Wal*Mart Drops Support For DRM - Honest Users Get To Repurchase Music

[Ed Hansberry]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/26/walmart-shutting-dow.html' target='_blank'>http://www.boingboing.net/2008/09/2...utting-dow.html</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Hey suckers! Did you buy DRM music from Wal*Mart instead of downloading MP3s for free from the P2P networks? Well, they're repaying your honesty by taking away your music. Unless you go through a bunch of hoops (that you may never find out about, if you've changed email addresses or if you're not a very technical person), your music will no longer be playable after October 9th. But don't worry, this will never ever happen to all those other DRM companies -- unlike little fly-by-night mom-and-pop operations like Wal*Mart, the DRM companies are rock-ribbed veterans of commerce and industry, sure to be here for a thousand years. So go on buying your Audible books, your iTunes DRM songs, your Zune media, your EA games... None of these companies will ever disappear, nor will the third-party DRM suppliers they use. They are as solid and permanent as Commodore, Atari, the Soviet Union, the American credit system and the Roman Empire. "</em><br /><br />I don't advocate stealing music from the various services out there - I tend to buy my digital music from Amazon's MP3 service, which has no DRM. However, if I had purchased music that was tied to my PC and I couldn't move it to another PC because the DRM service was shut down, I'd have no problem "stealing" that music again to get what I paid for. Hopefully, if you purchased music like this you can burn it to a CD then re-rip it DRM free. That is what I used to do when I purchased tracks from Naptster and Yahoo before I moved to Amazon. As for Audible books, who buys Audible books with the intent of keeping them and relistening to them?</p><p>Head over to the article lined to above to see the heart-warming letter from Wal*Mart to their loyal customers.</p>

[Jason Dunn]

What a bunch of BS. Compared to MSN Music, Wal-Mart is really giving people a screw-job...at least MSN Music is keeping their DRM servers online for a few more years (even before the public pressure it was two years I think). Wal-mart is pulling the plug on ther servers right away it seems...

DRM'd music sucks in every way possible, but what's worse is how this experience will make the people who purchased the music think twice about purchasing music again...these idiot companies are practically PUSHING people toward P2P networks.

And really, how much can it cost to keep a DRM server or two online for authentication?

[serpico]

That's why I make back up copies of purchased itunes songs. I make audio and mp3 files for the Zune. Being in Canada, we don't have marketplace yet and not sure if I can buy from Amazon.com. Never tried. But we do need some more options to drm free music for Canada.

[Gerard]

Buying music directly from the artists of through small independent labels (such as copperspine - shameless plug for my wife's label) gets you what you paid for; a CD you can rip, or non-DRM protected high quality downloaded files you are free to backup. Buying from MegaCorp (Wal*Mart, iTunes, whoever) is just shooting yourself in the foot financially. Sooner or later they're not going to support your purchase, it's just a matter of time. And of course the cut the artist gets per CD or song sold is trivial compared to the percentage usually got with small labels of direct sales by the bands.

[heliod]

I have read the original article twice trying to understand the content, and I believe that, with all my despise to DRM music, this is a way they are trying to justify why they steal music by trying to turn something good to something bad. Here are my reasons:

1. Walmart explains that the reason for turning off their DRM music comes from the fact that since February they have been selling non-DRM and this is what will be from now on.

2. They explain that at the moment you have recorded the files to a CD, you are free to listen it everywhere.

3. They have sent the email to all their registered users. I quite believe that if you are registered to a service you use and you change emails, you are the only one to blame if your email address is not updated there and you don't receive notices. You could, as I do, use one special Yahoo/Hotmail/Gmail account only for registering on these services.

In conclusion, don't try to use these things to justify yourself for stealing music. As Ed says, it would be valid only if they don't offer you a solution.

Would you steal from your local supermarket only because it sells things more expensive than others? Or even because they refused to give you money back for bad fruit that you have only remembered to return one month after you bought it?

Thieves are thieves and they will stay thieves everywhere, all time, and for all reasons. There is no way to justify it.

Only my 2 cents

Helio

[Jason Dunn]

2. They explain that at the moment you have recorded the files to a CD, you are free to listen it everywhere.

Helio, my friend, I have to disagree. Burning files to a CD then re-ripping them results in an audio file that is inferior to the one that was burned in the first place. It's also a waste of a CD. What Wal-Mart should have done was offer people their music in DRM-free MP3 format - because they're shutting down their DRM server, they know all that music out there is going to stop working eventually, so by offering it in MP3 format they'd be giving customers what they thought they were buying in the first place: music that they can listen to for the rest of their lives (assuming they don't lose the files), just like what you get when you purchase a CD. But Wal-Mart didn't do that, they instead decided to screw their customers. So very typical. I can't blame anyone for seeking out DRM-free versions of their tracks on P2P networks - Wal-Mart isn't giving people a reasonable option.

[Jason Dunn]

Buying from MegaCorp (Wal*Mart, iTunes, whoever) is just shooting yourself in the foot financially. Sooner or later they're not going to support your purchase, it's just a matter of time.

I agree, but unfortunately most of the artists that I like listening to are on big labels and those megacorp places are the ones that sell the music I want to buy. Small indy labels are great, but only if you like small indy bands. I have a fair number of indy CDs, but most of the music I buy nowadays are from mainstream media exposure - readio, TV, Internet, etc.

[Jason Dunn]

Being in Canada, we don't have marketplace yet and not sure if I can buy from Amazon.com. Never tried.

You can purchase from Amazon.com if you have a credit card that has a US billing address...that's the only way I know how to make it work.

And, yeah, we really do need a DRM-free online music store in Canada... :(

[Gerard]

I agree, but unfortunately most of the artists that I like listening to are on big labels and those megacorp places are the ones that sell the music I want to buy. Small indy labels are great, but only if you like small indy bands. I have a fair number of indy CDs, but most of the music I buy nowadays are from mainstream media exposure - readio, TV, Internet, etc.

For cases such as these the first thought coming to my mind is to advocate for your beliefs on the matter, letting both dollars and words speak your case. Specifically, my suggestion would be that you send a money order for the retail value (whether as seen on Amazon or in a store, whichever you feel is suitable on a case-by-case basis) to the distributor/label wrapped up in a simple letter, outlining your reasons for a) downloading the album named in the letter via a P2P network, and b) (which follows on a)), explaining that since you already have the music, and since they already have your money, there is no need for the CD and packaging. Result:

- Record company might get a small clue from this whack with the clue stick.

- You get a high quality DRM-free copy of the music you want, as popular titles are almost always widely available on the P2P sites.

- The environment suffers to the tune of one CD plus packaging less, including the fuel needed to ship it to your doorstep, whether by courier, mail, or your own trip to the record store.

Everybody wins. The artist gets their $0.90/CD. The record company gets their $15 profit. Oh, but the packaging/distribution firms lose out, so not quite everybody... the $3 - $4 cost per CD kit including promotional expenses, radio station pay-offs, etc., are saved by the record company, so they get to laugh just that much harder on the way to the bank to deposit your money order. And Canada Post gets their $0.70 or whatever it is for a money order fee, so the postal service, long complaining of how couriers and the internets have cut into their bottom line, have one less thing to complain about.

Is this an adequate case made for 'stealing' your music of choice? Basically what I just described is a simple method of forcing the MegaCorps of the world to wake up and join the twenty-first century, to leverage your powers as a consumer in alerting them to your preferences in music distribution. Their old way stinks. The packaging is still available if you want it; just go to a store and buy the thing if you really want to have that stuff. But for most of us, digital is digital, no matter if it's burned for us onto a CD of approximately 10 - 20 year life expectancy or distributed as a torrent file. Either way, honest people have the power to make this change happen, without becoming thieves.

For my part, I buy independently produced stuff for the most part, though there's the odd thing I have on vinyl which is just to poppy to rip with AudioGrabber, so I buy the CDs as I find them, if available in that format. I also get a lot of CDs handed to my by clients and friends, almost all of whom are recording artists, and almost all of those being people who understand a CD as a form of promotional material used in spreading the word about their live performances. My jazz collection is getting quite fat.

[Janak Parekh]

And, yeah, we really do need a DRM-free online music store in Canada... :( One of my fears is that the labels only allow DRM-free music as competition to iTunes. If and when they manage to take down iTunes, I wouldn't be surprised if they let their DRM-free contracts expire with Amazon, Rhapsody, MSN, etc. The labels really couldn't give a damn about what any of us want. :mad:

--janak

[Joel Crane]

I didn't read all of the posts, but since Thoughts has introduced me to Amazon, I haven't been tempted to download an mp3 from a p2p network, not even once.

[frankenbike]

I stopped downloading from P2P services when it became a pain. Mostly what I miss from P2P downloading were non-studio and non-released amateur recordings of stuff I had in all its form from the labels.

I NEVER bought DRM protected music. I've always felt that anything that required a DRM server made my purchase...more of a "rental at will". I've always thought of this as an evil RIAA scheme to keep reselling you the same music over and over as time passed.

Since WalMart and Amazon started selling non-DRM music I've bought about 100 songs. Mostly music I was introduced to through Pandora. I'd have bought more, but not every song I want is available on the non-DRM services.

(It's too bad that Pandora totally dissed us WM users and developed their first smartphone app for the iPhone...bastards)

Prior to that, the only thing I purchased were used CDs. I could rip my own and didn't have to worry about it ceasing to work.

It's hard for me to believe that anyone who buys DRMed music doesn't use one of many converters available to get it to regular MP3s or burn them to CDs as backup so they can be re-ripped. A pain to be sure, but it's always been the smart thing to do.

DRM is evil and has been from day one. It's been discredited and is a marketing negative, and eventually all DRM services will cease operating. What should happen, is that legit services should offer their users tools to convert all their DRMed music to non-DRM, including Microsoft and Apple, and the RIAA should bless such a movement. Rather than pinning their hopes on selling DRM buyers their music in non-DRMed form (the only reason such tools are not yet authorized).

I'd put my money on Microsoft embracing such a move before the far more fascist, customer-control and developer-control obsessed Apple.

--
FB

[Ed Hansberry]

It's hard for me to believe that anyone who buys DRMed music doesn't use one of many converters available to get it to regular MP3s or burn them to CDs as backup so they can be re-ripped. A pain to be sure, but it's always been the smart thing to do.
I think that for most people, it is either not known it can be done, if known, it isn't known where to get the software, or as you said, it is enough of a pain that it is beyond their skill set, which is what the RIAA is counting on.

[heliod]

Helio, my friend, I have to disagree. Burning files to a CD then re-ripping them results in an audio file that is inferior to the one that was burned in the first place. It's also a waste of a CD. What Wal-Mart should have done was offer people their music in DRM-free MP3 format - because they're shutting down their DRM server, they know all that music out there is going to stop working eventually, so by offering it in MP3 format they'd be giving customers what they thought they were buying in the first place: music that they can listen to for the rest of their lives (assuming they don't lose the files), just like what you get when you purchase a CD. But Wal-Mart didn't do that, they instead decided to screw their customers. So very typical. I can't blame anyone for seeking out DRM-free versions of their tracks on P2P networks - Wal-Mart isn't giving people a reasonable option.

OK, now I understand what you guys mean. The fact is that all these DRM music shops were never available to Israeli public (they didn't sell to us guys), so until Amazon began selling their DRM-free music I never bought digital music from websites, only bought CDs.

However, at least from what I have seen, the quality of the tracks you can get on a P2P network is usually a lot lower than what you get after burning and re-ripping.

Anyway, I have to agree that Wallmart should provide a better solution.

[frankenbike]

I think that for most people, it is either not known it can be done, if known, it isn't known where to get the software, or as you said, it is enough of a pain that it is beyond their skill set, which is what the RIAA is counting on.

Let's face it, more people need to be more cynical and less trusting.

And there is no reason for us to feel sorry for people who aren't resourceful enough to solve this conundrum on their own. They've got the Internet and Google, and that's all you need to learn just about anything.

--
FB

[Ed Hansberry]

They've got the Internet and Google, and that's all you need to learn just about anything.
Just to put it in perspective, some of these people, when you tell them to go to Google, they put "Google' in the preinstalled Yahoo Search bar on their browser to search for Google, then click on the link to get to Google. I see it happen every day. :eek:

[socrates]

Wal Mart has always suggested that users strip DRM from the music after purchase by burning to CD.

This is actually their official support line. Twice I've had to call them up to reauthorize music and both times they told me this is the official word because as they said, "the servers won't be available forever".

[Rocco Augusto]

Would you steal from your local supermarket only because it sells things more expensive than others? Or even because they refused to give you money back for bad fruit that you have only remembered to return one month after you bought it?

Thieves are thieves and they will stay thieves everywhere, all time, and for all reasons. There is no way to justify it.

This is the one analogy that has always bothered me whenever piracy is brought up. No matter how you feel on the issue, when you walk into a supermarket and steal something you are physically removing something from the store and therefore removing money from their pockets. This isn't the same as making a digital copy of something where the original stays there.

Morally wrong? Yes. On the same level as stealing physical products? No.

What this is really like is you buying an apple from the supermarket and every time you want to take a bite out of it you have to call the supermarket first and get permission. Then one day the supermarket decides to stop selling apples and comes over to your house and rips the apple out of your stomach, replacing it with a unusable rock, and goes on their merry way, leaving you hungry and unfulfilled and maybe even a little nauseous.

Only good honest people get hurt by DRM. DRM, especially on music, is a disease and as long as users continue to support DRM we will forever hear complaints of things from event like this. The easiest way to avoid this is to stop renting music you would rather own because that is all you're doing when you purchase DRM tracks.

[Pony99CA]

What a bunch of BS. Compared to MSN Music, Wal-Mart is really giving people a screw-job...at least MSN Music is keeping their DRM servers online for a few more years (even before the public pressure it was two years I think). Wal-mart is pulling the plug on ther servers right away it seems...
Based on the date of the letter sent (9/26), they're not even giving the consumer two weeks. That's ridiculous.

Also, as others have said, why not give the users access to the DRM-free versions of music they purchased. If that's too insecure or to costly, just give the customers a credit for what they've purchased so they can buy DRM-free copies. (Yes, some people will probably abuse that by stripping the DRM from the existing tracks and using the credit to buy new tracks, but see the first sentence, then.)

And really, how much can it cost to keep a DRM server or two online for authentication?
If WalMart is paying somebody to run the DRM servers, probably more than you think. :)

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Specifically, my suggestion would be that you send a money order for the retail value (whether as seen on Amazon or in a store, whichever you feel is suitable on a case-by-case basis) to the distributor/label wrapped up in a simple letter...

***long quote trimmed by mod JD***

You missed one point. Record company sends lawyers to sue you for copyright violation because they have your confession in writing.

My philosophy on P2P is still the same. Go ahead and steal the music if you want, but don't try to rationalize it and don't put in writing what you've done. :)

Steve

[Janak Parekh]

It's hard for me to believe that anyone who buys DRMed music doesn't use one of many converters available to get it to regular MP3s or burn them to CDs as backup so they can be re-ripped. A pain to be sure, but it's always been the smart thing to do. As Ed implied, you're way overestimating the average public, who'll click, buy a song, download it to their iPod, and enjoy. Moreover, even I don't do this for the few protected iTunes songs I have. I don't want to experience quality loss from the already-mediocre 128kbps encodings the tracks have. Given iTunes' position in the market, I think it's a pretty safe bet the tracks are okay for now.

(Note that I don't buy songs from iTunes unless they're not available elsewhere. I usually buy Amazon MP3 now, and before that, used to buy CDs.)

DRM is evil and has been from day one. It's been discredited and is a marketing negative, and eventually all DRM services will cease operating. You're still too optimistic about the knowledge level of the end-user. Most iTunes users don't know, and don't care, about DRM. Part of the reason is because they only use iPods (so the Apple-device restriction isn't noticed), and perhaps because FairPlay is pretty lax and behind-the-scenes apart from that one limitation.

What should happen, is that legit services should offer their users tools to convert all their DRMed music to non-DRM, including Microsoft and Apple, and the RIAA should bless such a movement. Rather than pinning their hopes on selling DRM buyers their music in non-DRMed form (the only reason such tools are not yet authorized). I doubt Microsoft or Apple have the right to offer such a tool in their contract. In Apple's case, it's moot; three of the four major record labels refuse to offer non-DRM to Apple in hopes of unseating them as the dominant music store. (And, if you'll notice, it hasn't worked yet, further underscoring what little the average public knows, or cares, about DRM's inherent evilness.)

I'd put my money on Microsoft embracing such a move before the far more fascist, customer-control and developer-control obsessed Apple. Do note that Apple not only offered non-DRM AACs long before Microsoft did, but they also offered an upgrade feature to upgrade all DRMed tracks for which Apple has a non-DRM license ("iTunes Plus") for a reduced fee. It's built into iTunes and is a one-click process.

--janak

[Pony99CA]

One of my fears is that the labels only allow DRM-free music as competition to iTunes. If and when they manage to take down iTunes, I wouldn't be surprised if they let their DRM-free contracts expire with Amazon, Rhapsody, MSN, etc. The labels really couldn't give a damn about what any of us want. :mad:
Why should they? They're a business, and their job is to make as much money as they can.

There are only two reasons to give a damn about customers:

Doing so might actually earn you more business
You're a "good" business that believes in making a "fair" profit, not charging what the market will bear. This leaves out oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, tobacco companies, Wall Street and companies making goods in third-world countries that exploit workers and sell us lead-painted toys or tainted food. :eek:

Steve

[Janak Parekh]

I'll buy albums online when they are DRM-Free and at least 256 kbps AAC files. Amazon MP3 offers 256kbps VBR LAME-encoded MP3s. The quality is excellent and is on par with 256kbps AAC (which is what Apple uses on iTunes Plus). I've basically switched to Amazon MP3 for everything apart from classical music, which I'll still buy on CD.

--janak

[Janak Parekh]

Why should they? They're a business, and their job is to make as much money as they can. Well, okay, I should rephrase things. "I expect record companies to let their non-DRM contracts expire if and when they can wield it to take down iTunes." Happy? ;)

--janak

[Pony99CA]

And there is no reason for us to feel sorry for people who aren't resourceful enough to solve this conundrum on their own. They've got the Internet and Google, and that's all you need to learn just about anything.
Besides what Ed and Janak said about the general technical expertise of the general population, I find this attitude a bit repugnant.

Should mechanics be able to rip people off who don't know enough about the inner workings of their cars? Is it OK to take advantage of people "dumber" than you because they aren't smart enough to catch on? Is it OK for me to be resourceful, use Google to find out how to bump a lock, then go steal from your house? :mad:

Steve

[Pony99CA]

This is the one analogy that has always bothered me whenever piracy is brought up. No matter how you feel on the issue, when you walk into a supermarket and steal something you are physically removing something from the store and therefore removing money from their pockets. This isn't the same as making a digital copy of something where the original stays there.

Morally wrong? Yes. On the same level as stealing physical products? No.
It's not quite on the same level, I agree, but it's still stealing. You've taken something that doesn't belong to you without compensating the owner for it. That's stealing.

Sure, some people rationalize it by saying "I wouldn't have bought that anyway." That's basically saying it's OK to steal something you didn't want badly. :confused:

I did like your apple analogy, though. :)

Steve

[Rocco Augusto]

It's not quite on the same level, I agree, but it's still stealing. You've taken something that doesn't belong to you without compensating the owner for it. That's stealing.

I agree, it is still stealing. I was just stating that I dislike the analogy that everyone uses when they compare it to a physical product. It is no different whenever we try to compare a Windows Mobile device to the iPhone or space travel to underwater adventures. Sure there are similarities to stealing physical products and digital products but they are not on the same level at all. It is just a silly pet peeve of mine :D

I guess a better way of explaining it would be like so; Going into Wal-Mart and stealing physical copies of all of the albums you will now lose because you purchased the DRM copy isn't the same as breaking the DRM on music that you already purchased.

It would be one thing if Wal-Mart had a little button next to the album that said "rent this track now," but they no not. All of these DRM stores use the termonology to make it sound like the music you purchase belongs to you and not the other way around so when things like this happens it greatly annoys money spending consumers to not want to buy these products anymore. Some people could even argue that stuff like this turns would be paying customers into pirates because they don't understand how DRM and non-DRM works and all they know is that if they purchsaed music from one company and lost the rights to play it and the same thing might happen if they go to Amazon or somewhere else (even though it wouldn't happen with Amazon's non-DRM selection, but they don't know or understand the technology to know this.)

Then you also have to wonderer, if Wal-Mart's solution to this problem is to have their users burn their music to CD's and then re-rip it, why wouldn't users just strip the DRM from the tracks and cut out the middle-man-CD process? This is essentially the same thing minus spending a ton of money on CDs.

This is one of those situations where no matter what you do as a consumer, you get screwed. You either repurchase your Wal-Mart collection in non-DRM fashion or you break the law and sit and a corner and feel bad about yourself.

The only people that win in this situation are the music companies. Even Wal-Mart loses in this situation because they have to screw over all of their existing customers. I don't really believe there is a right answer to fix this problem besides dropping DRM all together. DRM is bad and the cons will always outweigh the pros and the only people DRM prevents from using products are your customers that actually wanted to give you money. DRM does not stop nor effect pirates and in a lot of cases is cracked before the final products hits the store shelves.

[Pony99CA]

I guess a better way of explaining it would be like so; Going into Wal-Mart and stealing physical copies of all of the albums you will now lose because you purchased the DRM copy isn't the same as breaking the DRM on music that you already purchased.
True, and I agree with what Ed said in the first post. I wouldn't blame anybody for downloading songs from a P2P network that they lost due to a DRM failure. The people played by the rules, but WalMart changed those rules in the middle of the game.

Then they made it worse by giving people less than two weeks to fix things. If somebody is on vacation for a couple of weeks, they're screwed. Companies should have to give at least three months notice before doing something like this.

Steve

[Rocco Augusto]

Then they made it worse by giving people less than two weeks to fix things. If somebody is on vacation for a couple of weeks, they're screwed. Companies should have to give at least three months notice before doing something like this.

Heck I would say even longer. I usually have a 10-14 hour workday on top of any extra activity things such as contributing here. If I was a Wal-Mart customer I would be SOL since there is no way I would have the time with my current work schedule to go through my albums and burn them all to CD.

What about all the people that have changed email addresses since buying those albums as well? How are they going to be notified? Hopefully this doesn't turn out all doom and gloom like we're predicting and Wal-Mart comes out with a better solution then scratching their collective heads. :)

[Gerard]

You missed one point. Record company sends lawyers to sue you for copyright violation because they have your confession in writing.

My philosophy on P2P is still the same. Go ahead and steal the music if you want, but don't try to rationalize it and don't put in writing what you've done. :)


Rationalization has nothing to do with my arguments. Of course this comment may not be directly related to mine... but the way you've been somewhat structured in your multiple responses, keeping them quite separate, makes it seem as though it is. I don't want to steal music. I don't steal music. If I can possibly find a purchasable album I want to have in a shop or online, I buy it. Same goes for my teenage stepdaughter, whose ethics in this area are rather strikingly clear; she grew up the daughter of a performing musician, surrounded by performing musicians, and understands that artists need to eat. Same for me. My clients work bloody hard to scrape usually very meager incomes form the gigs they're able to find, teaching and working day jobs to make ends meet.

I respect musicians' efforts far more deeply than the 'average' recorded music consumer, not in small part owing to the fact that without musicians, I would have zero income myself. I'm a violinmaker, specialized primarily (though not exclusively) in repairs and setups of doublebasses. Without bassists, I'd have to go back to my father's business of construction, and I do have the skills to do rather well there... but it's not what I want to do. I could also be a bike mechanic or a welder or machinist or a baker or a host of other things, as my working life has been rather varied and I tend to do a good job wherever I work. Same could be said for a log of my clients. But as with me, they would prefer to make their livings from their craft, music in their case. And I support them in this, buying music which interests me, and (when fatherhood allows) going out to hear them performing.

As for your specific admonition - that putting your intentions in writing somehow makes you vulnerable... no. Did I say, for instance, that when sending a postal money order (the financial instrument mentioned, if you recall) that people should include their actual name or actual location? A postal money order is unique in that it a) can be purchased with cash, without presenting identification, and so cannot be traced to the sender, and b) is 'as good as' cash at any financial institution. Further, one can use anonymous means in writing and sending the note to go with the money order, explaining the reason for the payment and even the specific album in question, without getting the RIAA any closer to the sender than the city of origin. Barring fingerprinting or other forensic evidence, which it's highly unlikely the RIAA is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per case pursuing, there's just no way this is admissible in any court. The RIAA's cases are pathetically cobbled together at best anyway, relying almost entirely on fear to resolve them out of court. Evidence really doesn't much enter into it.

But of course anyone is welcome to continue quaking in fear of the MegaCorp. I've been recommending for years in discussion forums that people just outright avoid any and all DRM-protected content from these companies. I was deeply shocked to find, once, that a favourite band's label (which I will not here name, as they have since reversed this policy and now openly promote sharing of tracks as a means of promotion of their artists) had used an embedded, stealth-installed player on a CD so that it could not be ripped at better than 56kbps. Of course my immediate reaction was to spend several hours searching for a way to crack this restriction, as I'd no intention of listening to the CD at all; I wanted a 320kbps rip to MP3 for my PPC, where I listened to music generally. Solution was eventually found, CD ripped, customer no longer quite so angry. Since then I have been very careful to search the packaging of any CD for mention of any such DRM nonsense. If I am paying for an album, I want to listen to that album, on my terms. What business is it of the publishers to choose on what device or at what level of quality I do so?

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned P2P files being of generally low quality. For the limited use I have made of such services, in cases where availability of physical media simply wasn't an option, my experience says otherwise. Sure, there is the odd horrid rip. But generally speaking, it seems audiophile quality of darn near is the rule. Perhaps this low-quality thing is more applicable in cases with pop music? Haven't really tried to find any of that, so couldn't say. Old classical recordings for the most part, stuff long out of print. The odd ancient jazz album, like some tasty Coltrane or Brubeck no longer issued, though I have it on poppy old vinyl. There, it's unusual to find any single track less than 40MB of data, with albums measuring in the many hundreds of megabytes to handle every possible nuance. That's when I am very grateful for the resource P2P networking provides, and of course gladly share more than my bandwidth share.

So the RIAA can bite me. I neither steal their stuff nor promote such activities. I am merely advocating for pushing them to wake up and treat their customers with some respect. Perhaps if they do, they might find it in their hearts to offer a little of the same to their artists... nah, that's not likely.

[frankenbike]

Besides what Ed and Janak said about the general technical expertise of the general population, I find this attitude a bit repugnant.

Should mechanics be able to rip people off who don't know enough about the inner workings of their cars? Is it OK to take advantage of people "dumber" than you because they aren't smart enough to catch on? Is it OK for me to be resourceful, use Google to find out how to bump a lock, then go steal from your house? :mad:

Steve

Given that the limit of my statement was refusing to offer sympathy while you're suggesting an entire program of taking advantage of the ignorant, even going as far as suggesting this is equivalent to breaking into someone's house, I really don't accept your criticism of my attitude as repugnant.

Though I do have to admire your potential for evil. You show promise.

For those who go the extra mile to understand a little bit more about the world around them, there are and should be benefits to acquisition of knowledge. There are all sorts of things that smarter people than I get as benefits. Better jobs, investments with better returns or non-catastrophic losses, etc.

Do those who are born beautiful feel sorry for those who weren't born beautiful. Most don't, some do. Those that do feel sorry about it aren't going to socialize with those objects of sympathy.

Do people who went to good schools and were born rich sympathize enough with people who are homeless enough to keep the manufacturing in their companies domestic so those people can get jobs if they want them? OK, that's just crazy talk.

I've been in a job interview, where I was evaluated on my choice of shoes, for a non-footwear related job ;) I didn't get the job because my shoes said I wasn't the right kind of person for the job (seriously, that's what I was told).

So yeah, I'm going to feel a little bit arrogant about the inherent superiority of knowing something about technology that lets you improvise and save your "investment".

And if you can't know something yourself, be nice to a nerd. Buy them a beer. Or a sandwich. If you're a girl, go out with a nerd. In this brutal world of technological ripoffs, befriending a nerd is like money in the bank.

I have my circle of friends and family I have to offer technical support and advice to. Family I require meals from, friends I require beer or Scotch. For my wife, it's part of my "manly duties". For my sister in law, it's part of getting her to take care of our cats when we leave for a weekend or longer. In this modern world, no one is more than two degrees of separation from a nerd who can at least offer them unsolicited technical advice.

Those who are nerd haters and anti-intellectuals, deserve EVERYTHING that happens to them.

--
FB
onlymidlevelnerd

[Rocco Augusto]

Though I do have to admire your potential for evil. You show promise.

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/8578/augusto20060728dreviloo1.jpg

[Ed Hansberry]

So yeah, I'm going to feel a little bit arrogant about the inherent superiority of knowing something about technology that lets you improvise and save your "investment".

Warren Buffett is not impressed. :)

Different people have different talents. Anyone with medical training could say the same thing about our health, that we should all know way more than we currently do, maybe as much as 1% of what they know, and we'd live better lives. They might be right, but I don't get physiology. It just doesn't compute with me.

But I won't for a second look down at any physician with any level of arrogance because they don't have the slightest clue where to begin to look for info on stripping DRM off because their online music service vanished.

[Pony99CA]

Heck I would say even longer. I usually have a 10-14 hour workday on top of any extra activity things such as contributing here. If I was a Wal-Mart customer I would be SOL since there is no way I would have the time with my current work schedule to go through my albums and burn them all to CD.
So maybe you stop contributing here for a couple of days while you preserve your investment. If you choose to prioritize one over the other, that's not really the company's fault.

However, I have no problem with a company offering more time (and would applaud that). I was just suggesting an absolute minimum to get around things like people being on vacation or who had other commitments. Three months seems like enough time to handle this, even with other distractions. (It's enough for the government to require you to do estimated taxes. :D)

What about all the people that have changed email addresses since buying those albums as well? How are they going to be notified?
Well, one way is by watching the news. This story was on our local news, I think, and they were supposedly going to offer a solution (probably ripping, but I didn't see the actual story, just the teaser).

However, as was pointed out, if somebody changed their E-mail address and didn't update people with the new one, what is the company supposed to do? I assume you don't think they should run their DRM servers forever (or until they go out of business), right? I hope even the most ardent anti-DRM people agree that burden would be a bit onerous.

Steve

[Jason Dunn]

Given that the limit of my statement was refusing to offer sympathy...I have my circle of friends and family I have to offer technical support and advice to. Family I require meals from, friends I require beer or Scotch. For my wife, it's part of my "manly duties". For my sister in law, it's part of getting her to take care of our cats when we leave for a weekend or longer.

That's funny, with my friends and family I give freely of my expertise, because it's the right thing to do - friends and family are supposed to help each other without expectation of repayment. At least that's what I was raised to believe in. :)

I find your attitude quite cold and lacking in compassion, and I wonder what would happen if you ever needed help from someone and you had nothing to offer them - you'd better hope they weren't from your school of thought. Something to think about.

[Pony99CA]

Rationalization has nothing to do with my arguments. Of course this comment may not be directly related to mine... but the way you've been somewhat structured in your multiple responses, keeping them quite separate, makes it seem as though it is.
It wasn't directed at you (I knew about your instrument repair, et al). Stating my philosophy about P2P just seemed to fit in there.


As for your specific admonition - that putting your intentions in writing somehow makes you vulnerable... no. Did I say, for instance, that when sending a postal money order (the financial instrument mentioned, if you recall) that people should include their actual name or actual location? A postal money order is unique in that it a) can be purchased with cash, without presenting identification, and so cannot be traced to the sender, and b) is 'as good as' cash at any financial institution.
Actually, it's not as good as cash, as I found out when I moved to California. I had cashed in my bank account in Michigan and gotten a money order. When I went to open an account at a bank in Silicon Valley, I was told there would be a hold on my money because money orders can have stop payment orders placed on them, just like checks.

Further, one can use anonymous means in writing and sending the note to go with the money order, explaining the reason for the payment and even the specific album in question, without getting the RIAA any closer to the sender than the city of origin. Barring fingerprinting or other forensic evidence, which it's highly unlikely the RIAA is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per case pursuing, there's just no way this is admissible in any court.
There's DNA off of the envelope, of course. And don't be fooled by thinking the RIAA won't spend thousands of dollars pursuing somebody. How much do you think they pay lawyers to gather evidence or companies to track the IP addresses of uploaders? Legal and technical fees aren't cheap.

If I am paying for an album, I want to listen to that album, on my terms. What business is it of the publishers to choose on what device or at what level of quality I do so?
What business is it of theirs? I think that's obvious given that they're in the business of selling music. :) Why wouldn't they want to charge you for other formats or better quality? They're a business, not a philanthropic organization.

And of course you want to use the music on your terms. Who doesn't want to use everything on their own terms? However, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have the legal right to. (With music from CDs, which isn't encrypted, I think the legal precedent says that you do. However, with DVDs and DRM-protected songs, which are encrypted, the DMCA says that you don't -- at least in the U.S., which I know doesn't apply to you.)

So the RIAA can bite me. I neither steal their stuff nor promote such activities. I am merely advocating for pushing them to wake up and treat their customers with some respect.
I think you misunderstand who the RIAA's "customers" are. Their customers are the music publishers, not the music purchasers. I suspect their true customers do get treated with respect.

FYI, I think the RIAA is a bunch of bullies, too, but the law gives the copyright owners that ability. Until we get more user-friendly copyright laws, that's what we're stuck with. The correct way to fight it is by passing new laws, not stealing music and rationalizing it away (again, that part does not apply to you).

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Given that the limit of my statement was refusing to offer sympathy while you're suggesting an entire program of taking advantage of the ignorant, even going as far as suggesting this is equivalent to breaking into someone's house, I really don't accept your criticism of my attitude as repugnant.
Fair enough, so let me rephrase. Would you have no sympathy for the elderly or mentally challenged who got ripped off? Would you have no sympathy for a neighbor whose house got robbed because they didn't know enough to install better locks than those that came with their house?

For those who go the extra mile to understand a little bit more about the world around them, there are and should be benefits to acquisition of knowledge. There are all sorts of things that smarter people than I get as benefits. Better jobs, investments with better returns or non-catastrophic losses, etc.
Yes, there should be benefits. Your benefit is that you know how to rip a CD and don't need to worry about WalMart's DRM servers going away. That doesn't preclude somebody from sympathizing with others who aren't so knowledgable. As I often say, even the most knowledgable among us are still woefully ignorant about 99% of the world.

Do those who are born beautiful feel sorry for those who weren't born beautiful. Most don't, some do. Those that do feel sorry about it aren't going to socialize with those objects of sympathy.
Like you rejected my analogy, I'm rejecting this one. Those are intrinsic features that we have no control over. This is a company actively doing something to their customers, not just some accident of chance.

Regardless, some people might feel sympathy for those born less than beautiful. Did you ever watch "The Elephant Man" or similar movies? And some people do feel sympathy for victims of random chance, like tsunami victims.

Those who are nerd haters and anti-intellectuals, deserve EVERYTHING that happens to them.
There's a big difference between being hateful and anti-intellectual and having differing priorities from you, which I think Ed alluded to.

I agree with Jason, and still find that attitude repugnant. Your mileage obviously varies. :)

Steve