This is great... A co-worker bought some music from here and asked me about it before she did. I told her she was wasting her money because this could happen and it did!

Wow. I'm glad I stuck with iTunes, incomplete though it may be.

Not to mention the fact that if you purchase anything, after 90 days, you can't re-download it.

And the recording industry wonders why it's dying. Wake up idiots! People don't want you to rip them off constantly. They will steal from you instead.

Good. Maybe Walmart's victims will learn to avoid DRM.

This is typical ham-fisted Wal-Mart douchebaggery. I hate for those who bought their music to lose access to it. It is well and truly The Suck.

But a part inside of me cheers for the sweet sweet validation this provides - DRM doesn't work, and screws consumers. And now a nice swathe of consumers are about to learn the lessons we already know. The sad thing is, they're going to learn the hard way.

I haven't purchased music in years, not just because of DRM though. However, it certainly gives me a reason to not buy any more. With the technology available these days, it's time for the artists to ditch the labels anyway.

@vladthepaler: or just avoid walmart

Consumerist says: "on October 9th, 2008, they will no longer be able to play any DRM-crippled tracks"

Walmart's email says: "Beginning October 9, we will no longer be able to assist with digital rights management issues for protected WMA files purchased from Walmart.com. If you do not back up your files before this date, you will no longer be able to transfer your songs to other computers or access your songs after changing or reinstalling your operating system or in the event of a system crash. Your music and video collections will still play on the originally authorized computer."

Am I misreading it? It doesn't say you will not be able to play the music anymore. There's a big difference between not being able to *play* the music and not being able to *move* it.

I love the less than a week notice I received in the e-mail they sent. I loved even more that I had this obnoxiously short time frame to find any music I'd purchased from them...then follow their instructions to violate the DMCA...so I could still access the music.
Needless to say that I never found the time to track down that music.

This is why you won't find me buying anything but unprotected content online.

F-you, Wal-Mart.

@MyPetFly: I haven't purchased music in years, not just because of DRM though. However, it certainly gives me a reason to not buy any more. With the technology available these days, it's time for the artists to ditch the labels anyway.

That holds up when you do purchase -- early and often -- from the non-labeled artists whose music you do enjoy. (See also: Jonathan Coulton, one of my favorite musicians and definitely my favorite internet success story.) But "purchasing" is still a really key part of making that work. It's just a matter of who's distributing and who's keeping the cash. The RIAA can bite me, but I'm happy to buy directly from artists I wish to support.

Our firm has been working to put a stake through the heart of DRM for many years now. If you have purchased any Wal-Mart DRM protected music from their online music store, or your know someone who has, please contact me. There are options other than just letting Wal-Mart dictate that your music is “nuked.” ahimmelfarb@KamberEdelson.com

As irritating as it may be for those affected, it could be good in the long term if a company completely shuts off the DRM with no consumer recourse. The more bad press DRM receives, the better. Events like this also make it more likely for situations to arise where the laws supporting DRM (Like the DCMA) could be challenged in the courts. Now if only someone could explain things like this to an executive with any kind of authority over it. Unfortunately, too many of them have no clue what they are doing.

How is this not illegal? Is it because the terms and conditions were agreed to? I think it's time that there is at least a law that a company must replace the DRM songs with DRM-free tracks. Paying for something and taking it away is just wrong, this is not a gray area, people paid and now the product is gone. It's like a buying a couch from Target, they go out of business, you come home from work and have to watch tv while sitting on the floor.

Just another case to support why I still buy CDs (besides just enojying having a physical object with artwork, etc...) and take the 5 minutes to import them into digital format. Not that I would ever buy digital music from Wal-Mart, but its not totally unreasonable to think that at some point Apple could do this.

@JoshMac:
I think that is the risk taken when you purchase a license to something (video games, movies, music, etc) as opposed to an actual product. You become completely vulnerable to whatever terms and conditions apply.

It is sad that you can get a better product by stealing than purchasing.

I just hope that before DRM becomes any more widespread enough people will be soured on it to accept it. The more limitations that people are aware of when making a purchase the more unlikely they are to make that purchase.

This was one of the best posts about DRM that Consumerist has ever posted. I often send it to friends wondering why I just won't "give in to iTunes" or any other DRM-crippled music stores.

How I Became a Music Pirate: [consumerist.com]

Amazon has a DRM-free music service I use, decent music selection too.

@ElizabethD: you think it can't happen to iTunes? Then you're a sucker! What about 10 years from now? Let's look at DRM and what you can do

1. I have CD's going back almost 20 years worth how long will DRM keep going ? no one knows but from this it doesn't look like long.
2. I don't need any ones permission to play my CD's on any computer or cd Player. I can play it on more then 3 cd players if I like. DRM nope you locked in to X number of computers and Players.
3. I can lend a CD to a friend take them to a party. DRM music not so much unless people like leaving their iPods on a table (ya like that a smart Idea)
4. I can sell my CD!!!!! DRM music nope it's like catching herpes once you have it it's your for life.
5. I can rip a high quality MP3 to my quality of liking not being stuck on a arbitrary bit rate that the selling DRM infested music site sells.
6. With CD's I can burn any number of compellation CD's I like with out limits. DRM nope only can bur X number of times then you need to burn from one the initial CD's you burned the DRM music to.

Let's look at companies that have done this very large companies that have turned off their DRM and left people hanging and potentially repaying for their music after being an honest consumer screwed over by DRM.

Wal-Mart
Yahoo
Microsoft
Major League Baseball

@JoshMac:

Just like with software, I'm more than willing to bet these tracks weren't sold, but licensed. That is, you didn't actually buy anything but the right to listen to them until Wal-Mart decides to pull the plug.

Yes, this is ridiculous. Will it ever change? Not bloody likely.

@armour:
Your rant about iTunes is somewhat incorrect, a large portion of their catalog is DRM free.

This is one of the reasons I laughed at all of the people who thought downloaded movies would beat out HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. People even thought Microsoft was backing HD-DVD to drag out the "war" so movie downloads could take off. Hah!

I have no problem with DRM at all. But I would not buy a DRMed file unless I was willing to lose access to it in the future. On the other hand, I think DRM is PERFECT for rental services like Napster. All you can eat as long as you keep paying the monthly fee. Also great for Netflix - if it weren't for DRM, there's no way we'd have Netflix streaming movies.

@catcherintheeye: I also use the Amazon digital music store, it's wonderful, and the bitrate is higher than most, too.

"Honestly, who buys music from Walmart?"

That was my first thought after reading this. After a little research, I find that EVERYONE BUT ME buys music from Walmart.

It may make me sem like I am old and whiney but vinyl sounds great, costs less than CD's, and I can easily make a digital copy for my computer which can then be transfered to car, mp3 player, etc.

I am assuming that what people want to hear is released on vinyl however and maybe this isnt such a good idea after all for many.

I appreciate that people want to sign onto a pirate free system of buying music, but DRM is terrible.

*cough* fairuse4wm *cough*

@armour: Amazon MP3 downloads.

Done.|

Get off your CD high horse. Who are you, anyway? Metallica?

@JoshMac: For what it's worth, I believe the courts actually would rule that customers bought music from WalMart, not licensed it.

Also, I think the title of this post should be "Walmart Shuts Down Music Store, Steals DRM-Crippled Songs"

@mugsywwiii: When did Blu-Ray "win" over downloaded movies/VOD? I don't see it as a settled matter at all. The fact that NetFlix is offering streaming video/selling a streaming player seems to indicate that they think VOD/downloaded certainly has a strong future.

I've got hundreds of DRM protected songs from Walmart. Their music download site was easy to use and the price was right.

I haven't downloaded anything in the last year, though. I switched to having Walmart "build" me a CD with the songs I wanted. I did this mainly because where I work we're not allowed to have any homemade CDs, only commercially created ones.

I've already burned all my downloaded to CD; I did that as I downloaded them. If fact - I've got two copies of everything.

I just hope that everyone else who downloaded the protected music has made CDs, or that they see/notice the email and makes the CDs now.

I agree that turning off the DRM key servers is a breach of contract, unfairly further crippling the product retroactively.

If companies are going to sell retroactively nukeable goods I should pay with retroactively nukeable money. Purchasers should be able to pay with DRMed funds, and turn off the key server to the money, so that it can't be transferred to another computer or company. I'm guessing WalMart would have a problem with that, even as they don't have a problem with doing essentially the same thing to the music people paid for.

And RIAA killed www.muxtape.com this week too.

@B:

eMusic is fairly awesome if you have less than mainstream musical tastes. Everything is DRM free, reasonable bit-rate and it costs 14.99/month which gets you 65 tracks in that period. The only complaint that I have is that in certain cases they have an album but a few of the tracks from that album are not available for download. I prefer to listen to albums in their entirety for the most part and this stops that. All in all a good service which I highly recommend.

@vladthepaler: I was really going to try my hardest to avoid saying "Wal-mart sucks", but I just can't help myself.

Who would trust buying DRM music from Wal-mart in the first place? Wal-mart is fail.

The good news may be that news like this will give Steve Jobs more leverage to convince the labels to let him sell DRM-free music on iTunes, like he wants to.

ham-fisted Wal-Mart douchebaggery ? No doubt. (can Wal-Mart act any, other way ?)

But, in a rather sad sense, it also serves anyone who bought DRMed music right. Come on folks! It doesn't take much of a mental stretch at all to realize in advance how easily DRM can turn into a clusterf*ck.

Use your heads. Buy CDs and rip/encode 'em yourself. Or buy non-DRMed files from the likes of Amazon.com.

I had never even heard of this. I must be sadly behind the times. On the flip side, my old-fashionedness has prevented me from getting screwed.

"Allright, Wal-Mart customers, you can't listen to the music you bought from us anymore, but if you burn to CD it will be okay. BTW, we have those CDs. Come buy them so you can keep what you already bought. Ohhhh yeaaaahhh."

I try not to buy anything with any DRM on it if I possibly can.

Steam is about the only DRM I will tolerate.

I do not tolerate Walmart period.

The simple truth that this teaches consumers: Any purchasing scheme that has a ¨phone home¨ element doesn´t actually involve any real purchasing.

If a game can only phone home 5 times to activate, you didn´t purchase it, you licensed it.

If the music you thought you bought is susceptible to failing to play because the software can´t verify your right to play it (i.e., can´t phone home because the ¨home¨ no longer exists) then you licensed it.

I can envision a solid revenue scheme that revolves around licensing, but it involves a weekly, monthly, or yearly licensing fee instead of a per-track ¨purchase¨ price. I would view as reasonable an offer to pay $19.99 for a week´s access to a reasonably-sized catalogue or collection, with an all-you-can download non-limit.

What is totally not reasonable is representing per-track prices as a bona fide purchase price when it is anything but.

This is why I don´t buy label music any more - even the vectors that aren´t DRM-crippled. The (big, failing) industry as a whole disgusts me. I will buy directly from an artist, however, if there is no DRM.

I meant $19.99 per month there, small difference.

@ameyer: They didn't "buy" it, they rented it. This was the business model: "We have a kajillion songs, you can buy access to them for a monthly fee". You weren't buying the song, you were buying the access.

@armour: Apple can disable the drm and leave any drm'd itunes music as normal none crippled aac files with one minor update. Hell, Harmony already does that.

@ViperBorg:

No I'm not Metallica because
1. I said I'm against DRM Media and
2. I'm not calling people a thief that rip CD's in to a digital format.

No I deal with small and medium business and countless home users that have had data crashes and loss of digital media and the cost and problems they have gone through.

I have seen archived burned CD's that have CD rot and the data is unrecoverable in less then 5 years of storage. I have a large collection of legacy hardware to recover backup from SCISI disks data tapes, ZIP drives, ect that less then a decade were all in high use what dose the next 10 years hold?

My high horse it that many home users don't have the knowledge of digital archiving and are paying a cost for it. it is also hard to prove to an insurance company that there were 2000 paid for digital song that got destroyed in the house fire. there are many issues that I face day to day with digital media that I don't like that personally I wont buy it. I have an extensive collection of over 3000 DVD's and CD's that I have the physical media in original state that I can do many things with without additional cost or restriction of formats. I have physical proof I own it and as I said I can sell it lend it do what ever I want to it can you do that with a digital format? You can but is it stealing and ethical?

I hate RIAA and MPAA as much as the next person but I'm not a thief and people need to be paid for the product produced but on the same side consumers need some protection and fair treatment and that not happening with digital sales.

@cristiana: and what about all the music that people have allready purchused that are not DRM free?

The worst part about this is walmart is only doing it to save the cost of running the DRM server. How much can keeping the server going really cost?

@catcherintheeye: Not quite. Most of the stuff I'm after can't be found in digital form- when I search for it it brings up a CD result. Said result is an import from amazon.co.jp...

@cristiana: And, when you insert a CD, iTunes ask you to burn it in a variety of different resolutions and formats. ALL non-DRMed.
I think it's time for Snopes to add an iTunes entry... :)

@Evil_Otto: That was not walmart's business model. They were not like Netflix, where you rent time with as many songs as you want. Their business plan was, pay 99 cents per song, and that's it. Sounds like something a judge would agree is a purchase and not a license.

I'll stick to my eight track cassettes, thank you very much. I've *never* had a problem with DRM.