![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
So, did anyone else notice they used \"insure\" when they meant \"ensure\"?
You'd think they'd have copy editors.
@LoreleiRadassical: I used to be strict insure/ensure person until somebody smarter than me used insure \"incorrectly.\" I looked it up and it turns out that insure can work just like ensure. But you can't ensure your car with an insurance company.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-456956-100x100.png\")
It's hardly a permanent fix: They're just turning the licensing servers back on. They can be turned off when the brouhaha dies down.
A real solution is a permanent one. Allow the consumers to replace the DRM'd versions with clean versions.
I swear I didn't used to be this cynical!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-101046-100x100.png\")
@AnxiousDemographic: You would think that is the obvious solution. But it would probably cost wallyworld money.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-513539-100x100.png\")
if i am allowed to circumvent this drm why shouldnt i be allowed to circumvent all drm. i still think im not allowed to do this.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-11652-100x100.png\")
They have altered the deal. Pray they don't alter it further.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-90329-100x100.png\")
No, they won't let you re-download replacement tracks... They won't even let you re-download what you buy after 90 days...
\"...we're not naive enough to think Walmart will follow Yahoo's footsteps and offer DRM-free replacement tracks...\"
Right on. God forbid Walmart should have to pay to fix the problem they created.
Despite moving into my first apartment, and trying to keep expenditures as low as possible, I am so glad I chose to not shop at Walmart. I hate these scumbags more than anything.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-22998-100x100.png\")
DRM is bad... mmmmkay? Don't buy anything with DRM on it.
I thought this would happen. There's too much at stake legally if they shut down the DRM servers for any company to risk it. The legal implications of a lawsuit stemming from such an action like this are what they are really afraid of. They don't want to get in front of a judge and try to explain why they took away the ability for people to listen to music they purchased legally without losing audio quality.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6798-100x100.png\")
IANAL, so - is there any reason that WalMart couldn't be sued or even prosecuted in criminal court for taking away something (music tracks) that the RIAA continues to insist has actual value? In other words, customers paid for the music, then WalMart took it away (when they initially shut down the servers) but kept the customers' money. The product they offered instead (ripped and burned tracks) was degraded in quality, so not what the customer originally paid for; besides which, there are laws against circumventing DRM. How is WalMart not straight-up stealing from their customers when they turn off the servers?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-66824-100x100.png\")
It's like they're asking people to pirate after burning them with these shenanigans; kind of the opposite of what they wanted.
So, prior to this story, the lesson to be learned was \"Don't trust Wal-Mart* to provide you with any guarantee of usability once you walk away from the checkout stand (or internet equivalent)\".
And, now that this story has broken, we should be assured that Wal-Mart* will stand behind their product -- possibly, indefinitely, or perhaps not, until they again decide to abandon it?
Got it.
Why would anyone pay for the 10% most significant bits of the music that's crippled with DRM in the first place?
Buy the stupid CD and throw away 90% of the music yourself. If you decide later that you really did want music rather than tinny noise resembling a toy bear you can listen to all the bits, or maybe only throw away 50%. Your choice.
You're getting what you deserve.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-128001-100x100.png\")
@Cary: I'm not quite sure if you're complaining about song quality or recording quality, but quit being a cantankerous old coot. .mp3s are a perfectly valid format and there's lots of good music being made today.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-562864-100x100.png\")
You bought music from WalMart instead of Apple? I'm not sure why anyone would even think about doing this. Frankly I'm not surprised, we're all used to this kind of crap from WM.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-387761-100x100.png\")
I'm not completely unsympathetic to Walmart's customers demanding the ability to keep their MP3s active since they actually paid good money to get the music, but anyone knowledgeable enough to use devices capable of playing MP3s was also educated enough to read about the dangers. It was a common discussion when the devices were put on the market, and these people ignored good advice.
Unlike the mortgage meltdown where it was the uneducated who were preyed upon by unscrupulous lenders, those who bought into DRM should have known better, and probably did know but didn't listen.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37033-100x100.png\")
@P_Smith:
If someone, even an educated, literate person, doesn't follow news sources in a handful of relatively narrow fields (computers and electronics, law, music, consumer issues), there is no reason to expect them to have ever heard of this danger. It gets virtually no coverage in generalist publications or on TV.
If someone knows of no danger, you cannot expect them to research the danger.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-8966-100x100.png\")
On a side note, those pirate mannequins are awesome. During our summer travels my son and I came across the female one at a shop. The long stares my boy gave the girl pirate leads me to believe that puberty is well on its way for him.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-433468-100x100.png\")
They either just need to keep the server running or give them DRM free versions of the songs that they already have. Or store credit for the same amount of songs or something like that. Instead, of your screwed.... were shutting off the severs on XX/XX/XX Sorry folks...
I love how with all of these high profile DRM shut downs the advice has always been, \"oh just burn it then rip it again\"
So ah what is the point of DRM again?
@tande04: Maybe they want you to use up all of your blank CD's burning the music so you'll go to walmart and buy more lol
@tande04: The analog hole exists for any DRM format. Basically if we're able to hear or see the content, there is a way to rip it.
The point is that you don't get a 100% copy of the file using these methods. You have generational degradation just like back in the days people were trading tapes.
@tande04:
Remember that if your getting something at say 192kbps your getting a lesser quality copy. Meaning its already compressed. So If your burning it your burning from a lower quality already, then re-ripping it without DRM and ripping it down and compressing it again.
But DRM from what I understand is just to keep you from transferring the digital copy around because most people are too lazy to do the whole burn and re-rip thing. The average person would most likely just keep their PC for 5 years or so without formatting so no reason to make a hard copy like that.