Walmart Caves On DRM Removal

cmunic8r99 writes in with an email he received from walmart.com yesterday evening about the pending shutdown of their DRM services (which we discussed a while back). Walmart has reconsidered and won't be shutting off its DRM servers after all. They are still moving to an all-MP3 store, but won't break all the DRMed music its customers have already downloaded; this because of "feedback from the customers."

Comments

Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Only did this so that people wouldn't sue them.

Re:Wal-Mart

[Gewalt]

this because of "feedback from the customers."

Only did this so that people wouldn't sue them.

You say tomato, I say fruit. Whatever.

Re:Wal-Mart

[Shikaku]

Tagged: suddenoutbreakoflawsuits

Re:Wal-Mart

[jlarocco]

Only did this so that people wouldn't sue them.

What's your point? Walmart was looking out for their bottom line? You don't really think Walmart is in business because they get warm fuzzy feelings selling cheap shit to cheap people, do you? A lawsuit would have been an expensive waste of time for everybody involved, and they almost certainly would have lost. It was clearly in Walmart's best interest to avoid it.

That's the way it's supposed to work.

Re:Wal-Mart

[Schadrach]

IOW, the way it is supposed to work is that they should, whenever the expected lawsuits are less expensive, shut down the DRM servers, and effectively render useless that which their customers have purchased?

You know, I need to start manufacturing things with built-in self destruct switches and simply blow up my customers purchases when I need more sales. =)

Re:Wal-Mart

[BenjiTheGreat98]

Speaking of Tags, does somebody know how to make them not show? I have in my setting 'Show Tags' as unchecked.

Re:Wal-Mart

[cayenne8]

"You know, I need to start manufacturing things with built-in self destruct switches and simply blow up my customers purchases when I need more sales. =)"

If these are in the form of a 'vest'....I think you'll find a ready made market over there in the middle east. Heck....make it voice activated:

LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa....BOOM!

Re:Wal-Mart

[91degrees]

IOW, the way it is supposed to work is that they should, whenever the expected lawsuits are less expensive, shut down the DRM servers, and effectively render useless that which their customers have purchased?

That's exactly how it works. Then Walmart gets sued, ordered to pay compensation to the plaintiffs, and everyone's happy. The victims are compensated and Walmart no longer has to maintain the DRM servers.

You know, I need to start manufacturing things with built-in self destruct switches and simply blow up my customers purchases when I need more sales. =)

Your customers will be able to sue you for the cost of replacing the devices. Not really going to be a great business model.

Re:Wal-Mart

[JosKarith]

Re-tagged as : Business as usual in the U$A

Re:Wal-Mart

[davmoo]

Horse shit. Walmart spends more on toilet paper for their in-store restrooms in a month than a lawsuit over this would have cost them. Plus I'd be willing to bet that there is fine print in the user agreement for all those DRMed tracks somewhere that says words to the effect of "we can turn it off any time with a few days notice and its your problem not ours".

It probably really was customer feedback and the fact that this was making Walmart look bad. Bad press is far more damaging than some piddly ol' nickel and dime lawsuit.

Re:Wal-Mart

[gsgriffin]

Agreed. Those of us in America should live outside America for a while. I got back from living in South Africa for over a year. I wish they had more lawsuits! You heard me right. It because of lawsuit and the threat oif lawsuits that companies take us into consideration and have to build things safer. Ever bought a toaster outside of the US. You'll burn you hand the first time you use it. Not in America. The only toasters you find will be more carefully designed and labeled. Why because of the threat of lawsuits. We still get cheap products. The unsafe products are shipped from China to other parts of the world. Hate the laywer. Like the eventual product.

Re:Wal-Mart

[MightyYar]

Walmart spends more on toilet paper for their in-store restrooms in a month than a lawsuit over this would have cost them.

No, because they would have likely lost the lawsuit and the judge would have done one of two things:
1. Forced them to pay compensation to the people who bought the music.
2. Forced them to escrow money to keep the servers running.

Add in lawyer fees (plaintiff and defendant), and it is clear that they should just take #2 without the fight.

Plus I'd be willing to bet that there is fine print in the user agreement for all those DRMed tracks somewhere that says words to the effect of "we can turn it off any time with a few days notice and its your problem not ours".

I guarantee that is in there somewhere. But that doesn't make it enforceable.

It probably really was customer feedback and the fact that this was making Walmart look bad.

It was probably that, too. Not everything is black and white :) The added publicity from a lawsuit would have been detrimental as well.

Re:Wal-Mart

[jedidiah]

Whatever else you might want to say about Walmart, you at
least have to give them credit for being good at pandering
to their customers. That says as much about the Walmart
shopper as it does Walmart, but that's another rant...

Re:Wal-Mart

[Mister Whirly]

Modded: $tupid overu$e of dollar $ign$

Re:Wal-Mart

[NewWorldDan]

On the plus side, it really highlights to others the long term consequences of selling DRM'd merchandise. DRM should only be used for subscription services. Also, now that WalMart has gone to selling unencumbered MP3s, I've finally started buying music on line.

Re:Wal-Mart

[nabsltd]

Walmart spends more on toilet paper for their in-store restrooms in a month than a lawsuit over this would have cost them.

If you sue for the same sorts of "losses" that the RIAA sues for, then that $100,000+ per track would add up pretty fast.

Even with miserable total sales of 10,000 tracks, that'd be a billion dollar lawsuit.

Re:Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever bought a toaster outside of the US. You'll burn you hand the first time you use it. Not in America. The only toasters you find will be more carefully designed and labeled. Why because of the threat of lawsuits.

I'm going to file a lawsuit against you for dangerous abuse of grammar. Hopefully that will make this post safer to read so my grammar-nazi-trained eyes and brain don't get burned the first time I read it.

Re:Wal-Mart

[Alsee]

I need to start manufacturing things with built-in self destruct switches and simply blow up my customers purchases when I need more sales. =)

Microsoft got the patent on that ages ago.

-

Re:Wal-Mart

[somersault]

A better trigger word would be "nukular"

Re:Wal-Mart

[saintsfan]

I find it interesting that another company is getting pushed into supporting a platform that is no longer part of their future competitive strategy - DRM servers. The long-term cost of DRM will be high for companies that got on bored just as it is to consumers. I think eventually, if it hasn't happened already, both sides will unilaterally oppose it with record labels being the only supporter. hell, even record labels might come to their senses

Re:Wal-Mart

[somersault]

Ever bought a toaster outside of the US. You'll burn you hand the first time you use it. Not in America. The only toasters you find will be more carefully designed and labeled

Would this label say "do not insert hand into toaster while in operation?". Yeesh..

There is a big difference between "outside of the US" and "South Africa". Please stop making such crazy generalisations. I don't think I've ever burned my hand on a toaster..

Re:Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever bought a toaster outside of the US. You'll burn you hand the first time you use it.

The EU has strict standards for electrical equiptment like this and those standards are generally rigourously applied.

Re:Wal-Mart

[guyminuslife]

I'm an Amerikkkan, you insensitive clod.

Re:Wal-Mart

[icsx]

You are propably on the right track. Few big lawsuits would propably be more costly than having those servers up. Think about all that bad press too.

Re:Wal-Mart

[the_arrow]

I don't think I've ever burned my hand on a toaster..

Might it have something to do with you knowing that it is hot, i.e. using your common sense? I will probably be modded flamebait, bit it seems to me that most people in the US of A simply have lost their common sense. While having non-hot toasters, do you also wait with getting the bread from it? Because, you know, it might be hot and you can feel a burning sensation? Well if you do, the obvious choice is of course to sue the maker of the toaster!

Re:Wal-Mart

[Elranzer]

Was the toaster running NetBSD? I can see how you'd get burned.

Re:Wal-Mart

[eniacfoa]

lawyers do good things, lawyers do bad things... You say lawsuits make companies care about us more, but it can also work the other way and americas approach is too lax with frivolous lawsuits the norm. How many times has an undeserving citizen been sued for some frivolous reason? How many times has a smaller business been sued by a bigger one on the back of a frivolous patent claim? How many times has a lawyer convinced a judge with a clever argument, to make something crazy law? Corporations even got a judge to allow them to patent new life forms. I could go on and on...but to cut it short, american society is overall far too unbalanced . Ya'll were conned by ronald reagan big time. And now the system might be so corrupted, the american people so brainwashed, that obama might not be able to fix it.

Re:Wal-Mart

[somersault]

Ye gods, toasters are HOT? We must warn the world! Who knew? Quick, get me my label making kit.. you know - the one with the highly flammable glue?

Re:Wal-Mart

[kenj0418]

> "You know, I need to start manufacturing things with built-in self destruct switches and simply blow up my customers purchases when I need more sales. =)"

It beats using goats to extract the product from the customer -- which is what Stride gum does to boost their sales (according to their commercials anyway).

Re:Wal-Mart

[eniacfoa]

Logic agree's with you, but bean counters only see numbers. I find it hard to believe Spores DRM is perfectly legal. Its just so wrong on so many levels.

Re:Wal-Mart

[pubwvj]

They should be sued. This is one of the mega-reasons against DRM.

Re:Wal-Mart

[Barnett]

Lived in South Africa all my live. Yea, I burn my hand on the toast all the time, especially when I am really hungry and grab it just after it pops out. But here in South Africa we do not blame the manufacturer for that. Barnett

Re:Wal-Mart

[PIBM]

Or this evil plan...

Think about closing the servers .. Save X per months. Cost of the future lawsuits, evaluate to something maybe greater than X, maybe smaller. Add in the bad publicity about closing them and the lawsuit, total losses are greater than the inital X.

Then wonder, what if we'd announce we'd close them, and shortly after get good free publicity about us catering to our users ? So we keep paying for X, but we get 5 * X in return just in the first month!

Anyway =)

Re:Wal-Mart

[Sockatume]

It depends where you go. Europe's nowhere near as litigious as the US (yet), but there's a lot of regulation and testing with regards to product safety, so I'd say that products are every bit as safe as those in the US. And give me a BS 1363 plug over those crazy things you stick in your walls any day of the week. ;)

Re:Wal-Mart

[iplayfast]

I avoid wal-mart. I really don't like standing in line for 1/2 an hour. I shudder to think of what it would be like at Christmas!

That's why I get my wife to go. :)

Re:Wal-Mart

[The PS3 Will Fail]

"I guarantee that is in there somewhere. But that doesn't make it enforceable."

For the good of the discussion, if you're going to make statements like this - preface it with "IANAL". Thanks!

Re:Wal-Mart

[billcopc]

It probably really was customer feedback and the fact that this was making Walmart look bad

This is Walmart we're talking about. They could rape dead babies on the 6pm news every thursday, people would still shop and work there. They are the biggest, most financially destructive corporation on the planet. Who gives a crap about public image ? They have the money, and the power.

Re:Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted AC due to modding. I can't see Obama or McCain fixing any of it. All either of them will do is slap bandages on the problem until people no longer pay attention to them any more. Then it will be business as usual.

Re:Wal-Mart

[SenseiLeNoir]

Ah yes, the good old BS1363 plug! A remarkably engineered product, where the engineering committee thought of literally EVERYTHING, including blinds slipping on the pins while plugged in.

Except for one MAJOR flaw..... when corded up.. they tend to fall on the floor, pins facing up .... and anyone who has experienced it, will tell you..... stepping on one by accident, redefines the meaning of pain!

Thankfully, some manufacturers have cottoned on have had created a pyramidal back, which helps.

For the Americans who don't know what the BS1363 is, it's the Electrical Plug used in the UK :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BS_1363

Re:Wal-Mart

[Toonol]

If you made it clear to the customers up front that your products were going to be obsoleted at your convenience, why not? It wasn't that hard to figure out that the music was going to be turned off at some point; everybody here certainly knew it. Any of Walmart's customers that actually read what they were paying for should have no complaint. And if they didn't read what they were paying for, too bad for them.

Re:Wal-Mart

[gsgriffin]

I hope you meant toaster and toast. I was refering to the sides of the toaster that can burn. We move back to the States and just bought the cheapest toaster at Walmart. Won't burn you if you touch the sides of the TOASTER.

Re:Wal-Mart

[gsgriffin]

You're funny, Flamebait! Looks bad from the outside looking in. You see and hear only the stories that are most "newsworthy" and what the media finds interesting. The thousand of correct lawsuits keep doctors from practicing sloppy medicine on my infant. They keep stores from selling crap that will choke a child. They bring justic to lazy landlords that treat poor tenants like animals. They make sure we don't buy things that were known to contain melamine and are sold anyway.

Re:Wal-Mart

[gsgriffin]

All that I recall about the toaster was that it was all white, had nice round corners, and looked quite attractive. On the outside, thy had me sold. Sounds more like a Mac, actually, but this ran a little hotter.

Re:Wal-Mart

[gsgriffin]

This was the entire outside of the toaster, not the inside. Yeesh. I've used a toaster my whole life in the US, and yes, be careful of touching the top. Duh. The sides of this toaster were absolutely TOO HOT to be safe in a kitchen. It would set a bag of bread on fire sitting next to it. Find one like that being sold todat in the US. That is my point.

Re:Wal-Mart

[Barnett]

I was just kidding. However, I have two toasters. One is a no-name $8 one with plastic sides and the other is a $120 German brand name one finished with stainless steel sides. Guess which one will most likely burn you? Barnett.

Re:Wal-Mart

[davmoo]

No, because they would have likely lost the lawsuit and the judge would have done one of two things:

And neither of those results would cause a serious impact on Walmart's financial bottom line. Keeping the server up is probably cheaper, but even if they were forced to pay a cash award, it would still be pocket change relative to Walmart's sales and profits, even if its a multimillion dollar award. I stand by what I said before...they did it purely for PR.

Re:Wal-Mart

[eniacfoa]

i didnt intend it to be flamebait, your obviously pushing an extreme right wing agenda if you cant accept that lawyers can at least cause about as much harm as they do good (some of my friends are lawyers) which is the point relevant your comment. I never said they were all bad but Its almost like you think they are all the worlds unsung hero's....I only like to have reasonable discussions. for starters, you are assuming that what I know is based purely on watching the nightly news, which could only be furthest from the truth. Assuming that was a mistake, like your current president and your moderation rights. Secondly, from an Australians point of view, I feel like even though Australia is 100% a capitalist country, Americans would consider a lot of our policies socialist or communist. like our health care and education systems. I find that ridiculous. It backs my point that your society is unbalanced, where free market is the religion and where lawyers have caused much harm as well as good. your extreme right wing agenda is over this election "my friends". Moderate all you want, I have a life and I don't care about slashdot karma...I care about real karma. When someone gets turned away from a doctor because of your vote of evil greed, you are notching up real life negative karma points.

Re:Wal-Mart

[jonaskoelker]

Ever bought a toaster outside of the US. You'll burn you hand the first time you use it. Not in America.

You forgot the irony tag. Or you've only ever been to the US and South Africa. Not wanting to enter into a pissing contest, but my experiences living in Denmark and having been to Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Estonia suggests that the number one observable difference between countries is the language with the second being currency.

I've seen small notes on electronics here in Denmark stating that the equipment complies with FCC rules on interference (I think they're numbered fifteen and two).

Also, consider Liebeck v. McDonalds (the Hot Coffee lawsuit, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Liebeck). People get burned on the stupidest things, even in the US.

Your point is interesting, but I think you're a tad too quick to generalize :)

Re:Wal-Mart

[dargon]

As does Canada, and so far as I understand it, our standards goes beyond those of the US. Just because a product has the UL label on it, doesn't mean it'll pass and get the CSA label.

Re:Wal-Mart

[jonaskoelker]

Horse shit. Walmart spends more on toilet paper for their in-store restrooms in a month than a lawsuit over this would have cost them.

Also, the lawsuit has bad PR implications, but that pales in comparison to the panic that would ensue if there was no toilet paper.

Re:Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

yes and I have said the same thing you have said but I feel that Obama actually wants to fix it as opposed to just talking rhetoric about free markets guiding health care and education and welfare to get elected...you know theres an uphill battle against him but he might just surprise us. just the mere fact he is probably going to win goes against what I thought would probably happen at the start of the election campaign.

Re:Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama's healthcare plan is obviously not enough. It stops short of taking profit machines out of the equation. but its better than what your gonna get from mcain, no doubt.

Re:Wal-Mart

[CFTM]

Come now, let's not be myopic. We haven't had a decent President since the 1950's when Mr. Dwight Eisenhower was in office. Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, That dude After Nixon, Carter, Reagan, George H., Billary Clinton and then we get the icing on the cake with G.W.

Reagan is just one of many con artists to be our president, but gosh he sure looked good in a suit! Remind you of anyone?

Re:Wal-Mart

[turgid]

We are just a war away from Amerikhastan... When God vs. God it's the undoing of man.

... D. Mustaine.

Re:Wal-Mart

[Deagol]

"No shit!" to that, my friend. There's being "on the safe side" and there's "OMG, *how* fucking dumb are the consumers today?!?". As evidence, I present 3 labels (paraphrased, as I'm too lazy to actually go read them verbatim) on foodstuffs in my home at present: 1) "WARNING: Contains milk" on a pound of butter; 2) "0g Trans Fat" on a bag of brown sugar; and 3) "WARNING: Contains peanuts" on a jar of peanut butter.

Sad.

Re:Wal-Mart

[somersault]

This was the entire outside of the toaster, not the inside.

I'd guessed it would be something like that, I was just being dramatic. My point was that other countries have safety regulations too. I can't account for every country in the world, but I know of several countries that currently have not been incinerated by poorly designed toasters. I can give you a list of these countries if you are worried about it.

South Africa is definitely not the norm when it comes to safety. Road safety in Africa for example is meant to be pretty awful. I have a friend who grew up there (her dad was a missionary), and she says that it was quite common for people to just be mown down in traffic, and nobody would even stop. Another friend who went to Uganda witnessed at least one car accident there (2 cars colliding rather than someone getting run over) - at least people stopped, but then everyone around just went to kick the shit out of the person that caused accident (apparently to the death :S ). She said that happens with every accident but I don't know whether to believe that. One thing's for sure: if I were going out to Africa, I'd be less worried about the toasters and more worried about the roads, or being kidnapped and held to ransom.

PS I always move stuff out of the way when operating devices such as kettles, toasters, ovens etc, as they tend to get quite hot.

Re:Wal-Mart

[guyminuslife]

If there's a new way, I'll be the first in line.

Re:Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah not alot of repeat customers tho :/

Re:Wal-Mart

[AciD2BasE]

Actually the voice code will be:
'Derka Derka'

Re:Wal-Mart

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the way to look at it is that they chose this, for the long term, when they went with DRM. Of course, perhaps they thought they could get away with making it temporary, but obviously there are repercussions for selling someone something with a remote-controlled killswitch.

I agree with you on everything except saying that they're being pushed. It's more like they're being held to their word, and having to guarantee their product the same way that a physical good must be guaranteed.

Re:Wal-Mart

[neithernet]

You hoping for a job at Sony?

Re:Wal-Mart

[mattack2]

https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2146380&group_id=4421&atid=104421

Re:Wal-Mart

[Viperpete]

No, it was Dell:

http://explodinglaptop.com/

Re:Wal-Mart

[turgid]

Nail on the head.

DRM exists to make money out of disposable content. Nothing more.

Re:Wal-Mart

[badkarmadayaccount]

Who needs built in, when you can have other people do it for you!

Re:Wal-Mart

[eniacfoa]

you have a point, but reagan made everyone believe reaganomics is the best way to run a country, which is why I single him out the most...its a completely flawed ideology. Making the extremely wealthy even more wealthy, paid for by neglecting the country's citizens doesn't make the masses any better off. It just causes immense social problems.

Re:Wal-Mart

[sjames]

That's true in-part, but ideally moral and ethical obligations are honored even if the threat of lawsuits isn't a factor.

So what he's pointing out is that though the result is living up to an ethical obligation, the reasoning behind it was likely devoid of ethical considerations.

Re:Wal-Mart

[jlarocco]

I'm failing to see how providing access to a DRM authentication server is a "moral and ethical obligation". Seems to me the ethical obligation would be to follow the agreement they made with their customers, and that agreement almost certainly says they can turn the servers off...

In any case, who cares?

Re:Wal-Mart

[sjames]

They represented the transaction as a sale but were prepared to essentially steal the product back after the fact.

In any case, who cares?

Based on your participation in the conversation, I'd guess that you do :-)

Feedback ...

[Anonymous Coward]

probably a nice word was said in WallMarts shell-like by a rather expensive lawyer
rather than any of their "customers"

Re:Feedback ...

[wish bot]

They'll just quietly try it again in a year. Mark my words.

Re:Feedback ...

[cayenne8]

"They'll just quietly try it again in a year. Mark my words."

Oh...they will most certainly shut it off at some point. I mean..since that program is no longer earning money for them, this is just a cost for server, power and man hours to maintain it. This will not run in perpetuity...it will get shut off at some point in the future. Hey, if you bought DRM music, this is a possibility you should have considered.

Re:Feedback ...

[JCSoRocks]

Undoubtedly. If they really cared they'd go ahead and replace everyone's craptastic DRM'd tracks with the new DRM free MP3s they're selling. But they won't. So, you know, maybe the people that bought them in the first place will have learned their lesson.

Re:Feedback ...

[somersault]

The good thing is that this will be a great example to smaller organisations (basically.. everyone) that DRM is a waste of money for the proprietors as well as a PITA for clients.

Re:Feedback ...

[msromike]

The average person that bought that music did not consider it. The average person has no idea how Walmart music DRM works. Billions of people use products every day, with absolutely no knowledge about how they work, that "just work."

Re:Feedback ...

[atraintocry]

It goes both ways. Walmart should not have been selling DRMed music if they didn't plan on keeping the servers up. Even though it's no longer earning money for them, it earned money for them at one point.

At what point does it become reasonable to withhold delivery of the product? Two years? A year? A day?

This is an extreme exaggeration, I know. But what if they decided to take your money at the register, and not give you back the bag with the things you'd bought? Seeing as they'd already "made their money".

Of course, it is still up to the consumer to avoid bad deals like these, or at least to put pressure on companies to keep their DRM key servers up for as long as possible. I'm assuming these people paid full price, as opposed to a rental price or a subscription.

Presumably...

[Gordonjcp]

... they have a list of who bought which track. Wouldn't it be simpler to just send them non-DRMed copies of things they've already bought? At the very least, they could offer a discount for people re-buying tracks in a non-DRMed format.

Re:Presumably...

[Gewalt]

They do not have the rights to take such actions as you propose. Only Apple/iTunes was smart enough to get that written into their contract.

Re:Presumably...

[yincrash]

The problem with that is that Walmart probably has a contract with record labels that they made when they started the DRM service, and reoffering nonDRMed files would either require breaking the contract which risks a lawsuit, making a new contract with the record labels to allow them to reoffer DRM tracks for free (which would cost walmart tons because there is no way record labels would be interested in letting that happen w/o being paid a second time).

the cheapest short term solution to keep their customers happy is just to leave the DRM servers up.

Re:Presumably...

[Lord Kano]

Even if walmart has to pay the record companies out of its own pocket, what's the break even point? You pay for a bunch of MP3s once or you pay to maintain servers forever. At some people, the MP3 option becomes cheaper.

LK

Re:Presumably...

[yincrash]

I think walmart is gambling that before that point comes, people will have forgotten or given up on their DRMed music and they will be able to shut off their servers.

Re:Presumably...

[qubex]

I strongly suspect that within the temporal horizon Walmart considers, the cost of maintaining minimal authentication severs is absolutely minimal.

They have the hardware already (obviously), idem for the maintenance contracts, their only variable cost is bandwidth. At the very least, this will stop rising as nobody will be authorising new music.

I expect their authentication server's performance will gradually degrade as they cease spending money on maintenance and upgrades, but it will remain basically usable - avoiding them the lawsuits.

This, basically, accounts for the total of their NPV.

Re:Presumably...

[internerdj]

Having bought some songs from walmart or more correctly having exercised many free offers for songs from Walmart's music store, I recieved one of those emails. They also suggested in the email to burn the songs onto a music cd. Unspoken but probably hoped for is that the customers will be able to go through the simple process of ripping them back off the CD which is a pretty simple operation for most music consumers now: yielding DRM unladen electronic copies. This would further decrease the load on their servers. And of course slightly CTA, because they can say you were warned about how to get an alternative copy.

Re:Presumably...

[electrictroy]

Do it anyway. It would be fun watching tiny RIAA try to sue billion-dollar Walmart.

In my view all Walmart would be doing is simply trading "broken items" with new working items. Just like trading a broken radio for a working radio. That's called good customer service, and Walmart would gain far more money from their happy customers, then they'd lose against a mosquito like RIAA.

Re:Presumably...

[Eccles]

Offering to make a CD backup of the collection of any user who complains might be doable, though.

Re:Presumably...

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you have to think about what portion of their market stops listening to music after a few months when it's no longer popular, and what portion continues to enjoy songs even after they've been off the radio for years.

Re:Presumably...

[JosKarith]

Uh... isn't that going to contravene the DMCA? Oh I see - it's gonna work like :
1) Sell DRM'd tracks to unsuspecting customers.
2) Switch off servers forcing customers to violate the DMCA to use what they've paid for.
3) Sue the infringing bastards.
4) PROFIT!!!

Re:Presumably...

[Captain Spam]

In my view all Walmart would be doing is simply trading "broken items" with new working items. Just like trading a broken radio for a working radio.

Except that the RIAA would argue that this isn't normal property, it's intellectual property, and thus more magical somehow and immune from common customer service. Just shop for the right district to find a judge they can bamboozle into believing that, and they're golden.

Re:Presumably...

[Benfea]

No offense, but it serves those consumers right for buying MP3s from Wal*Mart. Capitalism requires informed consumers to function properly, and these people were clearly not very well informed.

Re:Presumably...

[truesaer]

Apple doesn't really do that, you just get the privilege of paying a discounted price for the non-DRM version of the songs you already own.

Re:Presumably...

[Gewalt]

Nope, check the EULA. They literally spell out your rights. If for any reason, their DRM system needs to be taken permanently offline, they will provide you with the tools to remove the DRM from your purchased media.

That said, I would never knowingly purchase any DRM'd content. It just defies all intelligence.

Re:Presumably...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh... isn't that going to contravene the DMCA? Oh I see - it's gonna work like : 1) Sell DRM'd tracks to unsuspecting customers. 2) Switch off servers forcing customers to violate the DMCA to use what they've paid for. 3) Sue the infringing bastards. 4) PROFIT!!!

You forgot a step. 1) Sell DRM'd tracks to unsuspecting customers. 2) Switch off servers forcing customers to violate the DMCA to use what they've paid for. 3) Sue the infringing bastards. 4) ??? 5) PROFIT!!!

Re:Presumably...

[Stewie241]

And what portion of people will lose their music anyway due to buying a new computer or losing all their data somehow.

Besides, it can't cost THAT much to run a DRM server... if it is running properly and configured properly, it should require minimum maintenance. There are no new users to add, no files to add. The big expense has likely been paid for.

Re:Presumably...

[Stewie241]

How are they contravening DMCA? While the server is still running, burn the track onto a CD. I thought the software allowed that.

Re:Presumably...

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, I've heard they have a liberal return policy(can return about anything in most any condition w/out a receipt and get store credit).

Why not walk in with the account receipt and say "my purchases are faulty, I'd like a refund or store credit."?

Re:Presumably...

[Anonymous Coward]

So why don't they just provide a DRM-unlocker download and email their customers about its availability? Surely that's cheaper than keeping the servers running perpetually.

Surely someone there knows what's in the EULA. It boggles the mind.

Re:Presumably...

[truesaer]

Ahh, I thought you were referring to the situation where people with existing tracks can pay to upgrade to the DRM free tracks they offer now.

Rather than a tool

[Daimanta]

to strip the files of DRM they wish to retain control(or get sued heavily by angry people with useless files) of the ability of the user to play DRMed music files.

Walmart should have offered to strip any files and then stop using DRM. The users are no stuck the an uneasy status quo as well as Walmart.

yay for drm

Re:Rather than a tool

[bconway]

Walmart should have offered to strip any files and then stop using DRM.

Ummm, they are. It's even stated in this (and previous) articles. And the above summary.

Re:Rather than a tool

[HeavyD14]

Where? I see they are going to stop using DRM, but not that they will remove it from your files you already have.

Re:Rather than a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't that illegal? or to say in the RIAA way, '_ _ * * I L L E G A L * * _ _ (and be damned in hell)'?

Re:Rather than a tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Like in any other corporation, the people in charge probably don't even know it's possible strip the DRM from the files.

Feels like a Scooby-Doo ending.

[Drakkenmensch]

Wal-Mart almost succeeding in robbing blind everyone who had purchased from their online store by making their MP3s unplayable, forcing them to pay for their music AGAIN. Now it took the effort of thousands of customers putting pressure on the stores, and they very nearly pulled it off. How long before other online music services decide to try something like this again, or simply go out of business and leave their customers in the cold?

"I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!"

Re:Feels like a Scooby-Doo ending.

[Jafafa Hots]

All this means is that they will wait another year or maybe two before shutting down the DRM servers. They will in the end, there is no doubt.

Do you seriously think the DRM servers will be running in 20 years? No way.

Re:Feels like a Scooby-Doo ending.

[Guido von Guido]

All this means is that they will wait another year or maybe two before shutting down the DRM servers. They will in the end, there is no doubt.

Do you seriously think the DRM servers will be running in 20 years? No way.

While I'm in agreement, Walmart could certainly use that year or two in order to attempt to convince the labels to allow Walmart to remove the DRM from users' purchases. I think it'd be in their interest: they'd be able to shut down the DRM servers, they wouldn't take a big PR hit, and this episode would be much less likely to affect future music sales. Walmart is certainly willing to use their leverage to squeeze suppliers, and they probably have enough leverage with the labels to at least give it a try.

Would they get anywhere? Hell if I know.

Re:Feels like a Scooby-Doo ending.

[flyingfsck]

Or in 200 years, 2000 years, 2 million years? DRM like that is simply ridiculous.

Re:Feels like a Scooby-Doo ending.

[Sancho]

The sooner they turn the servers off, the better. The public needs to learn that DRM means that they don't own copies of the media, despite what marketing would have them think.

Re:Feels like a Scooby-Doo ending.

[cptdondo]

I think there is a lesson in this to the companies that sell DRM crap that depends on servers. It's a one-time purchase with a recurring cost to the seller. Ultimately, DRM is a losing proposition to the retailer - if you run the DRM servers long enough, you *will* lose money.

It's basically a ponzi scheme - to cover the cost of running the DRM servers, you have to keep finding new sales to prop up the running expenses on the old sales. Eventually you run out of new sales and you lose money.

The incremental cost / track of running those servers is miniscule, but as old sales add up you still have to pay for bandwidth, iron, and power to service them.

Seems that DRM based on servers is bad for retailers as well.

Right.

[TheSpoom]

They are still moving to an all-MP3 store, but won't break all the DRMed music its customers have already downloaded; this because of "threatened lawsuits."

Fixed that for you.

"Feedback" as in ...

[David Gerard]

Heh. That's "feedback" as in "loud screeching noise which can destroy the system if it gets out of control"?

Now if only Sony and Nokia would realise that DRM is deeply despised and that marketing your stuff as "DRM-free" when it patently isn't is not a solution to this ... ah, the joys of major label control addiction. As Penn Jilette says: "I would make executives more concerned with making money. I'm serious."

Re:"Feedback" as in ...

[ozphx]

As Penn Jilette says: "I would make executives more concerned with making money. I'm serious."

Walmarts executives are very interested in making money. They want to sell music, and they aren't especially interested in running DRM servers. They will use whatever method they can to get as much popular music into the hands of paying customers as possible.

$MusicLabel executives on the other hand are also interested in making money. They (until quite recently) seemed to think the best method of doing this was demanding keeping a vicelike DRM grip on the balls of the end-consumer. Until recently they were giving companies that wanted to deliver non-DRM content what is known in business as "the finger".

So possibly a better thing to say would be "$MusicLabel execs need to take a look at the pulse *here* and their finger, which is *here* firmly jammed up their own arsehole." - ozphx [slashdot.org].

Re:"Feedback" as in ...

[David Gerard]

See, I'd actually question that - in observable behaviour, they seem to consider absolute control a prerequisite to making money at all. So even though they may think they're thinking about money, control is what they actually work for.

Re:"Feedback" as in ...

[Hijacked Public]

The discussion gets circular at some point, they are working for control because they think that will get them more money.

A buzzphrase that may or may not still be vocalized by executives is 'data driven decisions'. In practice a good many decision are still made according to gut feelings, or very thin data, or totally invented data. In part this is because getting good data is hard to do and even harder to find clear meaning in.

Here at Slashdot you have a demographic that should be more math oriented than most and yet you have people, this thread is a good example, writing about the financial and legal consequences of the Wal-Mart Corporation running or not running DRM servers. This is without a day's legal education in their lives and with no more financial experience than balancing their own checkbook. And with no clear actual numbers on which to base any of their conclusions.

So just like the above Slashdotters, music execs went with their gut feelings. They expected digital formats to work like every other format in the entire history of their business model. I don't blame them. All of the non-DRM music stores coming online seems to suggest their minds are changing. If these stores make for the music industry I'm sure DRM for music will be mostly abandoned.

Re:"Feedback" as in ...

[ozphx]

Exactly, $MusicLabel aside, its hard to blame Walmart for trying. Same territory as blaming MS/Apple for including DRM support in their products.

I'd include Sony in that bunch, but they have content as well, so I don't think they are strictly being forced down the DRM route too hard :P

Re:"Feedback" as in ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can very much blame Microsoft for DRM. They're selling an all-in-one DRM *solution*.

HUH??

[Lumpy]

So customers have contacted them and said. " We love DRM it makes the music sound better! Please dont get rid of it."

Yeah right.

Sounds like an excuse to hide that they were paid or given a "better deal" to keep the DRM on there.

If there is one thing that Walmart does is anything that makes walmart more money. They dont give a rats ass about the customer.

Re:HUH??

[91degrees]

Well, it does. Play a DRMed file. Listen to the quality.

Turn off the DRM servers, transfer the file to another machine and listen to it again.

Listen to the windows error message sound.

Which sounds better?

Re:HUH??

[ozphx]

Hey I'll have you know the windows error message sound was mastered by King Crimsons Robert Fripp! ;)

Re:HUH??

[iminplaya]

Which sounds better?

Considering what's being sold as music these days, that's a tough question.

Re:HUH??

[91degrees]

I can imagine this being advertised on late night TV. "And who can forget 'Windows shutdown noise'. With a running time of almost 3 minutes. Samples from Windows is not available in the shops, but you can order it now."

Re:HUH??

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what music it was...

Re:HUH??

[MindlessAutomata]

1. You have no clue what you are talking about. The DRM servers being kept up means the shitty DRM music still plays instead of customers being locked out. Not continuing DRM. Wal-mart might not be able to get rid of the DRM even if they wanted to because of contractual obligations...

2. Wal-mart was made to make people money, not to operate as a charity, especially a music charity. They don't have to give a rat's ass about the customers any more than you have to give a rat's ass about the guy that picks up your garbage each and every day (and maybe he you for the sheer bulk of it!).

Re:HUH??

[mcgrew]

Hey I'll have you know the windows error message sound was mastered by King Crimsons Robert Fripp! ;)

From the same hand was penned this:

Cats foot iron claw
Neuro-surgeons scream for more
At paranoias poison door.
Twenty first century schizoid man.

Blood rack barbed wire
Polititians funeral pyre
Innocents raped with napalm fire
Twenty first century schizoid man.

Death seed blind mans greed
Poets starving children bleed
Nothing hes got he really needs
Twenty first century schizoid man.

I had a boss named Dave once, I replaced all his windows sounds with samples of HAL from 2001: A Space Oddessey. "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."

I'm going to sample Majel Barrett for the Windows' side of my own computer. I'm surprised Paramont hasn't offered those clips for sale.

Re:HUH??

[Anonymous Coward]

Which makes it the most expensive Fripp album ever.

Also, it seems to be the only Fripp's work online that has DRM in it:
https://www.dgmlive.com/archive.htm

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like that Wal-mart's customer cannot and/or will not burn a backup on CD - Its too much hassle, better to keep DRM. With customers like this, DRM will prevail.

Did this really honestly surprise anyone?

[ACK!!]

Sure, you could have held out hope that Wal-Mart would do the right thing.

But did you really expect them to?

Come on folks chime in. Did the fact that they caved really come across your desk as news that caught you off guard?

If it did, I got this bridges and some wonderful swamp land in FLA I am selling cheap.

DMCA exemption

[sunderland56]

Wouldn't "Disabling a DRM format that is obsolete" be a good candidate to add to the DMCA exemptions?

Re:DMCA exemption

[Big Hairy Ian]

Good thinking Batman

Re:DMCA exemption

[jank1887]

how about "providing a tool to enable disabling of DRM when it has become obsolete"? IIRC, under the DMCA it's still technically never legal to distribute any tools that will accomplish this task.

Re:DMCA exemption

[Sockatume]

"Where necessary for a customer to continue exercising his or her rights on the media." If they take away the rights that you paid for - which is the whole damn product when you buy something with DRM - then it is entirely reasonable that you can circumvent the DMCA to regain those rights.

Re:DMCA exemption

[vrmlguy]

I just looked at the legalese from 2006, and came up with the following:

Sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require access to a central server as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or reproduction of published digital works by the original accessing entity. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine, system or service necessary to authorize the perceptible of a work stored in that format if a central server is no longer provided to authorize such perceptible./quote

The real price of DRM

[initialE]

For consumers, living in constant doubt of their content. For providers, servers that they will have to run, like, forever. And the admins who maintain them.

Re:The real price of DRM

[hey!]

From the provider's standpoint, it's not so hard. Future expenses are always factored into every sale in one way or another, but as a net present value.

The NPV of maintaining the servers forever is, in fact, finite, although the total expenditure over time has no upper bound.

What should give anybody pause when buying a piece of DRM'd music is whether the true cost of maintaining the infrastructure behind the DRM indefinitely is factored into the cost.

Re:The real price of DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to the pirates, I rarely have this doubt. :) Even if every piece of commercial media I had suddenly became DRM-laden and disabled, I could replace it in full from torrents in about a week.

Re:"feedback from the customers."

[TheSpoom]

You're missing the point.

They might not want DRM, but they do want their previous purchased music to not suddenly become worthless.

Heh..

[qoncept]

'this because of "feedback from the customers."'

There was a Moes restaurant we used to go to that had a 25% military discount that they took away due to "popular demand." In Alabama, no less.

Re:Heh..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds fair to me. I don't see why I should have to pay taxes to the military and pay a third more than them for food when I can afford to eat out. Most people in Alabama make far less money than the soldiers as well as not having free health care. If I live there I'd be pissed to see a 25% discount. Supporting the troops is one thing, being ripped off isn't supporting the troops.

Re:Heh..

[Sloppy]

There was a Moes restaurant we used to go to that had a 25% military discount that they took away due to "popular demand." In Alabama, no less.

It's pretty easy to imagine that a restaurant that openly has a policy of "33% surcharge if you're not in the military," would receive a lot of complaints. Most people aren't in the military, so the people in favor of the discrimination would be outnumbered by the people against it.

Re:Heh..

[qoncept]

You're a genius. But do you think people in the military started paying $8 for a burrito after the change, or everyone else started paying $6? It didn't help anyone but the restaurant.

Such is the human condition, I guess. People are more interested in dicking people over that are more fortunate than them than improving their own situation. Go to a bar with a shuffleboard table, and you'll see everyone is more interested in knocking the other guy's puck thing off than scoring points for himself.

retarded walmart hate

[timmarhy]

look at all the comments condemning walmart, even though this is the right thing to do. fuck, they listen to their customers and you still think they are evil?

someone are just plains stupid i guess.

Re:retarded walmart hate

[Anonymous Coward]

someone are just plains stupid i guess.

Indeed.

Re:retarded walmart hate

[LanMan04]

They should have done the right thing the first time, without getting yelled at. They got caught doing something stupid, and had to take their hand back out of the cookie jar. It would have been better if we didn't have to beat them into doing the right thing.

virtualization hole

[mevets]

Apologies for marginally off topic, but couldn't I write an 'audio driver' for Xen, Bochs, .... which took the samples intended for the sound card and store them to a file; un-drming anything? Same for DVDs? Where does this stand with DMCA? I'm not reverse engineering anything....

Re:virtualization hole

[Anonymous Coward]

My soundcard in windows already lets me record from the "What U Hear" line, getting a digital copy.

Re:virtualization hole

[JesseMcDonald]

I believe QEMU (and probably Bochs) already has that option. For QEMU there is also a monitor command named "wavcapture" for this purpose. As for the DMCA, it mentions "circumvention", not reverse engineering, although the option to save audio to a file may have enough alternative uses to avoid being classified as a circumvention device.

(Not a lawyer, etc., etc. Insert standard disclaimer here.)

Re:virtualization hole

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

You are correct, and I'm fairly certain that is why all the protected output path technologies are coming into play, in order to preventexactly that. To actually take the dump, you would nee to decrypt something, at which point you have entered the realm of circumvention technologies.

Re:virtualization hole

[Mesa MIke]

Isn't this capability already available?

I know that on my Windows box, I can use Audacity (fr'instance) to record the "stereo mix" input while some other application is playing whatever I'm listening to, DRM'd or not.
The ability to do this probably depends on whether the audio hardware allows this, though.
Also, this does add an extra decompression-recompression step that degrades the quality a little. Not that I can tell any difference, though. The virtual audio driver option would do the same.

Re:virtualization hole

[Anonymous Coward]

To actually take the dump, you would nee[d] to decrypt something

WTF! They're putting DRM on toilets now?!

Re:virtualization hole

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they call it ReadyBoost(tm)

Off-topic political game theory

[jonaskoelker]

Sig reply (sorry for being OT)

It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.

Suppose there are three candidates, A, B and C. Your payoff for the candidates are A=+10, B=-1, C=-1000. If you vote for B or C, your candidate wins [and you get their respective payoffs]. If you vote for A, then C wins. Your options are -1 or -1000. Clearly the best one is -1.

It's a somewhat simplified model of reality, but it applies well enough to give some insight. If you want to add depth, you might say that A wins with some very small base probability, and your vote for A doesn't change it that much; the end result would be that a two-party system is a highly stable equilibrium. And that, unless you like sock puppets that can fit on one pair of hands, is why the USA needs election reform :)

Re:Off-topic political game theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Your logic uses hindsight to predict the future. Not to mention the "payoff" is likely your feeling the elected official did a good job, which is based on the almost always faulty assumption that what you feel is a direct result of the action he or she has taken. The USA needs education reform.

Re:Off-topic political game theory

[TheSpoom]

Which is one reason that proportional representation is a good thing, or a mixed system like the one Ontario tried to move to last year.

In addition, usually the pluses and minuses will not be so greatly varied; often A will be +1000, in which case statistically it may be slightly better to vote for B, but that's assuming that A will never win and that voting for B will guarantee a win for them, which are two huge assumptions to be making.

But yeah, we agree that the system needs some definite changes so peoples' votes actually match up with the power they're supposed to have.

Re:Off-topic political game theory

[Nursie]

Your weights skew things.

What if A is +10, B is -10,000 and C is -10,001?

B and C are close enough that the choice is pretty irrelevant. Also there needs to be some sort of formula to take into account that third parties (indeed the idea of third parties, as much as any one in particular) have an associated snowball effect. The more people vote for a third option, the more people think that it might just work...

But yeah, electoral reform is the real answer.

Re:Off-topic political game theory

[Idiomatick]

I'm so pissed here in ontario proportional representation failed. WTF is wrong with voters? 'we want our votes to mean less and have broken minority government forever.'

Re:Off-topic political game theory

[TheSpoom]

People weren't educated enough, and because of that, pride in our system and the belief that "nothing could be wrong with democracy" won out. I think a lot of people who didn't know any better saw it as a weird radical idea from some unknown party that would mess with the system, rather than fix issues they didn't know about.

It's definitely unfortunate, and I really hope they're able to bring it back to another vote and further educate people as to what it would actually mean.

Re:Off-topic political game theory

[maharvey]

The problem is that A can never win as long as B exists.

B exists because the B-promoters want to give as little as possible while preventing C from winning. You don't have to be best, you just have to be better than C.

The only way to get rid of B is to never let it win. The B-promoters don't want C to win, and if they see they can't win with B they'll shift ground until they can win.

So, you have to call their bluff, and that means you are going to have to lose at least once to get your point across. In all likelihood you'll have to suck up a few losses if you want to change the world. But if you can keep B from winning eventually their hatred for C will force them to join you.

Now it is possible that there are enough other idiots to vote for B anyway, in which case your vote is irrelevant. So you really have nothing to lose by voting your conscience, and everything to gain.

"Blessed are those who do not condemn themselves by what they approve." -- Romans 14:22

Now, if we can get off Windows

[Trailer Trash]

Hopefully they can pull their web developers' collective head out of their collective ass and make a web store that works on something other than internet explorer and windows.

Seriously, is this 1995 or something?

Re:Now, if we can get off Windows

[Phroggy]

Hopefully they can pull their web developers' collective head out of their collective ass and make a web store that works on something other than internet explorer and windows.

This is precisely why Apple created both the iPod and the iTunes Store in the first place, and why Apple isn't concerned with turning a profit on the iTunes Store (as long as they break even). They wanted a portable MP3 player that would work with Macs, and they wanted digital music sales to be available for Macs and the iPod.

Unfortunately Apple doesn't think it's in their best interest to support Linux, although this is mostly due to technical hurdles (porting QuickTime to Windows was a huge pain in the ass and they wound up porting significant chunks of Mac OS in order to do it; porting QuickTime to Linux would be a whole new pain in the ass, and iTunes can't run without QuickTime).

Re:Now, if we can get off Windows

[mcgrew]

Seriously, is this 1995 or something?

There was no IE in 1995, there wasn't even a Netscape (which still came before Internet Explorer). you had to use Mosaic.

Re:Now, if we can get off Windows

[Trailer Trash]

There was no IE in 1995, there wasn't even a Netscape (which still came before Internet Explorer). you had to use Mosaic.

IE came out in 1995 - I bought it with the "plus pack" when I bought Windows 95: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryIE.mspx

Netscape was already called "Netscape" in 1994: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Communications_Corporation

Whoops!

[myxiplx]

Now *this* is good news.

Why? Because you can bet that Wallmart execs are not at all happy about having to pay for and run a bunch of servers that are no longer making them any money. You can bet that just opened their eyes to the downsides of DRM, and that some people at the top are now asking the music labels some tricky questions, namely "how long are we supposed to keep paying to run these damn things now?".

Wallmart will not want to be left in this position again, and I can see this causing them to put some real pressure on the music labels to drop DRM.

It also means that Wallmart, Apple and Amazon are all pushing for non DRM music. All together that's some pretty hefty leverage!

Re:Whoops!

[base3]

Yup -- the cost of potentially being required by market or someday legal forces to run DRM servers in perpetuity MIGHT clue them in.

Re:Whoops!

[AnalPerfume]

It also means that Wallmart, Apple and Amazon are all pushing for non DRM music.

Apple will never do a DRM free iTunes, they need DRM to lock people into being forced to keep buying Apple products in the future, or throw away all that money you spent on iTunes. Even if everyone else dropped DRM overnight, Apple would fight tooth and nail to keep it. Right now they can tune the reality distortion filter so that the people blame the nasty record companies for forcing DRM.

Re:Whoops!

[Dog-Cow]

I don't have a single DRM'd song from iTunes, though I've bought about half a dozen albums. (iTunes just doesn't carry much of what I like.)

Re:Whoops!

[HAKdragon]

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but...

Taken from the iTunes Store Wikipedia entry:

 

On February 6, 2007, Steve Jobs called on the Big Four record labels to allow their music to be sold DRM-free.[46] On April 2, 2007, Apple and the record label EMI announced that the iTunes Store would begin offering, as an additional purchasing option, tracks from EMI's catalog encoded as 256 kbit/s AAC without FairPlay or any other DRM.

On May 29, 2007, Apple released version 7.2 of its iTunes software, allowing users to purchase DRM-free music and music videos from participating labels. These new files, available through the iTunes Store, have been called iTunes Plus music by Apple.

In October 2007, iTunes Plus ceased to be a purchasing option. It instead became mandatory for all iTunes Plus licensed content. In addition, the price of iTunes Plus reverted to the DRM price.

Almost immediately after the launch of iTunes Plus, reports surfaced that the DRM-free tracks sold by the iTunes Store contained identifying information about the customer, embedding the purchasing account's full name and e-mail address as metadata in the file. While this information has always been in iTunes downloads both with and without Fairplay DRM, it is thought that it remains in the tracks as a measure to trace the source of tracks shared illegally online, which the absence of DRM now facilitates. Privacy groups expressed concerns that this data could be misused if possessions carrying the files were stolen, and potentially wrongly incriminate a user for copyright infringement.
 

Why do we really care???

[Dishevel]

I mean seriously. Who with half a brain would buy DRM'd music. If you did then you got what you got. Could we please spend a little less time protecting the stupid?

Re:Why do we really care???

[Warhawke]

People that buy this are average consumers like my aunt or my neighbor, who believe that by buying music through official channels they are protecting the rights of artists. Believe it or not, most people haven't heard of DRM, and that's not due to stupidity on their part but to the lack of mobilization of pro-YRO groups to educate the public. Most people don't use Linux, but you wouldn't know that by browsing the boards here.

You're missing the point by saying buying DRM means you got exactly what you got. Most people don't realize that they have bought music that cannot transfer; in that sense, they believe they haven't received the full value of what they bought - they simply thought that they were doing a good thing to help artists when really they were whoring themselves out to Big Media. People may be smart but inexperienced. I cite a Cory Doctorow paper where he recalls a technically inept friend of his who had the reasonably intelligent idea to "VCR record" her DVDs so she could give a destructible copy to the kids. Obviously, she became confused and frustrated when it didn't work.

DRM isn't expected and it isn't natural. Mainstream has gotten used to it only by enough people trying it and having it not work. And unforunately, for those masses DRM works. If you want to bring down the end of DRM, get your mom, your grandmom, and your grandmom's dog to start ripping. Make it so easy a Geico ad could beat a dead horse with it. When it becomes second-nature to mainstream, people will not feel attached to their DRM, and then when the servers finally shudder and die, people won't care, because they'll be listening to whatever whereever and however they like.

Re:Why do we really care???

[mcgrew]

Could we please spend a little less time protecting the stupid?

First, you are confusing stupidity with ignorance. Not knowing a thing does NOT make you stupid. It makes you ignorant. And we are all ignorant, every one of us, since it is impossible to know everything. Most people have no clue about DRM. If someone who had never heard of firearms found a loaded gun and shot himself, would you say he was stupid? (Ok, you probably would since you don't seem too smart)

Secondly, why would we NOT protect the more fragile of our society? You may go on spouting Darwin, but the fact is that most mental retardation is a result not of genetics, but environment. All it takes is an interruption in the blood flow to a child's brain from trauma or injury, choking, or any other of a number of factors (mother drinking heavily during pregnancy) and a child who might otherwise have an IQ of 150 instead has an IQ of 65.

I've forgotten more than you ever learned. Does that make you stupid?

Back to the future...

[argent]

Seriously, is this 1995 or something?

It's Walmart. They think it's still 1895.

Mix, Burn, Rip

[argent]

If they allow burning to audio CD, you don't even have to do that. Just follow Apple's advice and "Mix, Burn, Rip" the DRM out of it. You'll end up with the same "bits" on disc.

Re:Mix, Burn, Rip

[Sockatume]

Not quite. Burning the CD converts those bits into an analogue waveform, containing all the original compression artefacts from the first ripping operation. Re-ripping that disk will convert that analogue waveform back into bits, but necessarily with some data loss (it's lossy compression after all) so the new file has some additional compression artefacts on those original compression artefacts and isn't quite the same file you burned in the first place. It'll be subjectively nigh-identical though.

Re:Mix, Burn, Rip

[Anonymous Coward]

Burning the CD converts those bits into an analogue waveform, containing all the original compression artefacts from the first ripping operation. Re-ripping that disk will convert that analogue waveform back into bits

I don't know about you, but my CDs are digital.

Re:Mix, Burn, Rip

[argent]

Burning the CD converts those bits into an analogue waveform

No, it doesn't. Compact discs are digital. The result of capturing the digital audio stream (using a tool like Audio Hijack) and ripping a burned CD should be equivalent. Neither operation is the same as somehow stripping the DRM from the original compressed stream without decompressing it, but that isn't what the OP was suggesting.

Re:Mix, Burn, Rip

[Anonymous Coward]

Burning the CD converts those bits into an analogue waveform

No, it doesn't

Yes it does.

There is no such thing as a digital physical item. Nature is analog. That we use physical items to represent binary data, does not make the underlying representation binary. So the GP is correct, a CD is an analog representation of binary data. And there are a lot of issues when ripping audio CDs (mainly synchronization issues).

Compact discs are digital. The result of capturing the digital audio stream (using a tool like Audio Hijack) and ripping a burned CD should be equivalent.

Note the use of should be here.

Neither operation is the same as somehow stripping the DRM from the original compressed stream without decompressing it, but that isn't what the OP was suggesting.

To be pedantic, that isn't what any ancestor in the thread was suggesting. Both were speaking of a method to capture the uncompressed (raw) audio stream. But the GP is correct in his assertion that any ripping operation that captures the decompressed stream and then recodes it into a lossy format will result in quality loss, even if the target codec is of higher quality than the original (drm'ed) file.

Re:Mix, Burn, Rip

[argent]

There is no such thing as a digital physical item. Nature is analog.

You're being pointlessly pedantic here. The same objections hold true for the copy of the file on your hard disk, in memory, downloaded from the iTunes store, it's all digital not because it's made of some magical digital element, but because the operations performed on it are quantized, ignoring the relative levels and timing of the signal outside the limits of that process.

If you write an audio CD and immediately read it back again, and you don't get a bit-for-bit copy of the audio stream you wrote, either something is wrong with your CD drive or you need to quit buying those cheap no-name vinyl blanks.

Re:Mix, Burn, Rip

[Mesa MIke]

> Burning the CD converts those bits into an analogue waveform,

I think this depends on how you do the rip and burn.
If you rip by sending the audio through the D-to-A converter, then resample it back to digital through the A-to-D converter on your audio hardware before burning the CD, then yes you've made an unnecessary analog conversion.

But most rip-and-burn software isn't going to do that, because that would be silly.

Re:Mix, Burn, Rip

[Sockatume]

Okay, it's not literally a waveform, that's a semantic cludge by yours truly. To be more pedantic, you're taking a compressed audio file, unpacking that into a 40-something kilohertz 16-bit audio file, compression artefacts and all, and then the audio compression reads that audio file as though the recording artefacts were an original component of the record as it doesn't know any better. Therefore by necessity the resultant recompressed file is mathematically different than the original file. You can imagine the compression process is some function c(x)=y, and there's no reason to suppose that anything resembling a real audio file will give you c(y)=y.

Walmart isn't judgement-proof...

[argent]

There's been plenty of people who've sued Walmart, and won, even over smaller issues than beelyuns of imaginary dollars.

And Walmart's reactions AFTER the lawsuit are often completely disproportionate. Apparently, Walmart employees can get disciplined for working during their breaks now, because someone who had to work through their lunch break a bunch of times sued over it, and won. If you ask a Walmart employee for help and they say they're on break, and they can't, they really mean it.

Re:Walmart isn't judgement-proof...

[electrictroy]

>>>Walmart employees can get disciplined for working during their breaks now...

Most stores have had that restriction for years. I got disciplined for working my break at JCPenney, and that was back in 1992! Don't blame the store; it's the government's fault that things are that way. The stores are merely trying to protect themselves form government punishment.

Back to topic:

- If Walmart sold DRM songs, and Walmart turns-off the DRM servers, those songs would be non-functional.
- Walmart has an *obligation* to replace those broken songs with working songs (or get sued by angry consumers).
- I'm sure any competent judge would recognize that basic fact, and throw-away any RIAA lawsuit as anti-consumer.

In fact if the judge was particularly intelligent, he'd probably remind RIAA that they have already been slapped once for restricting retailers' freedom of trade, forming an illegal cartel, and anti-consumer "CD price fixing", and that he and other judges are still watching RIAA very carefully to see if they become a repeat offender.

Re:Walmart isn't judgement-proof...

[pnutjam]

IMHO that's still a customer service problem, not a legal problem. That person could help you, if walmart was willing to pay them, they aren't.

Re:Walmart isn't judgement-proof...

[TriezGamer]

Most stores have had that restriction for years. I got disciplined for working my break at JCPenney, and that was back in 1992! Don't blame the store; it's the government's fault that things are that way. The stores are merely trying to protect themselves form government punishment.

Are you implying that this shouldn't be the case?

Re:Walmart isn't judgement-proof...

[Dilpo]

>>>>- Walmart has an *obligation* to replace those broken songs with working songs (or get sued by angry consumers).

Whats this obligation you speak of?

ianal but its perfectly legal for stores to have return policies such as "NO RETURNS NO EXCEPTIONS". buyer beware and what not. If you buy a toaster from a store like that and it breaks or is broken as soon as you get home you're shit out of luck.

I do believe stores have to follow their POSTED return policy but thats why stores put things in like "Must be new and unused and contain all original packaging" little catch alls in there. While that line won't prevent you from returning a toaster that didn't work in the first place, if you used it, even once, then they don't HAVE to take it back. Most stores do because they realize you're going to buy another $50 worth of useless shit while you're getting your new toaster but they don't HAVE to.

I'm not sure on the return policy Walmart has for its online music but I have a feeling its probably somewhere in the realm of "no returns". Even if it was a lenient as their posted in store policy they could always just slap you in the face with "its not new and unused." Not to mention most returns have a time limit. Usually in the realm of 30-60 days. Target is 90 and Walmart is 90 for most merchandise but they have exceptions for things like electronics and books which are considerably shorter. So anyone over whatever time limit Walmart deeps appropriate is sol as well.

If you do know of some weird rule/law that says stores MUST replace defective merchandise please let me know what it is.

Also if you're going to go try and lookup what the return policy is for walmarts online music downloads, you must use IE (which is why I couldn't check). Anything else and it tells you "We noticed you're not using IE blah blah blah come back with IE." Might be able to get around that by changing the reported browser but I can't be assed to do that. If they really wanted my money they'd let me use what I want to view their website.

Re:Walmart isn't judgement-proof...

[argent]

That person could help you, if walmart was willing to pay them, they aren't.

Walmart can't pay employees to work through breaks except in emergencies. They're not allowed to.

This has nothing to do with overtime, it's a health-and-safety issue.

Re:Walmart isn't judgement-proof...

[eniacfoa]

If a worker has made a choice to do so (why I dont know) it should be his choice and the stupid law shouldn't allow for a company to be sued for when a worker chooses to work extra for the benefit of his workplace. Frivolous lawsuits are out of control in the USA and have been for a long time...geez, its rumored in the 80's Atari made up to 50% of their money from frivolous lawsuits. Judges were not tech savvy and Atari were able to patent things that should never have been allowed to get a patent in the 1st place and boy did they enforce them...whos at fault? 2 wrongs make a right wing...

Re:Walmart isn't judgement-proof...

[operagost]

I really don't know if the buyers of DRMed WalMart music had to "sign" an agreement that WalMart was not obligated to allow access to the music in perpetuity. If that is the case, then you are right. If they did not, then WalMart is directly responsible for your product no longer working, as if they had placed a remote self-destruct device in the product so that they could destroy it and force you to buy another one. It's not the same as something simply breaking after their stated return period, in which case the responsibility lies with the manufacturer if it offers a warranty or the customer if it does not.

Re:Walmart isn't judgement-proof...

[moortak]

and if your boss makes you work through a legally mandated break and then says you made the choice?

Free Advertising

[VisiX]

Am I the only one who thinks this was all a ploy to get their new DRM free store in the news for a week?

Step 1: Announce the fact that you are breaking old DRM mp3s because you are reopening your store with a superior product. Step 2: Get free advertising for new store, bad press about old store. Step 3: Keep DRM servers online and get more free advertising for new store while also appearing to give a crap what your customers think.

If I worked in advertising for Walmart this would have been my first idea.

Re:Free Advertising

[log0n]

That's exactly what it was. Nefarious and walmart go hand in hand.

Too Bad

[whterbt]

I wanted these servers to shut down. I wanted all these people who bought DRM'd music to be left out in the cold. I wanted there to be outrage at how they got screwed by WalMart and DRM.

Only when the end users feel the pain of DRM will there be real resistance to this crap.

Feedback from Walmart Customers

[Dan667]

or Sony, Universal, Warner Brothers, and EMI freaked out and begged Walmart not to kill their dream of an all DRM digital world?

Re:Feedback from Walmart Customers

[Sockatume]

If the DRM servers stay on, the customers continue to use the files they paid for. If the DRM servers switch off, those files will become useless at some point in the future and must be repurchased, making money for aforementioned studios. If everyone's switching to DRM-free music, you can bet the studios want them to switch their DRM servers off too.

Re:Feedback from Walmart Customers

[Dan667]

But the RIAA members (Sony, Universal, Warner Brothers, and EMI) have been trying for years to get everyone to use DRM formated music. If Walmart pulls the plug, even though some people might re-purchase music, they would have learned a hard lesson on DRM and be less likely to buy it in the future, thus crushing the RIAA dream.

Re:Feedback from Walmart Customers

[Sockatume]

Walmart's switching to plain MP3 either way. The studios have absolutely nothing to gain by forcing Walmart to continue running its DRM servers after they do so.

They should just

[JustNiz]

Turn off the DRM server but also offer free non-DRM'd replacements for download from their website for all DRM'd files a user has purchased.

What's shocking

[Anita Coney]

What's shocking is that people actually used Wal-Mart's crappy, censored, DRM filled, and buggy service in the first place. Who are these people? Where do they live? And can we somehow take away their right vote?

Re:What's shocking

[Loopy1492]

That is just adorable.

Re:What's shocking

[Archangel Michael]

"And can we somehow take away their right vote?"

No. I'll bet that primarily they vote (D) and not (R). You must be an (R) to try to restrict voting like that.

Re:What's shocking

[mstahl]

If they continue to waste their money then their vote (by which I mean the "vote with your dollars" vote) will go away in the long run.

Re:What's shocking

[Anita Coney]

Wow, I've been modded "troll" for criticizing Apple and Microsoft products and customers. But this is the first time I've ever seen someone modded "troll" for criticizing Wal-Mart customers. Who knew there were passionate Wal-mart customers hanging out at Slashdot?! They're probably the same idiots who bought those DRM infected songs.

I think

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple beat you to it.

What do those servers do?

[Cigarra]

Seriously, I have no idea of how their system works.

Are those servers required to listen to the music EVERYTIME you want to play them on your computer? If so, what kind of idiot designed such a flawed "system"?

Why not just give them a free download of an MP3?

[NerdENerd]

Why not just give them a free download of an MP3 for every song they already purchaced?

What a scam

[thetoadwarrior]

Anyone with half a brain knows these DRM servers will go eventually. So Wal-Mart looks good by keeping them but they've instilled the idea that they'll go away so people will buy new DRM free versions and Wal-marts get more sales.

It would have been easier to give them a way to remove the DRM or DRM free versions and, tbh, probably cheaper than running the DRM servers but the publicity of them looking out for the little guy is more valuable I guess.

Next Contract

[bill_mcgonigle]

Even if walmart has to pay the record companies out of its own pocket, what's the break even point? You pay for a bunch of MP3s once or you pay to maintain servers forever. At some people, the MP3 option becomes cheaper.

Wal*Mart lives and dies by being cheap. So the answer is obviously that it's cheaper to run the servers right now.

Next time they do contracts with record companies they'll put in a clause that allows for retroactive grants of drm-free songs, they'll make those available to the subscribers and shut down the servers.

Re:Why not just give them a free download of an MP

[Chewbacon]

My thoughts exactly. Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run? Give them a DRM-free copy and forget about it. It's not like DRM is a big fad amongst customers. Last I heard Windows Media Player backing up licenses was a bigger thrill than the Xbox 360.

Re:Why not just give them a free download of an MP

[cpghost]

Why not just give them a free download of an MP3 for every song they already purchaced?

Maybe because they're unable to get a license for the corresponding MP3 songs from the labels? But nothing prevents them from issuing a refund, thus absorbing the cost of their mistake to go DRM in the first place.

Financially destructive?

[mi]

most financially destructive corporation on the planet.

"Destructive"? WTF?..

Re:Financially destructive?

[billcopc]

Destructive because of exploitative hiring practices, strong-armed buying tactics often putting their suppliers in financial peril for Walmart's profit, the systematic siphoning of money to China's manufacturing industry, and of course the ripple effects these have on communities and the economy at large.

Walmart is too big, too powerful, and too selfish. The term "economic terrorist" comes to mind.

Re:Financially destructive?

[mi]

Destructive because of exploitative hiring practices, strong-armed buying tactics often putting their suppliers in financial peril for Walmart's profit, the systematic siphoning of money to China's manufacturing industry, and of course the ripple effects these have on communities and the economy at large.

Propaganda bullshit. Buy low, sell high, bend over backwards to please your customers — that's how a business is supposed to run. Walmart is just very good at it, much to the customers' delight and the competition's chagrin.

The term "economic terrorist" comes to mind.

Does it? Well, please, explain, how the term "terrorism", which is defined as:

terrorism, act of terrorism, terrorist act -- (the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear)

apply to Walmart?

Or were you simply using the loaded term as a general purpose dirty word? Seems like it...

Re:Financially destructive?

[billcopc]

economic terrorism (my definition): the calculated use of buying power against suppliers and consumers in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation, coercion or artificial flooding of the market.

Walmart is so big, they can (and do) boss anyone and everyone around. They dwarf all competitors, and can exert fine-grained control over the market itself by choking suppliers via big-money contracts with overreaching non-compete restrictions. Once you start selling to Walmart, you become their bitch and they effectively wind up controlling your bottom line.

To me, that's all sorts of wrong. It's the classic theme of a parasite growing so needy, it bleeds the host to death.

The hated Wal-Mart

[mi]

my definition

You are welcome to create your definitions for anything, but you should not be making parallels with the commonly accepted definition of the same term. An "economic terrorist" is no more of a "terrorist", than a guinea pig is a pig.

They dwarf all competitors, and can exert fine-grained control over the market itself by choking suppliers via big-money contracts with overreaching non-compete restrictions. Once you start selling to Walmart, you become their bitch and they effectively wind up controlling your bottom line.

As long as the following is true (and it is):

1. Nobody is forced to shop there;
2. Nobody is forced to supply them (with goods or labor)

there is nothing particularly outrageous about them.

To me, that's all sorts of wrong. It's the classic theme of a parasite growing so needy, it bleeds the host to death.

Are you seriously calling a retailer "a parasite" (of one degree of "neediness" or another)? Presumably then, "the host" is the manufacturer? Wow... Do you like buying your DVD-players and toothbrushes in bulk? 'Cause if you don't, the "parasites" all provide extremely useful service to you...

Let me tell you the real reason you hate them Wal-Mart, even though Target, Kmart, etc are doing (or trying to do) the exact same thing... Unlike others, Wal-Mart actively fights unions (you know, the racketeers miraculously exempt from anti-trust laws). Unions, understandably, hate them with passion and organize all sorts of campaigns against them. That last link says:

Those results are music to the ears of WakeUpWalMart.com, the outfit that commissioned the Zogby poll, as well as to other powerful critics arrayed against the company. Another group, Wal-Mart Watch, has backing from the United Food and Commercial Workers--which claims 1.4m members--as well as the Teamsters Union, the Sierra Club, the 1.8m-strong Service Employees International Union and some 400 other organisations across the United States. Their lobbying efforts and public campaigning are being trumpeted by a number of political groups such as MoveOn.org, which likes to assail Republicans and capitalism. Many of these groups have been lambasting Wal-Mart for years, claiming that its relentless competitiveness and sheer clout have had a damaging effect on America's workers, small firms and neighbourhoods.

Now, I doubt, you'd have the personal integrity and honesty to admit to being a union sheeple, so I'll just leave this "debate" at that. So long...

Re:The hated Wal-Mart

[billcopc]

I'm not a union sheeple, in fact I do think most if not all unions are obsolete, but I also think the same of the financial system, and Wal-Mart is a very big and efficient player of the money game.

It's okay, you think I'm crazy/stupid and I don't expect that to ever change. Not until the system fails to a degree where you livelihood is personally affected by the fallout.

In case you need any more reasons to hate me, I'm a libertarian, and I think that drugs and the sex industry should be de-criminalized. Oh, and I'm also convinced 9/11 was an inside job. And just to be sure you've noticed, I'm CANADIAN! BOOO!

But answer me this: Tell me one way that Wal-Mart has directly improved your quality of life... just one.