Walmart is shutting down its online-activation servers for DRM protected songs

[Gorth]

Anyway, this is off-topic.

Way off-topic actually

 

So is downloadable vs. cd music and whether Walmart is a good company to do business with, urban and rural areas alike

[taks]

"walmarts drive lots of mom and pop shops out of business"

 

That's a good thing. 'Mom and pop' stores are usually more expensive, and since they tend to have monopolies in the area theya r ein, not much you can do about it.

yes and no. good for the public at large, bad for the moms and pops.

 

anyway, i was mostly just posting what the common arguments are, trying to to inject as little opinion of my own as possible. i personally have no problem with walmart.

 

"2. walmarts ultimately steer local politics (unavoidable for such a large business)"

 

Not a positive or negative inofitself.

depends upon what they are doing. the problem here is that given our rigged system, and their vast resources, it is not hard for them to steer politics towards legislation that is favorable to their position, but not necessarily in the best interests of the communities they are steering.

 

"3. walmarts offer lower-end products (anecdotal, and not always a "con," except to those that prefer top of the line stuff)"

 

'low end' or not, their stuff is awesome, and I tend to have o problems with the stuff I buy there.

4. hmmm...

i don't buy much there, except stuff that i'll pay more for at other places. children's clothes are good examples. i want something cheap since it won't fit long anyway, hehe.

 

taks

Edited September 30, 2008 by taks

[Laozi]

A more legitimate beef is that Walmart drives down the value of the American dollar, making things like gas more expensive for American consumers.

[LadyCrimson]

On the DRM issue - I'd largely agree w/Montgomery Markland & neckthrough's positions. I can understand the distaste for companies trying to restrict customers abilities, since no one likes to think their freedoms are being infringed upon, but I don't think DRM on its own is some kind of major violation of my rights, or something.

 

I'd also agree that if a consumer misses a cut-off date because they never check their mail/email or never watch/read news etc, that's not Wal-Mart's fault or responsibility. You can't expect them to hang around everyone's front door all day to make sure everyone who's ever bought a song from them knows of the date.

 

And imo, Wal-Mart is no worse than any other company who ends up with a near monopoly for their target market or area. IIRC Blockbuster had some similar flak early on. Wal-Mart allegedly does some shifty work-outsource/insurance stuff which might be considered ethically objectionable, but at this point so do lots of other companies. If a city/town doesn't want a Wal-Mart, and succeeds at blocking them from building one, more power to them...but not wanting a company in your city doesn't make the company itself evil.

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, I don't care about surveillance in public places. I don't break the law.

I'd heard this argument before, but usually it was from the side of some Authority: "if you don't break the law, you have nothing to hide". Never expected to see such a voluntary surrender of privacy. Anyway, this is off-topic.

 

Actually I'm a teacher, so I guess I could be considered some kind of authority. For example, my wife teaches at a High School in a tough neighborhood, and it makes me feel better knowing that there are surveillance cameras throughout the campus.

 

But you are using the word privacy and talking about public places. Why should we expect privacy in a public place? I don't have cameras in my home and that's enough for me.

[neckthrough]

Yeah, I don't care about surveillance in public places. I don't break the law.

I'd heard this argument before, but usually it was from the side of some Authority: "if you don't break the law, you have nothing to hide". Never expected to see such a voluntary surrender of privacy. Anyway, this is off-topic.

 

Actually I'm a teacher, so I guess I could be considered some kind of authority. For example, my wife teaches at a High School in a tough neighborhood, and it makes me feel better knowing that there are surveillance cameras throughout the campus.

 

But you are using the word privacy and talking about public places. Why should we expect privacy in a public place? I don't have cameras in my home and that's enough for me.

Well, different people have different thresholds for where they draw the line between the importance of safety and and the need for privacy/freedom. With public cameras, RFID tags, and even warrantless wire tapping becoming acceptable, modern society seems to have taken the first steps down the slippery slope towards an Orwellian world. Where does it stop? After all, cameras in your home would probably enhance your security. If we keep conditioning ourselves into believing that such tradeoffs are worthwhile, then it'll be 1984 in no time.

[Hurlshort]

Cameras in public places versus cameras in your home is a pretty major difference. All I'm saying is if you don't own the property, don't expect to have privacy. Obviously there are grey areas here, like public restrooms. But I'll be frank, I don't really do anything worth watching, and most people flatter themselves if they think the government really cares to what the heck they are doing.

 

Seriously, the government can wire tap me all they want, I feel bad for the FBI guy who has to listen to my wife tell me about her day.

 

I also make a big distinction between personal freedom and surveillance. If the government had a camera and a mic on you all day, exactly how are they limiting your freedom? You are still able to live your life any way you choose within the limits of the law. And the law isn't exactly restrictive in our society, you just can't harm other people or damage other people's property. That's not exactly 1984. And the truth is they probably have no interest in wasting man hours observing you.

 

Law enforcement doesn't care what you are doing. They want to stop the people who are damaging the society you live in.

[neckthrough]

Seriously, the government can wire tap me all they want,

If the government had a camera and a mic on you all day, exactly how are they limiting your freedom? You are still able to live your life any way you choose within the limits of the law.

You and I have fundamentally different instincts, then. I would be very upset about a wire tap on my phone. A camera/mic on me all day is something I will never, ever tolerate under any circumstances.

[Humodour]

Cameras in public places versus cameras in your home is a pretty major difference. All I'm saying is if you don't own the property, don't expect to have privacy. Obviously there are grey areas here, like public restrooms. But I'll be frank, I don't really do anything worth watching, and most people flatter themselves if they think the government really cares to what the heck they are doing.

 

Seriously, the government can wire tap me all they want, I feel bad for the FBI guy who has to listen to my wife tell me about her day.

 

I also make a big distinction between personal freedom and surveillance. If the government had a camera and a mic on you all day, exactly how are they limiting your freedom? You are still able to live your life any way you choose within the limits of the law. And the law isn't exactly restrictive in our society, you just can't harm other people or damage other people's property. That's not exactly 1984. And the truth is they probably have no interest in wasting man hours observing you.

 

Law enforcement doesn't care what you are doing. They want to stop the people who are damaging the society you live in.

 

Your faith in government (especially American government!) is extremely disturbing.

[Volourn]

Don't be a bigot. All governments arne't worthy of being trusted THAT much.

[Moatilliatta]

Your faith in government (especially American government!) is extremely disturbing.

Says the guy who wants governments to regulate something as important as the economy?

 

I do agree though. Governments shouldn't be trusted with surveilance.

[Humodour]

Your faith in government (especially American government!) is extremely disturbing.

Says the guy who wants governments to regulate something as important as the economy?

 

Yeah, just like 95% of all highly successful Western nations. I don't see the problem?

 

The problem is idiots who place excess faith in government, and people who place no faith in government. Implicitly there's an association of excess faith with Hurlshot's post, which should be fairly obvious to you.

 

I've repeatedly stated I believe in government regulation only insofar as it fosters a healthy economy and society (which has proven to work in various countries around the world), so I'm not sure where you get the idea that I have absolute faith in the government.

[taks]

I've repeatedly stated I believe in government regulation only insofar as it fosters a healthy economy and society

hehe...

 

(which has proven to work in various countries around the world),

hehe 2...

 

oh, relevant link, btw:

 

http://www.edge-online.com/features/ten-mo...ing-drm-methods

 

taks

[Humodour]

You keeping rocking backwards and forth and telling yourself "it'll all be OK in the free market!", taks.

[taks]

You keeping rocking backwards and forth and telling yourself "it'll all be OK in the free market!", taks.

there is no free market, so no, it won't be ok. only this mess we have now, which obviously isn't ok.

 

taks