Wal-mart begins selling DRM-free MP3s

The DRM dominos continue to fall with Wal-mart joining the DRM-free for all. Their new MP3 catalog (no AAC player limitations here, folks) includes "thousands of albums and songs" from both EMI and Universal Music Group (presumably, as a trial) at $0.94 per track or $9.22 per album. The new MP3s are encoded at 256kbps versus their usual 128kbps WMA "protected" downloads. So what's the matter Sony BMG and Warner Music, don't you like parties?

[akijikan @ Aug 21st 2007 7:44AM]

Sony BMG and Warner Music had this to say as a response: "When its time to party, we will party hard."

[Rob @ Aug 21st 2007 8:00AM]

I love the Chinese reference with that red lock and the star.

[Matt B @ Aug 21st 2007 11:22AM]

Won't the MP3's be made in China?

[Leonard Nimrod @ Aug 21st 2007 8:06AM]

HAHA

Universal wasn't happy with iTunes' prices so this Walmart $0.94 per track price is surely an introductory offer. Will this succeed? I don't see how.

[Ondra Soukup @ Aug 21st 2007 8:19AM]

so since when is AAC limited when compared to MP3 ? better quality at same bitrate ? that it's newer ? that it can have higher bitrate than MP3 ? No...you just tell me. please...

[just a resident cynic @ Aug 21st 2007 8:24AM]

Nah, you misunderstood - they mean it as in the drm free music is not limited to the AAC format which not every dap supports, but is mp3 and thus pretty much universally supported

[Wole @ Aug 21st 2007 8:22AM]

The labels like to deceive themselves into thinking that removing DRM will spur digital sales. DRM isn't the reason people aren't buying digital music, rather it's the availability of music via torrents and other p2p systems. Like someone once said "why pay when you can get it for 'free'?"

[Balki Bartokomous @ Aug 21st 2007 9:16AM]

My cousin Larry once said, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" Ha! Don't be ridikalous!

[Ray-- @ Aug 21st 2007 8:42AM]

its the reason i dont buy it... sooo many times i've heard a great song on pandora and wanted to buy it right then and there... but then i think... oh crap... i want to listen to that new song i just bought on my work computer, home computer, media center, laptop, phone, etc.. and the fact it has drm makes that a huge pain in the butt to do anything useful with the song (especially back it up!)... so i dont bother.

[Ras Thavas @ Aug 21st 2007 9:03AM]

DRM is the reason I have not bought any digital music. I will be checking out what is available from the Wal-Mart site.

[sracer @ Aug 21st 2007 9:20AM]

I have refrained from buying downloaded tracks specifically because of DRM. I didn't like the idea of "renting" music (ala Napster) nor did I think that downloading from iTunes/burning to CD/ripping was worthwhile either.

But no-strings-attached MP3 downloads are a whole different animal. I hope that all DRM-less download stores do well, very well, so well that with competition will come lower prices and perhaps prove that the RIAA's belief that "everyone with a computer and high speed internet access is a scumbag" is wrong.

[tekdroid @ Aug 21st 2007 8:41AM]

no digital rights restrictions on sub-par lossy files.

I feel like it's 1997 all over again.

Someone pinch me. This can't be true. It's all too exciting.

[JeffM @ Aug 21st 2007 10:49AM]

Though very few people see it our way I couldn't agree more.

Who would pay for compressed music? Not I.

[Alfredo Octavio @ Aug 21st 2007 8:43AM]

But is it still windows only???

[bl0nde @ Aug 21st 2007 9:03AM]

Yes - from Walmart's FAQ:

What are the system requirements for using Wal-Mart Music Downloads?

* Windows 2000 or XP (sorry, no Macintosh or Linux)
* 233 MHz or higher processor (most computers meet this requirement)
* At least 64 MB of RAM
* A sound card
* Speakers or headphones (if you want to play music on your computer)
* An Internet connection (broadband recommended)
* Internet Explorer version 6.0 or higher
* Windows Media Player version 9 or later

[DAZA @ Aug 21st 2007 9:05AM]

Why would it be Windows only if it's DRM free MP3? It's just an MP3, nothing more or less. You can play it on any device (including any operating system) that can handle an MP3 file.

[omnicloud @ Aug 21st 2007 9:09AM]

@ DAZA it requires Internet Explorer 6+... which is Win only.

[portorikan @ Aug 21st 2007 9:14AM]

Somebody remind me why we need IE 6+ to use this again? and Windows only? It's the freakin' internet.

Please stop taking the inter from the net. Please!

[hmbscully @ Aug 21st 2007 9:15AM]

Love these messages:

"We're sorry, your operating system is incompatible. To provide the best download experience, we can no longer support Windows 98, ME or NT. Please visit again after you upgrade to Windows 2000 or XP. Visit our Help section for complete system requirements information."

Um, yeah. I was using IE7 on XP x64. Love when sites can't recognize a 64bit OS. That's the Wal-Mart quality I was expecting.

I use iTunes for my music purchasing, but I was willing to give Wal-Mart a look, but seeing as my home computer is a Mac and my work computer isn't recognized, I'll just keep on keeping on with Apple. :)

[Matt @ Aug 21st 2007 9:38AM]

There's a link to click that supposedly works in any browser:
http://musicdownloads.walmart.com/catalog/servlet/MainServlet

BTW, is the Amazon.com store online yet?

[Jamus @ Aug 22nd 2007 9:00AM]

I too do not understand WalMart's thinking behind this. They make a big deal about it playing on any player, but only if you are using one specific OS? Sheeeesh.

[Galley @ Aug 21st 2007 9:35AM]

What's the bitrate on these files? I'm guessing 96Kbps.

[Taylor @ Aug 21st 2007 9:51AM]

Apparently their DRM'd WMA files clock in at 128kbps.
http://www.cnet.com/4520-7899_1-6396943-1.html&tag=dir

I'm betting that they'll be 128 or lower, but hoping for the audiophiles and semi-audiophiles out there it'll be at least 192.

I personally still buy CDs, since I like the tangible cover and liner notes and all. I rip them into iTunes at 256kbps AAC, which works for me.

[phil.mills @ Aug 21st 2007 10:03AM]

According to the FAQ on their site, the MP3 files are 256kbps (the WMA files are 128kbps in contrast).

See link: http://musicdownloads.walmart.com/catalog/servlet/HelpTopicServlet?topicIndex=0#20

[phil.mills @ Aug 21st 2007 10:32AM]

And that's confirmed - Guns 'n' Roses' "Greatest Hits" album - 256kbit, 44100Hz joint stereo. Note that this is a FIXED bit-rate, so the file sizes are notably large when compared to the "Highest Quality VBR" setting in LAME.

You need Windows to run a downloader program that actually gets you the tunes you paid for - no simple download links, here.

The ID3 info is... so-so. Both ID3v1 and v2 information is complete, but Title and Album for each song have "(Explicit Content - Parental Advisory)" tacked onto them. Classy.
Interestingly, the "Copyrighted" bit isn't set in the ID3 info.

[phil.mills @ Aug 21st 2007 10:34AM]

Oh, and Matt's link above works without issue in Firefox.

[BRusnak @ Aug 22nd 2007 6:02PM]

The files are 256kb bitrate. I have downloaded one and it sounds great.

Also to...

"You need Windows to run a downloader program that actually gets you the tunes you paid for - no simple download links, here" - You can actualy click "Download files individually" after checkout and download them one by one.

[ChrisG @ Aug 21st 2007 9:16AM]

I think it's pretty okay. I think Wal-mart isn't really going after iTunes, after all a 6 cents off a 99 cent download doesn't seem much. Then again iTunes is selling DRM-free music on their iTunes Plus catalog however those songs cost $1.29 and since I live in NJ the tax makes it almost 2 dollars just for DRM free music. Basically Wal-mart and all the other DRM free companies could win this battle aslong as they have proper advertisements to attract people away from iTunes.

[Chris Moroz @ Aug 21st 2007 9:34AM]

I love it! They are also charging a premium (94 vs 88 cents) but it's nice to see more groups stepping up. All my music I download is from Wal-Mart, it's just so cheap!

[scott feldstein @ Aug 21st 2007 10:14AM]

AAC doesn't inherently have "limitations." It's a non-DRM'd, standard file type with better quality and compression ratios than MP3. The fact that it can be wrapped in DRM shouldn't be taken to mean that AAC is evil.

[Danny @ Aug 21st 2007 10:59AM]

Where are you getting that someone is calling AAC evil? As resident cynic explains the post refers to **"player limitations"** (meaning DAPs) not problems with the file format itself.

[Josh @ Aug 21st 2007 11:38AM]

Scott: Read carefully. The iPod plays AAC. My Pioneer Inno and many other digital music players do not. Almost everything plays MP3. Buying MP3 files means I can play a song on my Inno and share it with my wife who has an iPod Nano. End of story.

[scott feldstein @ Aug 21st 2007 11:48AM]

Yep, I jumped the gun on that one. I guess I'm a little shell-shocked still from all the ignoramuses who think that AAC is a DRM'd, proprietary file format.

[mikes @ Aug 21st 2007 10:05AM]

I want 192K-320K mp3 without DRM.

[Quentin @ Aug 21st 2007 11:54AM]

If Wal-Mart decides NOT to sell edited music in their music store, I would give it a shot.

[E71 @ Aug 21st 2007 3:08PM]

Your photoshop skills are terrible. What's with the artifact on the far right or the coarse padlock without smooth anti-aliased curves?

[Luigi193 @ Aug 21st 2007 4:44PM]

OMG!!!! 5 CENTS CHEAPER!!! FREAKIN SIGN ME UP!

[Navstar @ Aug 21st 2007 4:58PM]

Nothing says 'easy to use' and 'bug free' like shopping at Wal-Mart online. This music venture will be a train wreck.

Everyone shops at Wal-Mart, but few admit to it.

iTunes + iPod = cool.
WMA music + WMA devices = not cool.

[fdmille @ Aug 21st 2007 8:34PM]

Does not work with LINUX OS...

[Peter Payne @ Aug 22nd 2007 12:45AM]

In other news, Engadget, please take your TV-style sound ads and go to hell with them. Don't like sound in my webpages when surfing from work.

[Katt @ Sep 25th 2007 8:51AM]

I have wasted $$ getting music from Walmart due to DRM. Also the 5 cent price drop is a joke!

[Wole @ Aug 23rd 2007 4:19AM]

Well, it's great to see people disagree with my comment above. For clarity's sake, I wasn't condoning stealing music via torrents, just highlighting that it is how a large number of young people access digital music.


I work in the online music industry and we hate DRM, love legal downloads, but it's currently not profitable.

It is true that DRM free downloads will increase sales but the truth is that in some regions it's only going to be a minimal increase and most people will still acquire (read steal) their music from the torrents.