store is located in.

WalMart stores around here tend to mostly be in neighborhoods bordering on higher-crime areas. People are constantly trying to return things to them that weren't bought there to begin with, or maybe were shoplifted from them earlier in the day.

When you have a legitimate return, you're made to feel like a criminal yourself, until you prove otherwise. I had one pair of jeans to return one time, and the clerk spent several minutes looking over every inch of them to make sure nothing was torn, stained or slightly damaged in any way. After all THAT, she still called over someone from that dept. to make sure it was a pair they currently stocked, and to verify the price on my receipt was still correct (no sales running currently or anything that might mean I'd get back more than what they were selling them for that day). Pain in the butt....
 

Re:refund

[rm999]

I would be amazed if they refuse to give refunds. Think about it - Walmart has deep pockets, they are still selling music (and still seeking to make a profit off it), and they don't have a monopoly on music.

Pissing off past customers isn't exactly good business practice, and (I hate to admit it) Walmart is actually run by very skilled businessmen.

Re:refund

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I think the real problem with walmart, is it didn't have enough customers to qualify any pending lawsuit as a class action;), But yeah, I would do the same thing. The use of DRM will increase the apparent piracy of media as people turn to non legit sources for back ups of their legit purchases that no longer work due to drm.

Re:refund

[Khyber]

Except in California, where EULAs are on some very shaky legal ground.

Re:refund

[__aaqvdr516]

But three rights end up making a left!

Re:refund

[electrictroy]

>>>they'll give you back the current sale price on a gift card

The problem with that is on December 25, stores immediately mark everything down. One time my young niece gave me a shirt that she said cost her "20 dollars". The tag actually said 29.99 so she got a 33% off discount. ----- I returned the shirt on December 26, showed the clerk the tag and said my grandma had a 33% off discount, so please refund $19.99. However because I didn't have a receipt, all they gave me was the current clearance price of $4.99!!!! Stores are not dumb, and will take any opportunity they can to defraud a customer. In this case they pocketed fifteen dollars of my niece's money. :-(

>>> Walmart has very customer friendly return policies in their bricks-and-mortar stores.

Not really. I bought a bunch of compact fluorescent bulbs, tried them in my house for a few months, and discovered they were waaaay too dim (it takes about 5 minutes to reach full brightness). I rarely visit Walmart, due to constantly being on the road, but I did eventually return to the store. Walmart refused to refund because, "The date on the receipt is from 6 months ago, and we don't even sell these any more." I thought that sounded reasonable, but still double-checked the shelves and discovered they had lied. They were selling tons of the identical bulbs.

I immediately demanded a refund, telling the assistant manager that she can "sell these unopened, like-new bulbs to somebody else, and there's no valid reason to turn me down". She still refused to do it, until I used my cellphone to call my credit card company & asked them to reverse the charge "on some defective product". Then suddenly the ass. manager changed her mind and offered me a $30 gift card. I accepted. ----- Offering me a gift card is what she should have done *immediately* rather than lie to me & claim the bulbs were no longer being sold. Never lie to a customer.

----- In another case, I returned a Defective DVD after just one week. They said, "We do exchanges only," but since that DVD was sold-out, I got nothing. So in effect Walmart sold me a broken dvd; how nice of them. (I did eventually recover my money through my credit card, but it took a few weeks.)

I think Walmart has the worst customer service of any national store.

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be "Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do". I'm just sayin'...

Re:refund

[Ritchie70]

That could be the case. The Walmart where I've returned things is in an expensive neighborhood (Darien, Illinois, a Chicago suburb) with no high-crime areas anywhere nearby.

Re:refund

[Ritchie70]

You can't really expect them to give you anything except what they're selling for without a receipt, can you? You could have bought it five minutes ago. If you'd had the receipt (or a gift receipt) and they'd given you $5 then I'd be mad.

Wish my mom would understand that.... we got $2 or something for a set of Christmas dishes that I'm sure she paid $20 for.

Re:refund

[Poltras]

What city are we talking about anyway? Cause we have some roads here where two lefts are needed to make a right. Just sayin'...

Re:refund

[MooUK]

Depends how big each left is. I know some places where to go right you need to go left, then right, then left, then left. And only the last of them is a right angle.

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, why go to court when you can take the law into your own hands.

Re:refund

[swb]

Baby stuff is very frequently shoplifted; low-income people have kids (lots!) that soil themselves as often as rich people's kids do, and they don't like cloth nappies any more than you do. So even though it doesn't make "sense", they had no idea what the providence of your diapers were; you could have bought them stolen for 20 cents on the dollar.

How hard was it to show them a driver's license, anyway?

Re:refund

[jonbryce]

If they use the word "licence", and then withdraw your licence, then I think you can demand a refund.

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

"So the moral of the story is that if you are willing to commit fraud you can get free cereal."

or pocky, or another video game, or a dvd (maybe 2), or ummm well you get the idea. gift cards work in more than just the grocery dept.

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

Anytime I've returned something to Target, they have put the credit on a gift card and let me get whatever I wanted with it. I've never heard of them telling someone to get something from the same department before.

Re:refund

[gEvil (beta)]

But three rights end up making a left!

You're assuming square blocks or a grid-like street layout. Try three rights in a city with diagonals or circles and see where it gets you.

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

that might be true for most companys.

but this is wal-mart.

Re:refund

[T-Bone-T]

You used something for 6 months and then expected a refund?! Then you threatened them with a chargeback that you might have not even qualified for? No wonder they weren't nice to you. Who do you think you are?

Re:refund

[smchris]

I'm not sure how long it will take for people to realize just how bad DRM is.

By "people" do you mean, well, "people" or Congressmen? If the latter, they'll quit loving DRM when Hollywood quits giving them money.

Re:refund

[moderatorrater]

Exactly. Why spend dozens of hours getting to the same place where you can get with a little deception? You can even argue that it's better for the company in the long run.

Re:refund

[eat here_get gas]

[quote]...DRM can be fought without resorting to thievery. ...[/quote]

citation please?

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

Once whoever you buy from decides to stop support, you are out of luck. This is the third service that I have heard of shutting down. I'm sure more will come in the future. I'm not sure how long it will take for people to realize just how bad DRM is.

Those people already realize it.

People here will realize it when Valve either goes bankrupt (and its creditors buy the assets, and have no reason to distribute one last DRM-disabling patch), or when Valve is acquired by a larger games studio (whose executives will also see no reason to distribute one last DRM-disabling patch) and the Steam servers get shut down.

Re:refund

[Gandalf_Greyhame]

Except in California, where EULAs are on some very shaky legal ground.

EVERYTHING is on shaky ground in California http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs

Re:refund

[Waccoon]

I once returned something to Wal-mart for which I had paid $20 on a debit card. They kept the original receipt, and stupidly, I didn't ask for a new one to verify the return. I later checked my bank statement, and I never got my $20 credit.

Sure, it could have been a cashier screwup, but I do wonder how often it happens to people who don't ask for a new receipt. A long, long time ago I worked at Wal-mart, and I know they will take back anything, even if it's smashed to pieces. Just make sure you actually get your money back if you pay by card.

Re:refund

[jargon82]

the rest being left angles?

Re:refund

[Walpurgiss]

A long time ago I worked in a Sam's Club, and I remember on more than one occasion the front end manager accepting returns for store credit on items we didn't sell.

I remember one old lady threw a fit when he wouldn't take back a pair of pants she said she bought there, when the tag on it had a Target sticker. He did eventually take it back.

I agree with one of the GP posts that it depends where the store is and how much they value their sanity vs. shrink.

Re:refund

[Ritchie70]

In your case probably cashier theft (they probably tendered it out as cash and pocketed it or otherwise defrauded the system) but it could have been cashier screw-up.

I work for a major retailer on their POS and other in-store systems, doing both development and support. In the low-end retail positions (poorly paid cashiers who don't care) there is a lot of error and fraud.

We had one of the field technology/operations executives buy a $100 gift card a week or so ago, but the register "never printed a receipt with a signature line" for his credit card payment for that card.

Then later the store manager contacted him (I'm sure it was a big scene when the "register malfunctioned") and told him that the drawer came up $100 short.

Our system logs the details of every transaction (although in most cases, nobody ever looks at it.) As far as we can tell, the cashier never actually pressed the "customer paying by credit" key when tendering the order.

In your case, I'd bet the drawer came up $20 over, because it got tendered as cash. It's possible that if you went and could tell them time and date they'd have given you the $20. I know I would if I had a customer tell me he was shorted $20 at the same time as my records showed a drawer was $20 over.

Re:refund

[Ritchie70]

Arggh, correction. If it was cashier error then the drawer came up $20 over. If it was cashier theft then it wouldn't have, obviously.

If it was my business, I still might have given you your $20 (especially if I was suspicious of that employee already.)

Re:refund

[shoemilk]

Wasn't there also a ruling that said downloads off of P2P don't count as backups? Or was that something the RIAA was trying to push?

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

Dish refused saying they had no record of me as a customer. They lost the sale! Idiots.

You should have bought an FTA receiver and had all Dish Network for nothing at this point.

Re:refund

[ScrewMaster]

Kid's stuff is a popular target (I've been a couple of Wal-Marts where an Hispanic woman with a gaggle of children was trying to return a shopping cart loaded with diapers when the cops pull up and make an arrest) so they're on the watch for that sort of thing.

The reason that Target was so cooperative with your melting flashlight is that it's a hazard and you might have gotten burned (remember a certain fast-food company and a certain lawsuit.) I agree with the GP ... Target is a pain in comparison to Wal-Mart, although both are more liberal than many smaller stores.

Re:refund

[MBGMorden]

As a side note though, Wal-mart's willingness to take back anything really, REALLY bothers me in the fact that they'll happily reshelve that stuff. Prime example: go into the electronics department at your local Wal-mart. Find the area where they keep the "Universal Remotes". Literally 60-70% of them will be ripped open and taped back together sitting on the shelf. Your average Wal-mart customer is too dumb to program one (and expects it to work out of the package), and so they bring it back. The next idiot sees it, naturally passes it up for a still sealed one, then brings his back, etc, etc, until only the opened ones are left on the shelf.

If they want to accept back just about anything, then fine, but when I go into a retail store I'm not looking for used merchandise. Luckily with the what the Internet has done to shopping I don't have to stop there very often.

Re:refund

[Just Some Guy]

So even though it doesn't make "sense", they had no idea what the providence of your diapers were; you could have bought them stolen for 20 cents on the dollar.

But, again, I was making an exchange and not getting a refund. I was trading them something worth $X for something worth $(X-0.07). Even if I'd stolen the original package, they would be no worse off after the swap. It was a lot of inconvenience for no net difference.

How hard was it to show them a driver's license, anyway?

To show them? Not hard at all. To allow them to record the information like they wanted to do? That was more than I could accept.

Re:refund

[Just Some Guy]

I'm pretty sure that the person at Target wasn't thinking far enough ahead to be concerned that I might sue. I've found that almost every place will work with if you if you start the process with a friendly smile and treat the other person nicely. That episode at Wal-Mart and another at Circuit City when a clerk tried to charge me a restocking fee for a DOA graphics card were the only two times I can readily remember when acting civilly didn't get results.

To Wal-Mart's credit, they were pretty cool about refunding a bike once. I bought a cheap road bike to ride 1.5 miles to work. On day one, the brakes gave out. On day two the chain broke. On day three, I stood in line at Wal-Mart to return it. While it was a low-end model, the clerk agreed that I should have been able to ride it more than 6 miles before it started falling apart and I got a full refund.

Re:refund

[ozphx]

Apart from the fact that the DRM disabling patches are already avaliable from our software pirating friends.

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

Over the last several years I naively purchased about 300 DRM'd tracks from Walmart. After hearing about them revoking their support for these products, I contacted customer support and spent about 45 minutes on the phone with them. I demanded a refund since the product they sold me was defective and will be unusable. They repeatedly told me that the solution was for me to burn all of the music i purchased onto CD's and rip them back to my computer. Since Walmart has now moved to selling non-DRM music, i asked if they could allow me to download the tracks *i have already purchased* to save me the time and hassle of having to burn/rip 300 tracks. They refused. I had doubts about DRM when i began to purchase the music, but i chose Walmart as a vendor because i mistakenly assumed they would put a priority on customer satisfaction. I am pissed and completely unsatisfied with my experience with DRM music and with Walmart specifically.

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for Wal-Mart Customer Service. All debit transactions are refunded as cash. This was likely unintentional error.

Re:refund

[Pichu0102]

I'm not sure how long it will take for people to realize just how bad DRM is.

How about in the vicinity of "never"? The people hurt by this will bitch about it for a while, then go to another provider that will do the same thing for them. We've been conditioned to do so, and thus, will continue to do so till the end of time.

Re:refund

[BruceCage]

From the context I gather he used one set but still had a couple of unopened/unused left, he decided to return those.

I bought a bunch of compact fluorescent bulbs [...] I immediately demanded a refund, telling the assistant manager that she can "sell these unopened, like-new bulbs to somebody else, and there's no valid reason to turn me down".

Re:refund

[RichiH]

While GP misunderstood GGP, I don't see myself buying something in bulk, trying out a part of the batch and then come back to return the un-used items half a year later. That time is _way_ too long.

Re:refund

[electrictroy]

Like I care what the Tyrant RIAA thinks.

Re:refund

[electrictroy]

(1) Why spend $100 to file a case about a $70 box? That's a very poor opportunity cost.

(2) Why go to court when there are legal remedies (such as credit card regulations) to resolve the problem for free? I chose number 2.

Re:refund

[electrictroy]

>>>You can't really expect them to give you anything except what they're selling for without a receipt, can you?

No I'd probably do the same thing if I were a store owner. However that wasn't my point. I was refuting that previous message which said "you can return christmas persents without receipt". While that's technically true, oftentimes you only get back ~25% of what was originally paid. It's better to have a receipt.

Re:refund

[electrictroy]

Precisely. When I worked at JCPenney and Sears, as long as we were still selling the item, we would accept a "return with receipt" even if it was a year later. We gave the customer a gift card, and sold the unused, unopened item to somebody else. Walmart should have similar policies, rather than stubbornly refuse and risk losing a customer for life.

As for credit card chargebacks, mine warranties all items up to one year. If I return it, and provide proof-of-delivery (via mail), they will reverse the charge.

BTW I was only returning 3 packages at $10 each. It's not as though I was driving billion-dollar Walmart into bankruptcy with my tiny return, and since they sold those lightbulbs to somebody else, they lost nothing.

Re:refund

[aerograMMer]

I would still want my music, can't Wal-Mart provide unencumbered tracks for download through the buyer's account? Seems like a nice way to keep everyone happy!

Re:refund

[GrMunky]

if you tried to return the diapers without a receipt, all they ask is your drivers license so they can keep track of how many times you "forget" your receipt in a year. generally harmless, but also a way that less scrupulous folks commit fraud. like the fellow up above who bought games for less elsewhere to return them at walmart. this system will show if someone is repeatedly doing it. of course, why wouldnt you show your license? if you are driving ANYWHERE you are legally required to carry it anyways, so there's a good chance you had it on you.

Re:refund

[swb]

But, again, I was making an exchange and not getting a refund. I was trading them something worth $X for something worth $(X-0.07).

No, you were trading them something YOU believed was worth more. I don't know, but maybe they have policies about not selling personal care items (or any at all) of an unknown origin? Your diapers could have been counterfeit, not containing what you believed they were, etc.

To allow them to record the information like they wanted to do?

Sorry honey, but the kid will have to just shit himself because I'm taking a stand? Do you live some kind of anonymous, cash-only existence off the info grid?

Re:refund

[walt-sjc]

I have not bought any DRM'd music yet

Which implies that you may in the future.

I won't. Ever. Never have, never will. Providers of DRM software and media can get stuffed, and this story is just another nail in the DRM coffin.

For YEARS we have been warning people about the evils of DRM, yet the mainstream media and consumers have been apathetic at best, and even downplayed the dangers.
Bah.

It's buyer beware.

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

Pissing in the wind mother fucker. Read the fucking contract bitch. You didn't purchase shit. You agreed to this bullshit DRM when you bought them. You're a fucking idiot.

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

1. I don't think that term means what you think it means.

2. Oh absolutely, but if that's _all_ you did, then you explained your story very poorly. It sounds to me like you committed fraud.

Re:refund

[sglewis100]

I have not bought any DRM'd music yet, but if I had, I would keep those legally-purchased copies & download "backup" copies off bittorrent. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that we are allowed to have backup copies as long as we have the original purchased song (or video or game or whatever).

I'm pretty sure there's a large difference between making a backup copy and taking a copy to use as a backup. The courts may have ruled on the former, I wouldn't expect that to cover the latter.

Re:refund

[sglewis100]

Anytime I've returned something to Target, they have put the credit on a gift card and let me get whatever I wanted with it. I've never heard of them telling someone to get something from the same department before.

It specifically depends on the department the item was from. Interestingly, they don't do a good job of policing it. I once returned an unopened, shrink wrapped DVD (holiday gift, I already had it though), and was told I could only exchange it for something from electronics. I was then handed a gift card, and proceeded to spend it on a non-electronics item.

Re:refund

[afabbro]

But three rights end up making a left! You're assuming square blocks or a grid-like street layout. Try three rights in a city with diagonals or circles and see where it gets you.

True. Two words: traffic circle.

Re:refund

[Stephen Samuel]

Well, given that Wally's the one effectively breaking something that they sold to their customers, I'd say that they'd be liable for a refund. It's not like they can claim 'wear and tear', or 'customer mistreatment', or even 'bit rot'. (which are the usual reasons why time diminishes the value of a product). Wallmart is breaking my product -- so now they're responsible for fixing it.
Now, whether or not a customer is going to get anything back on their ~$2.00 purchase, short of a class-action lawsuit, is an entirely different question.

Re:refund

[Anonymous Coward]

Walmart has very customer friendly return policies in their bricks-and-mortar stores.

BS. I bought a package of baby diapers in our local store before going to a conference in another city. I managed to buy the wrong size, so we went to exchange them at a Wal-Mart in that town. I was civil and polite from the very beginning. The difference in price was $0.07, but they absolutely positively would not exchange them without my driver's license. This resulted in one of the very rare occasions where escalation to a few well-chosen f-bombs to the manager got them to cooperate. Now, keep in mind that I wasn't asking for a refund or anything else even possibly fraudulent. I was giving them an unopened package of baby diapers (of all things) in exchange for a similarly-priced package of the same brand. If I were a thief, I would have just stolen the right size in the first place, and in any event it was an even swap.

No, Wal-Mart is not always customer-friendly.

So... umm... show them your drivers license. How hard is that, sorry, not a very tough rule. They put it on file and if what you returned ended up being stolen from anther store they know who you are. It's smart on their part, I don't see where the problem with Wal-Mart's returns are in your story. Sounds like you're just being a belligerent ass.

Re:refund

[ConfusedVorlon]

It is quite possible that Wallmart lawyers said that they would have to give refunds, and that Wallmart have just decided to take the hit on the chin.

Given that only a tiny percentage of purchasers would ask for refunds - it might be a lot cheaper and simpler to shut down, give refunds where requested (or perhaps offer 'store credit') and move on rather than paying folks to maintain the DRM servers ad-infinitum.

Re:refund

[Just Some Guy]

Your diapers could have been counterfeit, not containing what you believed they were, etc

And a receipt would have protected them how?

1. Buy real $20 diapers.
2. Buy fake $2 diapers.
3. Return #2 with the receipt from #1.
4. Profit.

I'd call that "security theater", where it looks like they're actively doing something but nothing valuable actually happens.

Sorry honey, but the kid will have to just shit himself because I'm taking a stand?

Look honey - I got the diapers without being added to Yet Another Database.

Re:refund

[Just Some Guy]

I didn't want to be in their database. I would think that would be a defensible motive on Slashdot of all places. Sure, I had my license. No, I didn't want to hand over my personal information to the disgruntled clerk.

Re:refund

[ukyoCE]

I'm new to this thread, but was curious for a real answer to this:

"Do you live some kind of anonymous, cash-only existence off the info grid?"

I've always had mixed feelings+results on avoiding giving out SSN and driver's license numbers. Basically if it's something I really want/need I give in, but if it's particularly absurd or something I don't care about I'll take a stand and say no.

Grocery store "loyalty" cards are a perfect example. For a long time I would use the cashier's every time I went to the store so that I could get the REAL price. Then some stores cracked down and I would have to apply for a new one every trip to the supermarket (ie: use the new card and throw the application in the trash). Eventually I gave up :\

Re:refund

[swb]

That's the whole lie to all of it. Unless you have been living an all-cash existence for the last 10 years, you are so tracked and databased that the idea of withholding your driver's license (which changes every time they re-issue it in my state) on any one transaction is just kind of naive.

There's wisdom to not handing out your SSN to everyone that asks (its even on the ATF gun transfer form, but you can refuse, and I do whenever I buy a gun) unless they are granting you credit.

Re:refund

[poopdeville]

Just use a fake identity. Sure, they can track sales to "you". But it is an anonymous "you", not connected to the real world aside from their statistical model. Who cares what statistics think? They're wrong most of the time, statistically speaking. (I work as a statistician, this week)

Re:refund

[ukyoCE]

Well, if you're using a credit card, they can tie the fake identity to your credit card.

But of course for that matter, if I use the same credit card every time, they can already uniquely track all my purchases.... Bloops.

In Massachusetts?

[Alex Pennace]

I wonder if this would count as an unfair and deceptive practice as described in Massachusetts G.L. 93A.

Re:In Massachusetts?

[ameyer17]

Not sure about that, but this is certainly one way to steal music.

Re:In Massachusetts?

[sjames]

Unless WalMart freely offers non-DRM replacements or a full refund, it should be treated as a massive number of petty thefts.

It's really no different than selling someone a single, then stealing it back from them.

Re:In Massachusetts?

[crenshawsgc]

Should be treated as a massive number of petty thefts? Calling this action "petty theft" is absurd.

Re:In Massachusetts?

[MooUK]

Taking a single you'd bought from you could be classed as petty theft. Hence the grandparent's point.

Re:In Massachusetts?

[dummondwhu]

It's more like them installing a new windshield in your car and then throwing a rock through it as you drive off the premises.

Re:In Massachusetts?

[TechForensics]

As a MA attorney let me tell you this would be a case I wouldn't hesitate to take on, even if for an individual and not a class. Ch. 93A defines a "deceptive act or practice" broadly and if you win, the defendant (Wal-Mart) pays your legal fees.

DRM is dead

[batray]

This is why DRM is dead and should never return

Re:DRM is dead

[Yvan256]

DRM Collector: Bring out yer dead.
Wal-Mart: Here's one.
DRM Collector: That'll be seventy-nine cents.
DRM'ed WMA File: I'm not dead.
DRM Collector: What?
Wal-Mart: Nothing. There's your seventy-nine cents.
DRM'ed WMA File: I'm not dead!
DRM Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Wal-Mart: Yes he is.
DRM'ed WMA File: I'm not!
DRM Collector: He isn't.
Wal-Mart: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
DRM'ed WMA File: I'm getting better.
Wal-Mart: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
DRM Collector: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
DRM'ed WMA File: I don't want to go on the cart.
Wal-Mart: Oh, don't be such a baby.
DRM Collector: I can't take him.
DRM'ed WMA File: I feel fine.
Wal-Mart: Oh, do me a favor.
The Dead Collector: I can't.
Wal-Mart: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
DRM Collector: I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine thousand music files today.
Wal-Mart: Well, when's your next round?
DRM Collector: Thursday.
DRM'ed WMA File: I think I'll go for a walk.
Wal-Mart: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
DRM'ed WMA File: I feel happy! I feel happy!
[the DRM Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the DRM'ed WMA File with his a whack of his club]
Wal-Mart: Ah, thank you very much.
DRM Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Wal-Mart: Right.

Re:DRM is dead

[ducomputergeek]

I don't see iTunes and FairPlay going anywhere anytime soon. Hell, even after their spat earlier in the year when NBC moved to Amazon after Apple said no to their pricing scheme is now back on iTunes. But then again, I've said Apple got it right years ago. Offers some kind of production the media companies want, yet once I download it, I am free do whatever I want, like burning to CD's, installing and playing on a number of PC's/MP3 players, etc. without a lot of hassles. In the end, consumers don't mind DRM so long as it is reasonable.

Obtrusive Draconian DRM designed to make you pay for every device you want to listen on, etc.. Yeah, that idea is pretty much dead.

Re:DRM is dead

[Yvan256]

I only bumped into FairPlay two times.

The first is when I tried to move a DRM'ed AAC file to an old Win98SE laptop (so I simply went and got the same tune as an MP3 file from P2P, since I had already paid for the tune).

The second is when I tried to play a rented movie from another computer. Turns out, you can't watch the movie from another computer, it has to be on the one you rented the movie from (even if the other computer is in your list of 5 allowed computers). I could have moved the movie to my AppleTV or my iPod touch, but I needed to watch it on my laptop. It's annoying that rented movies don't have the same limitations as purchased ones.

Re:DRM is dead

[meist3r]

I always thought DRM was a parrot ...

Re:DRM is dead

[Graff]

I don't see iTunes and FairPlay going anywhere anytime soon. Hell, even after their spat earlier in the year when NBC moved to Amazon after Apple said no to their pricing scheme is now back on iTunes. But then again, I've said Apple got it right years ago. Offers some kind of production the media companies want, yet once I download it, I am free do whatever I want, like burning to CD's, installing and playing on a number of PC's/MP3 players, etc. without a lot of hassles. In the end, consumers don't mind DRM so long as it is reasonable.

True but that being said, I'm glad that Apple is pushing the music companies for DRM-free music. iTunes Plus is a great thing, you get higher quality, DRM-free music for about the same price as the lower quality, DRM music. Apple even has a way for you to convert your old music to iTunes Plus so you don't have to worry about the old DRM stuff.

Now if they can only get all of the music companies on board so all of my songs could be DRM-free then I'd truly be happy. Until then I'll buy DRM-free stuff from iTunes and buy and rip CDs for the rest. Then again maybe I'll just altogether skip the companies that don't support iTunes Plus in the first place...

Re:DRM is dead

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

While I agree that fairplay is likely to be around for a fair while yet, it isn't all that structurally different from the DRM used in this case. Subscription service WMDRM phones home frequently, so a shutdown of the activation servers will actively hose you within 30 days or so; but ordinary "purchased" WMDRM tracks are playable for the life of activated machines, as with fairplay. If fairplay activation servers went down, you'd be exactly as hosed as the people in TFA(which is to say, as soon as you need to activate a new device).

Re:DRM is dead

[2sheds]

I wish to register a complaint...

Re:DRM is dead

[Fumus]

Did you try copying your DRM licence on to the other computer?

Re:DRM is dead

[NormalVisual]

Apple even has a way for you to convert your old music to iTunes Plus so you don't have to worry about the old DRM stuff.

For a substantial fee, of course.

Re:DRM is dead

[meist3r]

We're closing for lunch. Oh, yes, uh ... the DRM? What's wrong with it?

Re:DRM is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

while this is true, you forget that apple is the leader and sells / sold millions of drm'ed tracks. in comparison to walmart, who probably just sold a couple of hundredthousands this makes for a big argument in why they'll never shut down their servers. there'd be too much of a public uproar.
The main reason why I use iTunes is that they're the leader and they sell millions of tunes. It's basically become a standard - and standards stay. All these WMA DRM thingies on the other hand: Most of the time they were in the responsibility of corporations who didn't sell to much, or to whom the actual selling of digital music had no core value whatsoever. Observing Apple again: With their iPod / iPhone flagships as a major part of the corporate infrastructure, they basically can't - by design - shut down their servers.
And even in the unlikely event that Apple'd go bankrupt, I guess the trillions of users would quickly find a solution to open-source and publicly continue running the servers.

It's like with CD, DVD what else. Keep to the standards, and everything is well. I could never understand why people would buy from these weird small WMA DRM niches. Weird folks.

Re:DRM is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree about I-Tunes; they were also a perfectly acceptable middle-ground for me, but once I met Amazon's DRM-free music downloads, I was hooked.

Re:DRM is dead

[supernova_hq]

The Dead Collector: I can't.

You missed one...

Re:DRM is dead

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

No, I'm pretty sure you can just redownload the music as it becomes available on iTunes Plus.

Re:DRM is dead

[Yvan256]

You have to pay the price difference (which was 30 cents USD/CAD last time I checked).

Re:DRM is dead

[Graff]

You have to pay the price difference (which was 30 cents USD/CAD last time I checked).

It's true that if there is a price difference you'll pay the difference. However, most songs are offered at the same price now so in most cases it is a free download.

Re:DRM is dead

[Graff]

Did you try copying your DRM licence on to the other computer?

I've never had a problem using Apple's FairPlay but you can't just copy your license to another computer. You have up to 5 licenses available and you can de-authorize computers to free up licenses. In the case that you can't use the computer to de-authorize it you can just call Apple and have them reset it manually for you.

It's very easy and it mostly just gets out of your way but it is DRM no matter which way you slice it. That's why I'm glad Apple is pushing to remove it as a requirement for selling the music companies music.

Re:DRM is dead

[NormalVisual]

In my case, Apple wants to charge $7.20 to upgrade two albums ($3.00 each) and four songs ($0.30 each) in my collection, ALL of which are available as iTunes Plus tracks at the same price as they were originally in their lower-quality, DRM'd form.

Re:DRM is dead

[Graff]

In my case, Apple wants to charge $7.20 to upgrade two albums ($3.00 each) and four songs ($0.30 each) in my collection, ALL of which are available as iTunes Plus tracks at the same price as they were originally in their lower-quality, DRM'd form.

Write to them, maybe the store is charging you by mistake. I've bought a bunch of stuff from the iTunes store and occasionally there are mistakes made but I've had them quickly cleared up when I contacted Apple.

Re:DRM is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

has not anybody realized what the first letter
in WMA stands for.

That should say it all right there~~~

Somehow Bill gates is just laughing all the
way to the bank!!!

Re:DRM is dead

[wvmarle]

When really no-one bumps in the limits of DRM, what is the use of the DRM? It's designed to put restrictions on what one can do with a digital file: if no-one ever meets those restrictions there is no use to include it in the first place.

Re:DRM is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

I only bumped into FairPlay two times.

Try playing the Fairplay'd H.264 file in anything but Quicktime/iTunes. You'll "bump into it" every single time.

Re:DRM is dead

[bill_mcgonigle]

I don't see iTunes and FairPlay going anywhere anytime soon

CD's are supposed to last a hundred years. Copyright is currently a bit longer than that. Digital storage ought to continue to be trivial for the rest of our foreseeable lifetimes.

Think FairPlay will last that long?

I bought many songs from Apple while JHymn was available, now Amazon gets my money and my descendants will get my music. I have a few AES iTMS songs which I bought before I realized the format changed, and I fully expect they'll become inoperable within 20 years. But, hey, maybe I'll have a quantum AES cracker by then.

A change.

[Sasayaki]

An interesting change in the wind. Suddenly, DRM is not just bad for consumers but good for re-sellers, where the cost of pissing off your clientele has to be weighed vs the cost of producing DRM-laden product, but aside from being utterly useless it actually harms the company directly by costing it money.

This is something that companies will listen to- and quickly. I suspect that this begins the downward spiral of heavy-handed DRM.

At least, I hope so...

Re:A change.

[Sasayaki]

...but good for re-sellers

That should be- bad for re-sellers.

Re:A change.

[harry666t]

> I suspect that this begins the downward spiral of heavy-handed DRM.

Heh, is it a NIN reference? (:

Re:A change.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one case where a mega corp will be on our side, sellers like walmart rely on huge volume of sales to make money, they very much want a product that people want to buy, an unpopular product does not get shelf space.

Likewise they don't want to be stuck maintaining a service they are not getting any money from.

If walmart decides they don't want to fuck around with DRM for the benefit of the recording industry and leans on the recording industry to that effect it will happen.

Wallmart has massive leverage as a distributor over content creators, walmart is a massive distributor, and if they refuse to do business with you your in a world of hurt.

You think the advent of the internet and indy music groups was bad for CD sales? Watch what happens if walmart pulls the plug on their music section.

Thats the threat walmart has. If walmart decides DRM on music is bad for business, thats it DRM is dead unless the industry wants to pay to maintain the system. And they can't. As long as its a third party running a DRM system they can blame the third party for its failure, not be liable for the system being abandoned. But if the music industry it self is running the servers well then now their directly responsible.

Its hard to hold the RIAA responsible if the yahoo music store goes under, but if its the RIAA's music store thats a whole nother ball game.

HAHAHA tag?

[zappepcs]

A lot of people said it, long ago. DRM won't work for this very reason (and many others) and now those who were legal, and honest, and bought DRM'd content have to suffer AGAIN. It's not just Wal-Mart, how many other content providers also shut down, or screwed their customers by dropping or changing the DRM.

Me? I'm still sitting back, waiting for the industry to calm down and pull their heads out. Punishing the customer won't stop the criminals, never will. Now that the US Dollar is about to be worth ... next to nothing, they will have to kiss customer's asses to get them to spend money. We'll see how this all plays out. Even the DOJ doesn't like the **AA's game plan. It's falling apart on them. Wal-Mart is NOT a small retailer. This is a large nail in the coffin that DRM will be put to rest in.

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[EastCoastSurfer]

People are STILL buying DRM tracks?? At this point I don't blame the retailers, but the consumer. Amazon has been selling DRM free tracks for a long time now, and they're usually cheaper to boot!

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[zappepcs]

Damn, that did kind of sound elitist. Anyone with ideas on how to educate the general population? I'm in the group that is lamenting societies ability to ignore people who do understand. Worse, I also lament about political figures who ignore good advice on purpose. No wonder people drink!

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[rohan972]

Anyone with ideas on how to educate the general population [on DRM]?

Shut down the Wal-Mart DRM servers.

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[zappepcs]

Somebody should mod that funny

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[rohan972]

Funny? Dammit, it's informative!
:-)

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[princessproton]

People are STILL buying DRM tracks?? At this point I don't blame the retailers, but the consumer. Amazon has been selling DRM free tracks for a long time now, and they're usually cheaper to boot!

Sometimes there's really no other choice. I have about 15 Wal-Mart DRM tracks because it was the ONLY place I could find those particular songs/arrangements. For less popular genres (choral, instrumental, karaoke, etc.) it can often be difficult to find viable alternatives since they are often too rare to download and not offered DRM-free anywhere else.

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[zappepcs]

+3 funny
+3 informative
+3 True but sad
+3 Good idea
---
+12 good comment

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[TheRaven64]

Amazon's store, last time I checked, was US-only. iTunes covers a large percentage of the connected world, and there are still a lot of things that are on iTunes but not iTunes Plus.

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[EastCoastSurfer]

Amazon's store, last time I checked, was US-only

You mean the internet exists outside the US? :p

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[EastCoastSurfer]

Sometimes there's really no other choice. I have about 15 Wal-Mart DRM tracks because it was the ONLY place I could find those particular songs/arrangements. For less popular genres (choral, instrumental, karaoke, etc.) it can often be difficult to find viable alternatives since they are often too rare to download and not offered DRM-free anywhere else.

I see where you're coming from. When I run into tracks like that (usually it's some form of classical) I just buy the CD. IMHO, buying single tracks is generally most helpful when it comes to 'pop' music.

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[BronsCon]

Punishing the customer won't stop the criminals, never will.

That should read "Punishing the customer will increase the criminals' numbers, always will."

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[princessproton]

True. I obviously prefer to go the CD route if at all possible. However, I've found when searching for specific karaoke/instrumental arrangements (Broadway tunes or more obscure choral arrangements), they can be extremely difficult to find at all, so my purchasing options are extremely limited, often with no full CD available. Wal-Mart was one of the few places that had a decent selection of these types of tracks (available only for download). So the choice then becomes how badly do I want it? Is a DRM purchase really worth it? For a few it is, but then we're back to the original problem when things like this go down. Still, as inconvenient as it is for me, I don't mind because it's still a step in the right direction.

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[krbvroc1]

Shut down the iTunes servers.

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[nurb432]

What might happen is the RIAA becomes the key holder. They are invested into keeping the servers alive to keep people buying the 'music' and might just step up to keep in control.

Sort of like how Microsoft holds the 'keys' even tho you buy their products from a reseller.

I want it to go away as much as anyone, but i am not naive enough to think this is the end. This is just a minor skirmish in a much longer war.

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[supernova_hq]

Buddy, if anyone outside of Apple knew how to do that, it would have been done long ago...

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[gad_zuki!]

The honest people are now going to have DRM-free tracks with half the audio quality too.

Protected WMA > CD > compressed again to MP3 or WMA.

Is walmart serious? This is a joke. Give us an app that will strip the DRM without audio quality loss. Anything less is borderline fraud and false advertising.

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[Wicked Zen]

Shut it down! Shut it down FOREVER!

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[TechForensics]

Even the DOJ doesn't like the **AA's game plan. It's falling apart on them.

It's difficult to see how you can say this when the Senate has just passed the Pro-IP Act. The **AAs are popping corks on the Dom Perignon about now.

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

as a p2p leecher i can only protest for calling us criminals! we would prefer to be called evil gangsters that rape grandma's

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[seeker_1us]

DRM is working just like it was really supposed to: it's going to make people buy music over and over again.

Re:HAHAHA tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just Wal-Mart, how many other content providers also shut down, or screwed their customers by dropping or changing the DRM.

Growing list of stranded customers

Almost had to re-buy all of their music...

[Doug52392]

My sister (who is obsessed with music) bought hundreds of dollars worth of music from Wal-Mart's music downloading service. Recently, her MP3 player started acting strange and refused to play any DRM songs, so I had to reformat the whole MP3 player and resync all of her music to it. (There was also serious filesystem corruption)

If Wal-Mart had ended their DRM support yesterday...

Re:Almost had to re-buy all of their music...

[astrosmash]

Most of the music people acquire falls out of fashion after a few short years. Nonetheless, it's always a good idea to backup your favorite music, regardless of the format in which it was purchased. Luckily, these days it has never been easier to do just that; there's really no excuse not to.

Re:Almost had to re-buy all of their music...

[TheRaven64]

Most of the music people acquire falls out of fashion after a few short years.

Is this really true? I have no idea, so I'd be interested in seeing some percentages, but I have bought very little music that I don't still listen to regularly. Do most people really spend money on music that they are only going to listen to a few times? If so, it would explain why so many turn to piracy - an album doesn't seem too expensive when you think that you'll listen to it a few hundred times over the years, but if you're only going to listen to it a few dozen then it's pretty extortionate.

Re:Almost had to re-buy all of their music...

[Anonymous Coward]

What you meant to say.. Most of the music produced today falls out of fashion after a few short years...

And even if she had a backup, but had to restore it to her new PC, the files/backup themselves would be worthless. Since she cant get a new license for the music on the new PC.

Re:Almost had to re-buy all of their music...

[MMC Monster]

It is true. The problem is, you won't know which of the tracks you bought now you will still listen to 5 years down the line.

Think that's true of only stuff from the last decade? What about all those other acts from the 60s that didn't make it big (eg: the vast majority of them). Surely someone must have bought their albums...

Re:Almost had to re-buy all of their music...

[Paracelcus]

Go here.
http://undrm.info/remove-DRM-protection/

Re:Almost had to re-buy all of their music...

[harry666t]

> Most of the music people acquire falls out of fashion after a few short years.

This is very sad. It is just a proof of how much today's mainstream music is worth. Bands like Pink Floyd, King Crimson, Led Zeppelin - they were releasing their first albums in late 60s or early 70s, and they rocked, and they kept on rocking until they (for various reasons) couldn't do music anymore. 1973's Dark Side Of The Moon was arguably the best album in the whole history of music, and 1994's Division Bell was still a great piece of art, so it's a proof that a band could still be excellent at songwriting after the years, and after the commercial success (even, for example in the case of Pink Floyd, despite the lack of a key member (Waters)).

More modern musicians also show that they can make music that is great no matter how old it gets. For example, Tool. They've made six albums (one EP, one live), the oldest one dates back to 1992. They're ALL great. I'd say that they didn't release a ONE single song in their whole career that was weak. Hell, I'd even say that they hadn't released a single song that I didn't love. People talk about album-fillers, songs written just so that there's something to go along with the one or two good pieces, to justify the price of a full album. AEnima, Tool's 1996 release, contained 15 tracks, many of them were clearly just intros to other songs or interludes. I can't imagine that album without any single one of them.

Another band - I think almost everyone on /. now knows Nine Inch Nails. It's irony that their music is tagged as "industrial", "industrial metal", and yet Reznor is the guy who is extending his middle finger towards "the industry". And hell, he's yet another great musician. Their last release, "The Slip" must be their best album (so far it maybe can lose to "And all that could have been" and "Ghosts I-IV", I haven't decided yet; I usually just enjoy the music). And it is that album he released FOR FREE, under the Creative Commons license.

Why is mainstream music so shitty? There are simply lots of creative bastards everywhere out there, but all that the industry is caring about is buck. Of course they want an easy buck, and being creative and making interesting, inspired music isn't easy. But the worst part of this crap is that they're forcing all these "pro-IP" laws upon us, effectively turning what should serve as a scheme for protecting artists into a $-spewing machine. I know I'm not stating anything new (at least not to /. users), but it's just sickening me, how wicked crazy this shit is. Another side effect of all of this, is that even legitimate users and exchangers of *free* art are punished (there were such incidents in Poland, for example). ZAiKS, our own (polish) RIAA equivalent, insisted on charging people with fees for "illegally sharing" CC music! That's it: it doesn't even "protect" these artists, it also ignores the fact that this. music. is. Free!

I have never, ever bought a single DRMed track. It's long since I've stopped buying these overpriced CDs (wasn't buying many of them anyway). Especially overpriced in Poland, where a single CD could cost 60 to 80 zloty (25 - 35 $), sometimes even more. When I saw my friend's collection of original CDs (full discographies of many bands), I couldn't stand and just told him that he made a great job of supporting these pimps that turn the music into a whore.

Just a random rant of an unknown artist.

Re:Almost had to re-buy all of their music...

[sjames]

Probably true but meaningless. Much of the music I listen to is long out of fashion. I suspect most people continue to listen to their old music, at least from time to time without regard to fashion.

The biggest variance is that some also listen to newer music, others don't really.

Re:Almost had to re-buy all of their music...

[Anonymous Coward]

....then she could just download all the music via p2p. the horror.

Re:Almost had to re-buy all of their music...

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost had to re-buy all of their music...

No you didn't.

So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

just change the file header

Won't someone think of the marketers?

[David Gerard]

Incidents like this, as well as the general pain in the backside factor, mean that customers loathe and despise DRM.

But the marketers know their major label affiliated clients insist on DRM.

So what do they do? Lie. Sony and Nokia, MySpace - all advertised as "DRM-free" and never mind the little detail of being nothing of the sort!

Don't you have truth in advertising laws there or something?

Re:Won't someone think of the marketers?

[TomHandy]

I don't think the MySpace thing is a lie - if you actually buy your music, it is done through the Amazon MP3 store, which is certainly DRM-free. The thing with MySpace Music is that you can also stream any music for free (with ads/etc.) but you can't download it, but you're also not paying for it, so it's not really a big deal. The buying part is Amazon MP3.

Vote of no confidence

[Skapare]

DRM cannot be trusted. DRM retailers cannot be trusted to keep up the support. This is why people should never buy DRM.

Unexpected

[Minervine]

Having purchased a DRM track from Wal-Mart a long time ago to try out the service, I received an e-mail recently from them about the service shutdown. Interestingly enough, they provided this advice to users:

If you have purchased protected WMA music files from our site prior to Feb 2008, we strongly recommend that you back up your songs by burning them to a recordable audio CD. By backing up your songs, you will be able to access them from any personal computer.

I didn't expect them to okay users to resort to the analog-hole, something that many companies and legislators have been trying to stop for years. Will other DRM services be this forgiving when they shut down their servers?

Re:Unexpected

[Dutch Gun]

The WMA DRM protection system can explicitly allow or disallow users to burn CD audio from the encrypted files. It's not necessarily using the analog output, which would obviously have to be redigitized, resulting in further quality loss.

Also, they can't really stop the "analog hole" until they implant DRM-laden microchips in our ears, and forcibly encode all the world's audio sources. Or ban all consumer microphones and recording devices.

Re:Unexpected

[spire3661]

How is re-encoding your .wmvs to .wav and then laying down that info on a CD in ANY WAY using the 'analog-hole'?

Re:Unexpected

[Ynot_82]

because you're playing the DRM'd music through your soundcard and capturing the output of the soundcard back to a digital file

digital (DRM'd WMA) -> decrypt & decode -> analogue (waveform) -> digital (WAV) -> digital (mp3 / ogg / whatever)

Re:Unexpected

[callmetheraven]

because you're playing the DRM'd music through your soundcard and capturing the output of the soundcard back to a digital file

Not necessary. I've recoded Wallyworld wmv's directly to mp3's. The only downside was that the ID3 tag info had to be plugged in manually.

Re:Unexpected

[operagost]

Unless you have some sort of analog computer of which I am unaware, that waveform exists in memory as a digital representation. There would only be analog involved if, for some reason, you couldn't decode the WMA and had to play it back through the line-out of your sound card to another recording device.

Re:Unexpected

[Khyber]

you forgot the downside of lossy conversion from one lossy format to another lossy format. Never again will I do a direct shift from WMA to MP3.

Re:Unexpected

[rolfwind]

I didn't expect them to okay users to resort to the analog-hole, something that many companies and legislators have been trying to stop for years. Will other DRM services be this forgiving when they shut down their servers?

Forgiving? Let me get this straight - they sell you a product that relies on their server up to 6 months ago, and then decide they don't feel like supporting said service, they make you go in circles making sure it always works. Burning to a CD? That's why people went to iPods and away from walkmans/whatever...

If Walmart wanted to make this right, they'd have tracked all the downloads a person made and then offered a DRM-free version of that song to them for free download. Instead of wasting people's time to cut their own costs. At least give the same amount on credit that a person bought.

Jeez. If they put "purchase" anywhere on that store, as it stands now, they should be sued for issuing what are in essence limited time rentals when people thought they were buying.

Re:Unexpected

[ProfessionalCookie]

Write them back and ask them for a spindle of CDs.

Re:Unexpected

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The sequence was the same - it just kept the part where it was converting to analogue hidden, since there's no reason to involve you.

Re:Unexpected

[fermion]

If a tape player broke, one would have to buy another one or not use a tape. All those vinyl records, one either had to keep a record player or just scrap them. It only recently has become easy to transfer analog recording. The CDs are easy to transfer so no one noticed when we moved to mp3 players. Any, or course if the media got damaged, you were SOL

The thing is that formats change all the time. This is nothing interesting. Songs were bought in one format, and now they are in another. It is even less of deal because it costs two orders of magnitude less to burn tracks to cd than to buy new ones. With proper backups, you need never rebuy content, which is of course is what kept media executives up a night. In the old days, i notice that the may have bought the some content in two or three differnt forms.

And this is not an analogue hole. The analogue hole is, for instance, hooking up the speaker out from one computer to the speaker in to another. This is some fortunate sanity put into the music DRm to allow valid backups, something that does not exist in most video DRMs.

If there is a lesson to be learned from this, it is that DRM without a digital hole is bad. Many of us bought VHS recordings and we were stuck tapes that were not very useful. Back them, most had copy protection so you could not even make a crappy backup. But we did not know any better. DVDs improved the situation a bit because a digital copy can be made. Now we have blueray, which costs more but in some sense is worth less because the industry is fighting even harder to make sure no one can copy it. And if you break the media, then you are SOL. Digital downloads are almost as bad, but at least backups are possible, but not real backups. And when the DRM servers go dark, then we have a problem. There appears no simple way to move this to DRM free, unless, or course, the exectutives provide us with one out the goodness of their hearts. So at least the video industry is winning.

Re:Unexpected

[dcollins]

"Also, they can't really stop the "analog hole" until they implant DRM-laden microchips in our ears, and forcibly encode all the world's audio sources. Or ban all consumer microphones and recording devices."

For god's sake, don't give them any more ideas.

Re:Unexpected

[NuclearKangaroo]

This isn't really that "forgiving" of an option. You're still getting screwed, because when you go to make an MP3 of your "backed up" tracks off of that Audio CD, you're going to be getting an audibly lower quality file for your troubles.

The music lost quality the first time it was compressed into the WMA format. Burning it to a CD doesn't further reduce the audio quality, but it doesn't undo the compression artifacts either. That second compression will further degrade your music.

Thanks WalMart! If this isn't already illegal, it must become so. I'm not voting for anyone who isn't going to do something about how badly consumers are being treated nowadays.

Re:Unexpected

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not only going analog that affects quality loss - encoded (unless it is lossless compression, which walmarts tracks are not) -> CD -> MP3 (or anything else that is not lossless) = further quality loss.

So unless you want to burn to cd and then rio to flac, you are losing quality.

Re:Unexpected

[spire3661]

I assumed it worked like iTunes, where it directly converts, instead of recording the analog output.

Why not replace the DRM'ed songs with non-DRM'ed?

[ktappe]

I don't understand why they don't do the obvious--replace all customers' DRM'ed songs with the equivalent non-DRM'ed copy. Customers have their same tracks, WallyWorld doesn't have to maintain their DRM servers.

Oh, wait....the RIAA won't get to double-dip customers if that happens. Now I see.

And EA wonders...

[Sniper511]

...why we have a problem with their newest DRM model.

(Yes, I'm aware they claim they'll release a patch before they turn off the servers, but if they go bankrupt tomorrow and can't PAY anyone to develop said patch, then what?)

Re:And EA wonders...

[Nobody Real]

if they go bankrupt tomorrow and can't PAY anyone to develop said patch, then what? Just use the patch the pirates have been using since before the game was officially released.

Re:And EA wonders...

[Sniper511]

Good point... Never thought I'd be rooting for the pirates.

Re:And EA wonders...

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably have the patches done already. The testers won't want the hassle when it comes to new patches being tested, and EA will want to be able to shut support off after a few years (See NFS:U as an example) to save money on bandwidth and server hardware.

Why bother maintaining an activation system for a game that no-one's buying any more? Patch the game out and repurpose the system for a new release.

Re:And EA wonders...

[jagdish]

Ditto with Valve. What happens when they drop Steam. Now I've heard they will provide some sort of unlock for all their games, but since they are out of business where will I get the said patch from? Will they be kind enough to mail me an unlocked copy?

Re:And EA wonders...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully they've already got the thing written somewhere "just in case." If not, there goes a few hundred dollars...

File this under "Things I wish I had thought of before I clicked 'confirm purchase'". Kind of a big file. Sadly.

Re:And EA wonders...

[FutureDomain]

Simple solution, just develop the patch now and release it when the company goes bankrupt.
Even better, put the patch in escrow so if the company just shuts down, then the patch can still be released.

~FutureDomain~

Another one bites the dust

[fsterman]

Why isn't there a tracker page at Defective By Design for how many of these DRM services have died? Google's video, Yahoo's music service, MSN Music, MTV, MLB.tv, CSS, etc?

Re:Another one bites the dust

[hannson]

I wonder what the ratio of good-will:maintaining-DRM-servers is for these huge corporation... really how much can a drm-server cost in maintenance compared to the PR mess for corporations like Google and Yahoo when they shut down the DRM servers

Two Words:

[Anonymous Coward]

Licensing agreement.

Re:Two Words:

[sp332]

If they really can't get "permission" from the RIAA (I know they're big, but I bet they still don't want to go up against Wal-Mart!), someone from the inside should leak the DRM authentication key.

DRM's limited lifetime

[Adrian Lopez]

"But that's never going to happen to [DRM service X]. The company behind [DRM service X] is just too big and profitable!"

Re:DRM's limited lifetime

[WTF Chuck]

Yes, very true, big profitable companies would never shut down their DRM server. It's not like MSN Music, or some of the other big boys will ever go away.

DRM Escrow

[peterofoz]

Companies that sell or license products with the built in DRM time bomb should have to put the keys to that product into a software escrow. The escrow acts as a kind of insurance against the company going out of business or to discontinue the service. This approach has been used by large companies for years to ensure the source code for the expensive new core system they bought from a start up would be around if the start up should fail. This will probably take some kind of government regulation to make it happen because individual consumers are too small to push this through. Anyone want to start such a service? It would probably just involve parking some servers in a data center with 2 or 3 spares in the box and maintaining them for 20 years. We can call it The National Museum of DRM Failure.

Re:DRM Escrow

[Dutch Gun]

Or, we could just refuse to support DRM in *any* way, and watch it die a lingering, painful death.

Your suggestion is perfectly reasonably from a technical standpoint, but it grants DRM legitimacy in the consumer mind. I don't mean to be insensitive to individual's plights, but... painful lessons tend to be the best-learned lessons. If people realize that DRM'ed music is essentially held hostage by the sellers, and is therefore riskier to buy, than ultimately that's a good thing for moving things in a better direction - that is, sales of DRM-free digital products.

Re:DRM Escrow

[mxs]

You are assuming that the coke-high RIAA executives will do something in the interest of the consumer. They will not. This will not happen.

Re:DRM Escrow

[Anonymous Coward]

If only there were some sort of company with billions of dollars that would be guaranteed to survive decades down the line. Someone that understands a bit about DRM, maybe even dabbled in it, maybe even sold "functions absolutely certainly" solutions to other companies. They would be in a perfect position to provide escrow.

iTunes

[Nerdfest]

I suspect the sale of DRMed music still exceeds the sale of non-DRMed music, thanks to Apple. I don't have any figures to back that up, but they have a huge market share.

Re:iTunes

[TomHandy]

As far as Apple's concerned they still want to do iTunes Plus for everything. I'm still a little baffled that most of the music labels still aren't giving up on this. At this point it is still solely about the labels wanting to do what they can to prop up other music stores like Amazon's MP3 store, which has certainly established itself. You'd think at this point they'd go ahead and say that they've made their point and succeeded in helping to make another music store successful, and go ahead and let Apple sell DRM-free stuff for everything that they let Amazon/etc. sell.

As it is, since Apple's iTunes Plus is still in AAC format, it shouldn't be such a big deal since the AAC format is not as supported with other devices/players as MP3, so Amazon's MP3 store would still have an advantage over iTunes.

Re:iTunes

[samkass]

I suspect the sale of DRMed music still exceeds the sale of non-DRMed music, thanks to the music label's insistence on Apple DRM'ing their music.

There, fixed that for ya. It's all up to the music labels. The only reason Amazon can sell DRM-free music is because the labels let them. And they don't let Apple, because they want Amazon to emerge as a competitor. Once distribution becomes a commodity again, the labels (who have a monopoly over the content) can jack prices back up. Right now it's Apple vs. the labels keeping prices in check. When the labels induce Amazon's success, it will be the consumers against the labels directly... and we know who will win then.

Re:iTunes

[johanatan]

I personally checked the box 'always use iTunes plus' when it first appeared so the last two years of purchases from iTunes for me have been DRM free.

Re:iTunes

[electrictroy]

>>>Amazon's MP3 store would still have an advantage over iTunes.

Yeah except for the fact that MP3 is inferior to AAC. I prefer to buy my stuff in the newer AAC format (or AAC+ SBR if it's available). Similarly I prefer my downloadable videos to use some variant of the newer MPEG4-format rather than MPEG2.

Re:iTunes

[Sancho]

The labels don't want any one distributor to become too big, lest they start making "unreasonable" demands. As long as they can threaten the stores with taking their business elsewhere, they maintain some amount of leverage. Thus, it makes sense to play distributors against each other as much as possible. One way to do that is to ensure that neither carries the full catalog in comparable formats.

Re:iTunes

[Daimanta]

"it will be the consumers against the labels directly... and we know who will win then."

Pirates.

Fuck you **AA!

bit harsh ...

[Anonymous Coward]

with the Offtopic mods. Hit us fast and hard, seems to be more moderation than posting at the moment.

Funny no?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always laugh when people pretend like DRM (be it music, movies, or software) doesn't prevent (any) piracy whatsoever. Of course it does! Nobody is sharing protected files in massive quantities because nobody else can play them! While games are usually cracked withing a few days, look on torrent and warez sites and notice how 90% of people downloading the software can't get it to work. While computer-literate people have an easier time with pirating software, the AVERAGE person is easily deterred by even simple DRM. I'm currently fixing a laptop for a friend, and I can tell that someone tried to install a pirated copy of Windows XP because, lo and behold, the setup was never completed: they didn't have a serial key and couldn't find one that worked.

Yet its true that at the same time corporations and companies are alienating loyal and honest customers with poorly planned and executed DRM tactics. Not only are they hurting their loyal customer base, potential customers are of course deterred and "turned off" by reports and word of mouth when DRM like that which shipped with Spore and Crysis Warhead is publicized.

What the world needs to realize (not just the music industry - the game industry, movie industry, anybody who makes an electronic product) is that it is impossible to prevent bootlegging and piracy. Of course, this has been discussed thoroughly, but the interesting fact remains that nobody comes up with a solution! Only complaints against the current model.

It would be interesting to create a music store where customers could purchase songs and stream them from anywhere. If you wanted to download them you could, albeit with some form of DRM. If the corporation or business were ever to fail, they'd charge a nominal fee to each customer, according to their collection, to burn and send discs with their previously purchased tracks on them, with customers choosing between raw audio discs or flac/mp3 format discs.

I guess the fact people now have to face is, due to technology, the face of everything in the world is changing. The music industry, for example, is no longer a guaranteed get-rich occupation (lets skip the semantics and technicalities and consider the more famous "artists"). One can no longer makes millions and millions off of tapes or CDs. In some ways its sad, in others its an advantage to the customer.

Yet still people press for "better content quality" which is ironic on a computer geek website because as a computer scientist one should well know that you can't please everyone at the same time (thus you get bloatware, with hundreds of features that you might not use, but someone somewhere does). Same applies to something like music.

I really feel its an unanswerable question, at least at the moment. There is no real solution. The only solutions people discuss at this point are "DRM, but alienate customers" and "Nothing, and let piracy grow".

We, as intelligent beings (especially those in computer science), have to acknowledge the fact that piracy IS rampant in todays society, ESPECIALLY among those who know something about computers. Regardless if you do it or not, its a fact that many tech geeks out there do. Out of everyone I know personally only a few have a legit copy of Windows itself, let alone things like music, games, software, and movies.

So eh. What can you do?

Funny no?

[genw3st]

I always laugh when people pretend like DRM (be it music, movies, or software) doesn't prevent (any) piracy whatsoever. Of course it does! Nobody is sharing protected files in massive quantities because nobody else can play them! While games are usually cracked withing a few days, look on torrent and warez sites and notice how 90% of people downloading the software can't get it to work. While computer-literate people have an easier time with pirating software, the AVERAGE person is easily deterred by even simple DRM. I'm currently fixing a laptop for a friend, and I can tell that someone tried to install a pirated copy of Windows XP because, lo and behold, the setup was never completed: they didn't have a serial key and couldn't find one that worked. Yet its true that at the same time corporations and companies are alienating loyal and honest customers with poorly planned and executed DRM tactics. Not only are they hurting their loyal customer base, potential customers are of course deterred and "turned off" by reports and word of mouth when DRM like that which shipped with Spore and Crysis Warhead is publicized. What the world needs to realize (not just the music industry - the game industry, movie industry, anybody who makes an electronic product) is that it is impossible to prevent bootlegging and piracy. Of course, this has been discussed thoroughly, but the interesting fact remains that nobody comes up with a solution! Only complaints against the current model. It would be interesting to create a music store where customers could purchase songs and stream them from anywhere. If you wanted to download them you could, albeit with some form of DRM. If the corporation or business were ever to fail, they'd charge a nominal fee to each customer, according to their collection, to burn and send discs with their previously purchased tracks on them, with customers choosing between raw audio discs or flac/mp3 format discs. I guess the fact people now have to face is, due to technology, the face of everything in the world is changing. The music industry, for example, is no longer a guaranteed get-rich occupation (lets skip the semantics and technicalities and consider the more famous "artists"). One can no longer makes millions and millions off of tapes or CDs. In some ways its sad, in others its an advantage to the customer. Yet still people press for "better content quality" which is ironic on a computer geek website because as a computer scientist one should well know that you can't please everyone at the same time (thus you get bloatware, with hundreds of features that you might not use, but someone somewhere does). Same applies to something like music. I really feel its an unanswerable question, at least at the moment. There is no real solution. The only solutions people discuss at this point are "DRM, but alienate customers" and "Nothing, and let piracy grow". We, as intelligent beings (especially those in computer science), have to acknowledge the fact that piracy IS rampant in todays society, ESPECIALLY among those who know something about computers. Regardless if you do it or not, its a fact that many tech geeks out there do. Out of everyone I know personally only a few have a legit copy of Windows itself, let alone things like music, games, software, and movies. So eh. What can you do?

...an "old-fashioned CD"?

[FlyByPC]

OK, I officially feel old. I mean yeah, CDs are very 1980s (I'm thinking about migrating my mp3 collection to Ogg Vorbis someday), but still...

support isn't free

[Chewbacon]

This is just an expected downfall to DRM. Why sell something you'd have to continue supporting when you could just sell something with little or no support such as DRM-free music? It's for the better. Every time I hear those three letters I roll my eyes.

something people are missing here

[Anonymous Coward]

Wal-Mart's music store didn't shut down. They just stopped doing DRM. That should be considered to be a good thing.

Has anyone thought about lobbying Wal-Mart to offer the DRM-free versions of the DRM tracks that customers had bought, perhaps by paying whatever difference in price there was? That is something that Wal-Mart management might be convinced to do; but it won't happen if all you do is scream at Wal-Mart for shutting down their DRM servers.

In other words, let's make this lemon into lemonade. Let's establish a precedent, that forces DRM stores to distribute DRM-free versions to the customers when the DRM store shuts down.

That, boys and girls, will kill DRM faster than the current tone of bitching and moaning on ./

Re:something people are missing here

[Cyko_01]

mod parent up

Obscure Tracks

[syntek]

One provider I like for obscure tracks is beatport.com(for "Techno") and beatsource.com(for "urban"). They supply DRM tracks and let you download in three formats. MP3 (320 Kbps CBR), WAV (1411 kbps), and MP4 (192 Kbps VBR). I usually download in WAV as I can take this high bit rate and covert down to a smaller more universal format such as MP3 at 192 kbps for my iPod or any format I prefer since it's the high quality version.

Can you say 'Sounds like Shit?'

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing like taking a compressed song dumping to cd and then re-compressing it. Can you say "Sounds Like Shit"?

But the point is a backup would have been useless

[SuperKendall]

Nonetheless, it's always a good idea to backup your favorite music, regardless of the format in which it was purchased.

No it's not.

Not in this case.

For you see, when he went to re-load the backed up music it would re-contact the Walmart DRM server looking for authorization... A server which no longer exists.

Stick it to the users

[nurb432]

If enough people get burnt from companies pulling the plug on their music (books, games, etc), and have it effectively die, perhaps this wont just be a aberration and turn into a real trend where people refuse to buy encumbered files to begin with..

I know its a real long shot, but i can still hope, right?

Wal-Mart?

[purpleraison]

I didn't know Wal-Mart had an online music store, let alone one that was using DRM technology. Oh well, I suppose I'll have to keep downloading my music for free...

The Same thing...

[Ender77]

will happen with EA's DRM games. It's not IF it will happen, It is WHEN it does. One day they will decide to shut down the activation servers because of either money or they go out of business. All the games people have bought will be useless if they ever want to reinstall them at a later date.

Re:The Same thing...

[Repossessed]

I know somebody, somewhere, is thinking 'that will never happen' about the parents post. But please keep in mind that 'never' is a very long time, and Spore has a shot at being a new classic (at least assuming they drop the reinstall limit).

Can you really say you expect them to keep it all the way until ~2100+ when the copyright expires?

Moronic summaries and excessive gloating

[macraig]

Could this summary possibly be any more misleading and confusing? I had no idea what the actual source article was going to describe until I read it firsthand. I thought Slashdot had staff described as editors because they are actually capable of editing effectively?

As far as the subject of the article is concerned, could it possibly gloat any more? Could it possibly rub any more salt in wounds? Here's Wal-Mart, an evil corporation, finally in the process of doing the right thing (for admittedly less than pure reasons), and here's an article deriding the effort because the transition will negatively affect some people? Gimme a break.

I just lost a bit of respect for Cory Doctorow.

WTF

[TRRosen]

Apple gets sued because batteries wear out! But these DRM services can sell lifetime music rights and then shut down the service a couple of years later and not end up on the lossing end of a class action suit!

I mean its not like Wal-Mart is going out of business. They have just decided they don't want to provide the service people have already paid for.

Re:WTF

[WTF Chuck]

The DRM services will be just as liable as soon as the DRM'd media starts causing peoples computers and MP3 players to catch fire.

DMCA exemptions?

[VGPowerlord]

I haven't read the DMCA that closely, but I vaguely remember reading an exemption for breaking DRM if the DRM in question is no longer supported.

Did I imagine it, or is there really wording in there somewhere to that effect?

How about the money that bought the DRM tracks?

[Anonymous Coward]

They took in money from people for those DRM tracks, why doesn't that go to supporting the DRM servers? Forget making more money, they have are responsible for what they've already sold!

Wal-Mart Ends DRM Support FOR MUSIC

[crabboy.com]

Please append the title of the article. I got excited thinking Walmart was actually making a stand on principal and not selling EA games.

Who else saw this comming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the other day we were just paranoid basket cases for thinking that a company shouldn't be able to "protect" "their" stuff.

Re:But the point is a backup would have been usele

[astrosmash]

It's not rocket science. It's only audio, and it's very easy to work with.

There are plenty of ways to backup that don't involve DRM, but it really won't matter until there is a mass of people who want to remove the DRM from their purchased music. Of course, if there was a mass of people using Wal-Mart's music service they wouldn't have shut it down in the first place.

Re:Why not replace the DRM'ed songs with non-DRM'e

[Anonymous Coward]

If the RIAA license DRM and non-DRM separately (as I'd guess they do) they'd get to double-dip even if Walmart re-issued. The only difference is that the second payment would be from Walmart's pocket.

Re:But the point is a backup would have been usele

[dadragon]

They're not shutting down their music service. They're shutting down their DRM service. They seem to be going DRM free from now on.

Last time I bought a DRM track...

[SupremoMan]

It broke my MP3 player to a point where I had to mail it to the manufacturer and they wiped it's memory. I got a place where you can put your DRM, it's generally dark and not accessible while pants are on.

Product Exchange.

[schlick]

Well maybe they will allow the people who bought DRM music to exchange it for non-DRM versions.

Re:Product Exchange.

[ardle]

Well, I've read through the thread til I got to your post and nobody has done any better than say that they might.
If they have no intention of providing replacements for unsupported tracks, then it's just another example of people who run an institution getting ordinary people to pay for that institution's mistakes, isn't it? The customer will pay back the cost of Wal-Mart's DRM experiment (MS tax) by buying the track without DRM now.

Re:But the point is a backup would have been usele

[SuperKendall]

They're not shutting down their music service. They're shutting down their DRM service.

Yes, the DRM SERVICE that allows her MUSIC TO BE PLAYED.

It's just a question of when the system checks against the server. Transferring to a reset player is a very likely time for that to happen.

Backups in general are a great idea, but DRM music is just a blob of goo if the DRM server will not let you play it.

Re:But the point is a backup would have been usele

[SuperKendall]

It's not rocket science. It's only audio, and it's very easy to work with.

Sure, you can always burn out to CD. But that was not the initial advice given, and almost no-one gives that advice. No commercial backup software does this - they just treat the songs as data.

Fairuse4wm

[iamwahoo2]

Just going to throw this out there for anyone who does not want to go to all the effort of getting even with Walmart. If you want to save the music you purchased from Walmart, just use fairuse4wm. I have used it with Walmart songs for several years.

DRM Bill of Rights

[Somebody Is Using My]

Saw this on USENET (yes it still there)

Not sure this work be nice if it work

---

1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.

What it entails for the publisher:

The Publisher is allowed to limit the software's installation to one or more computers based on their hardware configuration and registered online ("Activation"). They must provide a free stand-alone tool, preferably on the same distribution medium, that the User can use to de-authorize previously activated computers. The total number of Activations and De-activations must be unlimited in number, but can be limited as to number of uses in a particular time period.

How It Would Work:

When you install a game, the software must be activated online as is the standard practice today. However, what this Right provides is a method for the User to de-activate an installation so the software can be transferred to another computer, either due to hardware failure, upgrade or resale. This tool needs to be provided free to the user, preferably on the CD/DVD with the game (or downloaded if the game is purchased through digital distribution) and must be stand-alone. De-activation would require proof of ownership (the CD in the drive and the CD-key should be enough), and would display a list of all computers authorized to run that software. The User could then select the computers to be de-activated. Note that this tool does NOT have to be run on the Authorized computer, or require the Authorized software to be installed. In order to prevent misuse of this tool, the Publisher can allow only a certain amount of Authorizations/ DeAuthorizations per day/week/month, but cannot limit the TOTAL amount of de-Authorizations.

2) Right of Activation: If the publisher requires Activation, they must provide some assurance of method to bypass this should the method of Activation no longer be available.

What it entails for the Publisher:

The Publisher is allowed to require the User to Activate their software through the method of their choice. But if that method should no longer be available (be it due to technical or financial reasons), they must ensure that the user can continue to use the software they paid for even though the Activation service is no longer running. This assurance can take many forms; a legal promise to release a patch should the Activation Servers be taken down and a waiving of rights to take legal action of any third-party who rights software to allow the same, or a universal "key" that is held in escrow, to be released only should the Activation servers go down, that allows installation and use of the Software without Activation.

How It Would Work:

Basically, the Publisher needs to provide the User with a "back-door" that can bypass the Activation requirement should they chose to no longer allow Activations, either because it is costing them too much money or they are no longer in business. The best way for the User is if the Publisher has a patch or some sort of universal serial number that allows the User to bypass Activation; this patch/key is held in escrow until the Activation Servers go down and is then released to the general public. Of course, this may dramatically compromise the usefulness of the DRM, so other methods can be used, for example: providing source-code and funds that can be released to pay a programming team to successfully develop a patch after the fact. Alternately (but least palatable to the User) the Publisher can simply promise to release code and not prosecute should a third-party (e.g., a "cracker") want to develop some method to bypass the Activation (but, note, they must provide enough code to make this a possibility)

3) Right to Privacy: Any data-collection from these activation services will be opt-out (except as what is required for activation), will not be matched to any personally identifiable information and it absolutely, positively will not be shared

Where's the class action suit?

[foniksonik]

Seems like some creative lawyers out there should put up a TV ad and get enough victims of this fraud to sign up for a class-action.

Granted nobody will get any money (maybe the cost of the music) except the lawyers (preferably the FSF lawyers)... but this would send a message that DRM should never be considered for anything you purchase for home use.

It will relegate DRM to streaming services, rentals and private documents only.... which is where it should be. If companies want to put out music on a rental policy (or movies) with an extended duration but a cheaper price... hey, go for it. Just make it explicit that it's a rental and will only last for said duration.

transcode original product

[v1]

I don't have any purchased music from wal-mart, but I see this burn-to-cd-and-rip solution as devaluing the product. Transcoded audio is lower quality and is easily argued as less valuable than the original WMA file. So for them to tell me that transcoding it is harmless would be unacceptable. Although I could rip back to flac or something to not LOSE quality, I'd have to lose quality to get it to fit back onto my ipod in a sensible size.

Although my individual chances of getting satisfaction from them would be low, I would be pushing for something more of the class-action type that forces them to produce a DRM-stripping app.

If it's WMA, can't they simply provide an app that has the private key or whatnot in it, that can convert and save as an unprotected WMA file without the transcoding process? WMA supports unencumbered music.

Ultimately what the whole scene needs is legislation saying to vendors "You can play the DRM/authorization game, but if you choose to, you are required to leave an app in escrow somewhere that can losslessly strip the DRM at a future time when you stop providing the auth service either voluntarily or by going out of business". Further, required to set that app in escrow before sales begin, and if there is a change in the DRM (change of key or change in scheme) the new unlocker must be placed in escrow before the new product goes on sale.

I realize some will view this as unacceptable, but compromise on both sides is what keeps the wheels turning. I've seen this idea suggested when the theoretical situation of the vendor folding and shutting down their servers abruptly, but I don't see any reason why that should be the only reasoning behind it. It would prevent problems like this also where the vendor is still in business, and just decides to turn off their servers. The escrow company already has the keys to the music, and it's no longer a matter of drumming up legal action to force the vendor to unlock the goods. The escrow company starts handing out the tools the day the wal-mart announces the servers are being shut down. (or on the day it happens) This needs to be a decision and responsibility that does not depend on the vendor taking action, because some will be unable, and some will simply be unwilling.

Re:Where the list of Failed DRM schemes?

[denis-The-menace]

I've been looking for this list, too.

Add MS' "Plays for Sure" DRM to the list

oh, the irony!

Re:Where the list of Failed DRM schemes?

[denis-The-menace]

To date, I've only found the opposite:

http://www.drmwatch.com/standards/

They are not gods you know...

[jotaeleemeese]

There are countless tales of companies that thought they would get away with it and didn't.

This defeatism is completely irrational. Big companies screw up (gosh, in the view of recent news I should not need to be explaining this) and those fancy lawyers are just fallible, sometimes greedy humans.

If something feels like an injustice it is worth exploring if it really is in the legal sense of the word, and perhaps pursue the corresponding legal redress if worth the effort.