Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows
Home > Type > News > Wal-Mart pulls an MSN, reverses cancellation of DRM servers

Wal-Mart pulls an MSN, reverses cancellation of DRM servers

Oct. 10, 2008 Paul Thurrott | Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows

In case you’re not up on this issue, Wal-Mart briefly foisted their own WMA-based music service on the world and then proceeded to take it offline. The problem, of course, is that since Wal-Mart sold DRM-protected music via this service, users who purchased that music would need to occasionally connect to Wal-Mart’s DRM authorization servers to prove that they owned the music. (This would happen if they reinstalled the OS on their PC or copied the music to a new PC, for example.) Anyway, Wal-Mart announced recently that they would take these servers offline. And as Microsoft discovered previously with MSN Music, this didn’t sit so well with customers. So they’re reversing course.

Based on feedback from our customers, we have decided to maintain our
digital rights management (DRM) servers for the present time.  What this
means to you is that our existing service continues and there is no
action required on your part.  Our customer service team will continue
to assist with DRM issues for protected windows media audio (WMA) files
purchased from Walmart.com.

While our customer support team is available to assist you with any
issues, we continue to recommend that you back up your songs by burning
them to a recordable audio CD. By backing up your songs, you insure
access to them from any personal computer at any time in the future.

We appreciate your support and patience as we work to provide the best
service possible to you.  As we move forward with our 100% MP3 store,
we'll continue to update you with key decisions regarding our service
and your account via email.

Thank you for using Walmart MP3 Music Downloads.

The Walmart Digital Music Team

Just so we’re clear. DRM is bad. But anyone who did purchase music from one of these services is advised to convert them to an unprotected format, preferably MP3. Because these servers will eventually go offline for good.'

Thanks Alex.

Discuss this Article 16

CompactDstrxion
on Oct 10, 2008
It's not that easy, Paul, because converting a low-bitrate lossy format (presumably we're talking about 128kbps WMAs here?) to MP3 will cause a fair amount of consequential loss of audio fidelity. The only way to unprotect them without losing fidelity is to burn to CD then rerip in a lossless format like FLAC, WMA Lossless or Apple Lossless. Unfortunately these files are much larger in size. Oh yeah, I'm going to mention again that currently it is impossible to buy major-label music in DRM-free formats outside the US.
lotsamystuff
on Oct 10, 2008
If the labels would get off their collective a$$es and start allowing everyone--not just the select chosen few--to sell DRM-free music, perhaps they might see an actual increase in business. Until then, stuff like this is going to continue to rear its ugly head and make consumers even more wary of future purchases. It's ridiculous.
tayme
on Oct 10, 2008
@lotsa - Along wit h allowing everyone, a good customer relationship move would be to allow anybody that has purchased a DRM laden track, to redownload it in a non-DRM format...but that is just the crack pipe talking, I think. --tayme
shark47
on Oct 10, 2008
tayme, just like everyone who bought audio cassettes were given CDs of the same album? :-) I understand the flaw in my argument. The problem here is not DRM itself, but the fact that there isn't one DRM scheme that's used by everyone. They should have standardized DRM schemes and forced music stores (including Apple's) to adopt it. Right now, it's like cds that play only on Sony's players. Of course, Apple probably wouldn't have, so...
tayme
on Oct 10, 2008
@sharky - Good point...but you responded to your own comment the same way I would...Plus, I can still get a cassette player to play the cassettes. As companies move away from the DRM systems that are in place and attempt to shut down the systems that they were on, the files no longer work. We can always burn to audio CD, as suggested...I am just saying that the labels could make a few customer brownie points if they did something like that. --tayme
shark47
on Oct 10, 2008
So, go on, blame DRM. It's not like DVDs have no embedded protection. No one seems to complain about that. That's because when you buy a DVD from WalMar, you're not left guessing whether it'll play on a player purchased at Target. This wouldn't be an issue if music purchased at the WalMart store played on an iPod or music purchased on iTunes played on your Zune. The way it was, the popularity of iPods killed all stores but iTMS, until Amazon came out with DRM free music.
shark47
on Oct 10, 2008
tayme, the labels screwed up badly and came out appearing greedy. It was stupid that the RIAA chose to go after the average college student. Instead, if they had worked to standardize DRM across the board so that music purchased anywhere could play anywhere, things would've been a lot better for them. The way it is now, the only way an online music store can survive now is by selling DRM free music. Otherwise, it won't play in about 80% of the devices in the market.
tayme
on Oct 10, 2008
Very well put, Sharky. I couldn't agree more. --tayme
Waethorn
on Oct 10, 2008
"Instead, if they had worked to standardize DRM across the board so that music purchased anywhere could play anywhere, things would've been a lot better for them." I think the whole point of requiring different types of DRM in music is DUE to the fact that they learned that standardizing CSS on DVD basically crippled the protection once it was broken. ....and if you really think that this is designed to block hackers, think again. DRM is supposed to prevent casual copying. They know the "professionals" will get through it, but they're depending on it to prevent Joe Blow down the street from giving a permanent copy to his neighbour when he feels like it. There are still many average computer users that don't know how to copy Hollywood DVD's, so CSS has at least somewhat worked. Locking down music even harder by restricting device transfer and such, was the next logical step. Now they've gone from a per-user licensing model, to a per-device model, potentially making them more money. Again, their execution backfired, because now, music piracy is getting up to record highs from the "Napster-generation" that think that "music is free, and it comes from the internet". Piracy as a protest is like saying "I hate that guy. I'm gonna kill him so I don't have to deal with him".
lotsamystuff
on Oct 10, 2008
"So, go on, blame DRM. It's not like DVDs have no embedded protection. No one seems to complain about that. That's because when you buy a DVD from WalMar [sic], you're not left guessing whether it'll play on a player purchased at Target." No, that's because you're not left worrying that some day, a company will shut down its servers or go out of business and you'll be left with a collection of bits that are as useless as a Waethorn opinion. The DRM on my DVD player doesn't require my DVD player to "phone home" to work. That's the difference. The DRM on a DVD is irrelevant unless I want to make a copy. But with music, I have to periodically check in to a server that may or may not exist at some point in the future. As long as my DVD player holds out mechanically and there's electricity available, I'll be able to play that shiny disc. As recent failures on the part of behemoths Microsoft and Wal*Mart show, that's not necessarily true with music. The labels have made everyone from Apple to Microsoft on down--with the only notable exception of Amazon-- buy into this ridiculous scheme to operate. I put the full blame for this garbage on their shoulders. Blame DRM? You bet your sweet a$$ I do.
gorath
on Oct 10, 2008
Lotsa, you are completely and utterly missing Wae's point. I fear it may be impossible to explain to you.
johnpapola
on Oct 10, 2008
"I think the whole point of requiring different types of DRM in music is DUE to the fact that they learned that standardizing CSS on DVD basically crippled the protection once it was broken." Waethorn is correct. The fact that these DRM schemes are tied closely to ongoing communication with servers for validation is clearly a direct result of CSS being broken. The problem, of course, is that ALL DRM is eventually broken. There is a value in the DRM for alternative business models like subscription music. It's a lock in that's no different than the subscription fee for satelite radio or cable. Use it/pay for it, or lose it. But DRM for purchases of a product that the consumer has an expectation of "ownership" shouldn't have DRM because it's futile and inhibits ease of use.
gorath
on Oct 10, 2008
People don't, and never have "purchased" music as we know the term. All they really paid for was the right to play that particular piece of medium they'd bought, be it a shellac, an 8-track, a cassette, vinyl or CD. They never had any other rights other than playback of that particular format. A conversation I had this week even leads me to belive the whole "you can make one backup for personal use" thing is an urban myth, but I'll have to investigate depper into that. technically, copying digital music from your PC to a music player was illegal until very recently, even AFTER such stores as i-tunes existed. I guess what I'm saying is the traditional livensing law needs a bit of an overhaul with regards to the modern market. We need to make music accessible, make DRM transparent and unobtrusive, but still prevent copyright infringement, ESPECIALLY casual piracy.
shark47
on Oct 10, 2008
"There is a value in the DRM for alternative business models like subscription music. " Yes, but it's the same problem. Subscription music will never succeed the way it can unless it works on an iPod. And that's one case where DRM is necessary. The music labels really screwed this one up. Not only has the piracy problem not been solved. Now they've also lost all control to Apple.
lotsamystuff
on Oct 11, 2008
"Lotsa, you are completely and utterly missing Wae's point. I fear it may be impossible to explain to you." I wasn't responding to Waethorn. I fear it may be impossible to explain that to you.
gorath
on Oct 11, 2008
fair enough, no need to be an arse about it.

Please or Register to post comments.

Related Articles

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use
Apr. 18, 2013
Article

What I Use: On the Road 21

Every so often, I publish an updated version of my “What I Use” document, which details the technology products and services I actually use day-to-day. Since I’m currently on my third business trip in five weeks, this is perhaps an ideal time to discuss the technology products I rely on when I travel and a few related points....More
Mar. 6, 2013
Article

What I Use: March 2013 33

Lots of changes since November, including a new PC-based home server running Windows 8, several new smart phones, new PCs and tablets, new cloud backup, Office 365 Home Premium and a nice doubling of my Internet speeds courtesy of Verizon FIOS....More
WinSuperSite.com
Related Penton Sites
Copyright © 2013 Penton Media, Inc