Slashdot Mirror
Hilary Rosen Gripes About iPod, iTMS
mijkal writes "Hilary Rosen, the former RIAA CEO and chairwoman, has spoken out against Apple's "lock-in" with iPod and the iTunes Music Store." From the article: "The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's." Ironically, she appeals to consumer rights and anti-monopoly tactics."
The RIAA asked for DRM. iTunes gave you DRM. Apple sees a way to leverage this technology to their advantage and you cry foul? Grow up.
So what, does Warp Records just not exist? And what about all those people all over the internet distributing mp3s of their own personally recorded music legally? Do they just not exist?
Oh, wait, I forgot-- those people aren't RIAA members. So I guess to Hillary Rosen, they don't exist.
Still, it seems awfully odd that "can play anything but WMA and FLAC" means "can only play personally ripped music and iTMS purchasers".
The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's.
Hmm... And whose fault would that be? If the Record companies didn't require DRM we wouldn't have to worry about this. Or does she want Apple to open up their DRM scheme?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
And some obscure audio file format. What's it called? Oh, yeah. MP3.
You must think in Russian.
I think whatever she would claim, she actually isn't worried about consumer lock-in. What she's worried about is producer-side lock-in. The RIAA members are locked in to the iTunes Music Store; they have to do business with the iTMS or their competitors will get the purchases there instead. The RIAA probably isn't happy about this. They're used to being able to dictate terms (like "you will carry X, Y and Z but not W because we said so") to retailers, not having the retailers dictate terms to them (like, "customers will be allowed to make as many CD copies as they like").
"Now, the music fan is on the cusp of riches in their options - free of the viruses of the pirate sites."
Someone tell me if I'm missing things -- since when are mp3s or any online media format playable by the ipod capable of carrying viruses? Sounds like good ol' RIAA propaganda to me.
I beleive it is common knowledge that Ms. Rosen is a lesbian. However, let's despise her for being a shameless spokesperson for anybody willing to pay her to do so; her sexual preferences should be irrelevant.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Steve Jobs, Let my Music Go
Fricking cow. Why don't YOU and all the lawsuit happy pricks on your side let OUR music go.
That's some fricking gall to blame Steve Jobs for Apples answer to the RIAAs psycho DRM paranoia.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
It's not that black and white, is it? I mean, Microsoft is a 'convicted monopolist', but there are plenty of alternatives to Windows. It's certainly not like the phone company monopoly you describe.
Yeah, she's lesbian. She's been pretty public about this for years, so it's not exactly news.
What's more, it doesn't have anything to do with anything: slam her for lying to Congress, lying about what dire straits the music industry is in, and wanting to throw kids in jail. There are plenty of things to complain about, but insulting her sexuality (which I see people do pretty often) is uncalled for, and casts all opponents of the RIAA gestapo in a bad light.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
This isn't about Apple's lockin with the iPod and the iTMS, this is about Apple's lockin vs. everybody else's lockin on Windows machines.
This is sort of correct. Except Apple lets Windows users join in on their lock-in and you're forgetting Real who would be happy to lock-in windows and mac users, but has not managed either.
Actually, I do agree with Miss Rosen in that I think if we have to have DRM, it should be an open standard DRM that is not owned by MS or Apple. Of course it should be legally mandated an so MS can't break the law and embrace and alter it. On the other hand, I just buy all my music without DRM in the first place and I really wish the media would stop portraying DRM as having something to do with pirating. Anyone can pirate DRM'd music. If you can hear it, you can record it. This is about controlling what people who legitimately bought music do with it. And I think the RIAA has some very hard questions to answer regarding that. If only the media was not owned maybe someone would have the balls to ask them on camera.
Her own organization, the RIAA, hires people to create and distribute those viruses to deliberately infect P2P sites. I wonder if Hillary Rosen ever met the truth.
It's not about whether copyright is good or bad, it's simply this:
Makes me/our company/our friends lots of cash, probably at your expense: good
Gives you freedoms/etc at our expense: bad
Jobs was unique in finding a way to make the harsh restrictions placed on downloaded music by the recording industry palatable to a wide audience and profitable to boot.
Seeing as Apple took the risk and won, I think it's unreasonable to ask them to give up the fruits of their labors. As an Apple shareholder I'd hold Jobs culpable if he ever did such a thing. I say to Jobs: "Milk it for all it's worth." Especially since there are plenty of competitors out there to keep him honest. The iPod doesn't have a monopoly because Apple locked everyone else out of the market, ala Microsoft, it has one because it's better.
If you don't like the fact that you can't play your Windows Media songs on the iPod, buy a different player ... or do what I do and buy the physical CD and convert it into whatever format you prefer. I get my CDs primarily from Amazon.com, but never from Apple.
And Hillary, if you don't like the myriad proprietary forms of DRM on downloaded music, consider the fact that it's your fault it's there in the first place.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
"The new iPod my girlfriend gave me is a trap," said Rosen.
Girlfriend??
______________________________________________
"... when oh when will Steve Jobs let me buy music from somewhere other than the Apple iTunes store and put it on my iPod?" "
When the market dictates that this is a good business move. Right now, Apple can combat the RIAA on prices (read as lower prices for you and me) with such large marketshare.
Also Ms. Rosen is free to walk in to the thousands of retail locations that sell CDs and rip them to her iPod at any time she wishes.
"There are little players to make your favorite music even more portable than ever starting at as little as 29 bucks."
Then go buy them! Apple isn't telling you to only buy iPods. By controlling the player and the store, Apple is able to sustain a successful business model - NO OTHER COMPETITOR IS MAKING MONEY!!!
"Most every player device works at every one of these "stores" and it is pretty easy to keep all the songs, no matter where you got them, in a single folder or "jukebox" on your computer."
But not as easy as the iPod
Also, tell me how many custom cases & accessories I can find for the Creative Muvo again?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
for making APIs that lock people into Windows, Windows Media for not working on PalmOS, Torvalds for not making the Linux Kernel applications run on Mac OS, etc.
Are we now advocating that all content must be available for all platforms? That's just silly.
The problem is that the iPod only works with either songs that you buy from the on-line Apple iTunes store or songs that you rip from your own CD's. But those other music sites have lots of music that you can't get at the iTunes store. So, if you have an iPod, you are out of luck. If you are really a geek, you can figure out how to strip the songs you might have bought from another on-line store of all identifying information so that they will go into the iPod. But then you have also degraded the sound quality. How cruel.
Y'know what? None of my MP3 collection has "degraded sound quality."
If any of the stores wanted to, they could easily sell me MP3's, which would go onto my iPod no problem. But they won't, because the RIAA still haven't wised up that consumers don't want their DRM crap.
No, now we get Hilary Rosen, mouthpiece of the RIAA for so long, whining about how "Apple" stops their songs from going onto the iPod rather than whining about how none of the stores are willing to sell a song in a format the iPod will take.
Give me a fucking break.
All of the other stores that she seems to be arguing for require Windows.
That's a monopoly. That's lock-in. Exactly what she's arguing against.
As a Mac owner, I won't be shopping at the alternatives any time soon.
These comments are made purely because good old Hilary has finally seen what a number here have noticed: Apple's potential to cut the RIAA members "out of the loop".
iPod's a market leader, as is iTunes. They RIAA have finally noticed that Apple own both the hardware and the portal to their customers - so what exactly do they need the RIAA for? "Content" - RIAA are just brokers for the market - marketing? Apple own the portal, they can push whatever they want to push....
Long term Apple can kill the RIAA, and that's her motivation.
Windows is the only operating system that correctly and fully implements the Win32 software platform, a platform targetted by millions of software applications. They can't be run on any other operating system.
Almost any MP3 player on the market can correctly play all MP3s. Apple's iPod is not unique in this.
The latest fad in american business and politics is to spread FUD like it's going out of style. In post 9/11 america, it works way too well, especially for a people who lost the ability to reason a long time ago, if they ever had it.
This may seem like an incredibly stupid thing to say, but in reality you just have to follow the money. The RIAA doesn't like the iTunes model because Apple has this segment of the market locked up real nice because their system works so well for 90% of the American public. With power comes control of the cash. If the RIAA tries to leverage itself against iTunes, the egomaniacal Jobs will push back, because he likes using his power.
Market power translates directly to money, for all those who don't understand why companies like Microsoft have $40 billion in the bank. Apple has a lot of say over what gets sold and for how much. Too much for the comfort of the RIAA.
Bottom line, The RIAA wants to chip away at iTunes' power and get more of it themselves. The more power they get, the more money they get. And Joe consumer will buy it because only those educated in the supply chain of music understand the details.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Yeah, she's pretty funny.
She calls for Apple to "open up" the iPod, but then conviently forgets to mention that if all the other stores sold unencrypted MP3s they'd play on the iPod right now.
Almost every digital music player on the market is currently open (even sony is getting their act together) as long as the format is MP3. Her complaint is the equivelant to someone opening up a hydrogen fuel station today and complaining that no one has cars that work with hydrogen. No shit, Shirlock. If they opened up a gas station they might actually make some money.
TW
Perhaps she's complaining because she doesn't follow the party line that permeates your world - namely that customer lock-in and DRM are bad only when they come from Microsoft or someone else, but A-OK when they come from Apple.
No, it's bad coming from Apple too.
I agree that Apple should open the iPod up a bit, to let others make DRM'd AAC's for the device without resorting to Real's Harmony approach.
What the problem here is is that while Apple is promoting vendor lock-in a little bit, Microsoft, via, walmart, napster, and all the other WMA stores, is promoting not only format lock-in, but the most hideous DRM ever conceived by mankind.
If you want a portable music device that will delete your music by itself simply because you haven't connected it to a computer recently, then look into WMA10 and the "Plays For Sure" logo. Because that's what it does, and that's what it means. Go read the WMA10 SDKs, it's pretty clear once you get past the pretty diagrams.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
If they would've let the stores sell MP3s from the start, we wouldn't be in this situation.
LordBodak's journal.
Apple actually aknowledges than when a person buys a song/album, they should be able to listen to it in their car, on the MP3 player (iPod of course), their computer, etc. No, they don't think you should be able to stand on a street corner and hand out copies to complete strangers. Apple's solution is actually that happy medium where music companies get money for online music downloads and consumers get music in a form that is convenient and easy to move around their different listening devices. So yes, the OP had a legitimate gripe and Hillary Rosen is just being moronic and trying to twist reality into something it isn't.
Space for rent, inquire within
Why not? Woudn't it be of benefit to consumers? Or better yet, how about Apple licensing their DRM liberally, like Microsoft does, so that we can play our iTMS songs on other-than-Apple devices? How would this hurt the consumer?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Now I'm not arguing that the RIAA is good or anything, and yes, it's just about money.
But arguing that Apples DRM in any way means "Gives you freedoms/etc at our expense" for RIAA, is the epitome of hypocrisy. It gives you exactly what freedom? The "freedom" to have exactly one choice of online music?
Apple _is_ using two products in a way that each keeps you pretty much locked into the other. Same as, you know, Microsoft loves to use its own products to enforce a monopoly.
In fact, _that_ is MS's monopoly. It's not just "waah, they're evil because they have money", it's that each product reinforces the other, as to (A) make it painful to break out of that vicious circle if you're already hooked, and (B) make it a painfully high entry barrier: if you want to compete with Windows you have to pretty much compete with all of them at the same time.
So why is it good and "freedom" when Apple does it?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I wasn't arguing that Microsoft does not have a monopoly, nor that Apple do - I was pointing out that using an example of a total (and legally enforced, iirc) monopoly as a counter example to prove that Apple can't possibly have a monopoly is disingenuous, or just misguided.
However you feel about Microsoft's 'monopoly', the millions of Mac and Linux users prove that there is an alternative (compare this with how the phone system used to work - at least in the UK anyway, and I believe it was the same in the US/elsewhere). But Microsoft are commonly used as an example of a monopoly in their particular segment of the market.
Comments that amount to "but Windows is the only way to run Win32 programs, and Win32 programs are really popular" are simply not the same as "If you're not the phone company, you can't provide a phone service. Period."
I'm really saying that using the term monopoly in that absolute way to excuse Apple from any accusations of unpleasant business practices is not realistic. When it comes to a 'free market' like computer hardware/software (I can hear the rants coming from here), that's not what people generally mean by a monopoly.
Isn't this just an excuse to decouple iTunes from iPod so that the RIAA can charge more money? I read somewhere (here?) that Apple signed a fixed price deal with the RIAA back in the days before the iPod went Windows. This seems like a ploy to me to try to get out of that deal so that the music industry can charge more for music through other vendors...a practice made harder when Apple either prevents non-iTunes sold AAC files from working (through "upgrades") or charge a cost-prohibitive license fee.
Who is she kidding? She doesn't want our music to be free, she just wants it to be managed by someone who can charge more.
By "significantly more sane", I take it you mean "is being paid by somebody different whose opinions line up more with yours", I agree.
How is supporting Microsoft's (truly heinous) DRM a win for customers?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
That's my take on it as well. The subtle message is that Microsoft used to be closed but is now open, while Apple is still closed.
Let's not forget that Microsoft WMA10 came out into a market where the iPod was king. They're not interested in compatibility, they're interested in owning the market by owning the format and controlling the devices and stores themselves that way.
Exactly. Hillary's assessment is particularly absurd given that you can save non-DRMed WMP files as AAC files. This is really all about which DRM format is going to win. Apple came to market with AAC/FairPlay and people liked it. They recognized that it was a compromise, but it was a reasonable one.
My feeling is that Apple should be doing everything it can to bring more players into the AAC/FairPlay camp, rather than just letting Microsoft draw everyone into the WMA 10 fold. But Microsoft doesn't give a gnat's ass about making things easier on consumers.
They're all for the "music as a subscription" model, because it's a perfect extension of their goal of divesting control from hardware manufacturers. Plus, if you never own the music you listen to, it's easy to keep charging you for it over, and over, and over. Any guess why a music industry flak likes the Microsoft approach better than the Apple approach?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
But Britney Spears music a) is distributed virally, via TRL and b) eats your brain.
And who the hell is this Slashdot reader who reads the Huffington Post?
"DELIVERING NEWS AND OPINION SINCE MAY 9, 2005"
WOW!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
True, I had forgotten about that because I never buy from the iTunes Music Store (I believe it rips off the actual artists just as much as the RIAA). I do agree that those files should not be protected by unlockable DRM, and have said from the beginning that Apple is complicit in anti-consumer behavior regarding its Music Store. But hey, it's not like anyone is forced to use the iTunes Music Store in order to use your iPod. Apple doesn't limit you from loading on your own mp3s onto your iPod.
The biggest takeaway from her "blog" is that there is no takeaway. This is a PR piece pure and simple, and slashdot and other "news" outlets have played right into her hand (and whomever is paying her) by covering it as a real story.
For ten thousand years culture has been the property of its society. People shared music to build their culture, in the same way that they shared stories and pictures. Till the last few hundred years or so when profit became more important than culture. In current Western society we do the same thing. Ever since the creation of blank tapes, and maybe before, teenagers copied music to share with their friends, to create their own cultural identity. When the majority of the people are engaged in this, but small but wealthy groups like the RIAA can control and alter our rights to do so, we no longer have the right to call ourselves a free democratic society. The whole DRM thing means now that we are often restricted from copying a CD we own to another format (MP3 or whatever) for our own personal use. That's 'our' music.
All available data suggest that regardless of any of this, the sun will still come up tomorrow.
Why not? Woudn't it be of benefit to consumers?
Maybe a little, in the short term. The loss of competition over the longer term after Apple gets squeezed out of the online music business by Microsoft's bankroll, so we end up with Tweedlereal and Tweedlenapster pretending to compete, is probably not a good thing.
Can you give a source for that assertion? I was under the impression that Apple doesn't exactly mind that people are being locked into buying iPods forever...
Firstly, as has been mentioned many times, the ipod is able to play mp3s, so if other sites were prepared to sell them, there would be no problem. This is a no-brainer.
The second angle is IMO more important. Apple should licence the DRMd AAC spec, to allow other manufacturers to play music from ITMS. I know Apple doesn't *have* to do this, but I think we'd all be better off if they did. Also, it would quash some of the comments about their 'monopoly'...
The article in the Register which you link to exhibits some very poor journalism. It asserts that the entire Huffington Post is a hoax - a satire website with fakes impersonating well-known people, entirely on the basis that the author of the Register article can't believe that Hilary Rosen would be, well, hypocritical. Did the author contact Arianna Huffington to confirm that the new blog site was actually a hoax? Did the author contact Hilary Rosen to confirm that she wasn't the actual author of that article? If the answer to either of those questions is "yes", there is no evidence of it in the article.
Meanwhile, other news sites, such as the Washington Post, actually contacted Huffington and several of the named celebrity bloggers, and, guess what? The evidence would seem to indicate that the Huffington Post is no hoax.
not everyone who is against the RIAA supports music piracy. some of us are grown adults who just want things liek ot be able to get the music we want to buy and play it on any music player we own (much liek apprently hillary wants). we don't want to be hampered by anti-copyign schemes which restricts our fair use rights, costs us money, and in the end do next to nothing to stop the REAL pirates.
you wanna share my wife? that's a different story. let's talk about something that really is property? change that to a car. want to borrow my car? not likely. want to make an exact copy of my car and leave mien intact and not hamper me in any way, feel free.
as for the "laws" the RIAA is enforcing... in case you didnt' know.. they bought those laws, to serve their own interest. they took the original copyright laws, which were intended to give the artist a LIMITED time to recoupe some money from their work, then be contributed to the public domain and changed them so that the middle men, who have nothign to do with the creation or performign of the music make most of the the money. artists went broke long before P2P.. it's because the industry is ripping them off far worse than any pirate ever has.
i also contend that there would be no music if there were no copyright laws.. history proves otherwise. people who want to make music will make music. especially in this day and age, it's very easy for a small time artist to make music and get it distributed, even if he/she doesn't want to make any profit from it.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
no such thing as a 'happy medium' with drm. its thier scheme, not mine, no negotiation.
...we don't want to be hampered by anti-copyign schemes...
The RIAA as representatives of the multi-rich music companies DEMANDED that if Apple wanted to sell their music they would have to implement some sort of DRM. So Apple implemented some DRM and now that same person who demanded it complains about it. Before the iTunes store existed I remember the "rip, mix-burn" ads from Apple. Even now the constituents of the RIAA are implementing CDs with all sorts of (mostly useless) anti-copying (sharpiepen) technology! What a hypocrite!
All theory is gray
not YOU, the artist and the record company. they are most definetely losing money.
well, that might be what you intended, but what you said sounded different.
geeze. they are getting SOMETHING. in some cases they are getting debt... lots of it, cause they end up owing more money for the millions of records they sold than they made.
it was suggested this thread that the music is owned by society. in that case, they get NOTHING.
why do they automatically get nothing? musicians existed before and managed to make a living, at least the good ones did. even if you go back only 200+ years to the founging of this coutnry, they also believed that arts and science were meant to be part of the public domain, but the creator woudl still get a limited copyright to make money off his work, before it got absored into thepublic domain.
yes, it's an outrage that they do not get a larger % of the profit. however, it's pretty hard to argue that it's in an artist's best (monetary) interest to throw out the entire music copyright system. rally your energy to artists' rights and supporting independent labels in that case i never said throw out the entire copyright system. i said get rid of the new laws that abuse the consumer and the artist alike. get rid of the industry that makes it's money by leechign off both ends of the music spectrum. so yes.. i DO rally for artists' rights and indipendant labels.
geeze 2. if all that was going on is legal owners making copies of the music they own, the RIAA wouldn't give a crap. we all know that this is not what it's about. because you live in a world with 6 billion people, you do not get individual attention. no law is going to be forged in your name to protect your right to make and use copies of your CDs. the laws apply to the masses, the masses who are illegally DISTRIBUTING media.
there are already laws in place, that don't get enforced.. why do i want to get MY use harmed by new laws that will do little to stop the pirates? the new laws and anti-cpying technology has proven to be able to stop no one, but has several cases of abuse... especially the DMCA.
let me sum up my stance again so you don't continue to argue against me on points that are not mine: 1) i am in favour of limited copyrights as per the original rules. a way to allow the creator of a work to recoupe for their for, for a limtied time, before beign part of the public domain 2) i am against new laws that do more consumer harm than protect the artists (eg. DMCA) 3) i am against an industry that abuses the very creators of the work they live off of, then claim to be protecting them. 4) i am against using government money to persecute criminals who's activity has never been proven to be harmful. i think that's a good summary for now.
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
Hilary Rosen complaining about the inconvenient side effects of DRM schemes is like Ted Kennedy complaining that his taxes are too high or John Ashcroft complaining that the government is poking into his private business.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Arianna Huffington has been putting this website together for some time now. Today is its first day of operation. I seriously doubt that a new venture like this would put up such an aggressive spoof--complete with accurate bio--on its first day of publication. It would be in serious trouble in its first twenty-four hours.
I know that Apple is far from perfect, but I have never seen the kind of vehemence against a particular product--the iPod--in my life. Every other article is "Is this the next iPod Killer?" and "When will the iPod lose its cool?" It would be different if the criticisms were grounded in reality, but sitres like C|Net whip Apple and the iPod like second-hand mules.
Reminds me of those scenes in The Godfather and The Sopranos where one mobster latches onto a sweet deal and the others are clamoring to let the fortunate one "wet their beaks" on the proceeds of that good fortune.
The iPod came out of left field, has kept coming, and parts of three or four industries are screaming "no fair!" Bitching is easier than innovating.
It's there in black and white. "multiple (read Microsoft)"
She's actually complaining that some bastard has the audacity to come up with a file format which isn't open for Microsoft to copy.
The implication is that if iTunes dished out WMA, then she'd be happy, because MSFT are already bum-buddies with the RIAA. The rest is just whitewash.
It's been a long time since I last heard anyone complain that a system is too closed, because Microsoft don't have the license to use it.
I'm no fan of iTunes - it's still DRM'd music. I'd rather own a CD and the rights to the music on that CD - to play it in my car, at home, on my laptop, wherever I wish. Apple and Microsoft are apparently intent on denying these rights; from a PC speaker, MP3 will do okay for me. In the car, at home, I'll copy the CD, thank you.
I don't download music which I don't already own (unless the publisher allows it - eg www.slidepheromone.com) and I certainly don't pay to download music, as the only options are limited-rights downloads.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Are you serious!?! Where is your sense of humor? Don't you realize the Register article is the satire!?! For crying out loud! They are mocking Huffinton's entire website by stating that Rosen's article is so obviously funny it must be written as a joke.
Rosen's article is so obviously a commercial for Microsoft's DRM that I couldn't bring myself to read anything else Huffinton's site offered. More shills no doubt.
Try rereading the Reg's article with a tongue planted firmly in your cheek. (^_-)
The Splintered Mind - Overcoming
but when, oh when, will Steve Jobs let me buy music from somewhere other than the Apple iTunes store and put it on my iPod?
They do. They're called CDs. You still sell music on those, right?
You know, I've always been quick to jump on the Apple sucks bandwagon ever since they deep-sixed my first love, the Apple II, but in this case, I couldn't care less.
Who but iPod users could possibly give a shit about anything related to iPods? Don't like the way Apple runs it? Well, there are plenty of perfectly workable competitors. They largely lack the fashionability of the iPod, but they work just fine and many of them are cheaper. Go get one and quit griping. There are also plenty of legal ways to get digital music online other than iTunes, and some of them have large collections and competitive prices. Go use them.
Despite Apple's early lead, which will likely erode over time, this is one field where there is plenty of competition and consumer choice. What Rosen is bitching about, presumably on Microsoft's tab, is that everyone hasn't chosen Microsoft's lackluster offerings in this department.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
She long ago established herself as someone who would spout any line she was paid to.
Her long and vehement presidency of the RIAA poisoned the well - she has nothing to say that is worth listening to...
If you read between the lines, what she's really complaining about is that Apple isn't bending over for the RIAA, so they're trying to discredit them and find someone who will (i.e., Microsoft). She's complaining that Apple won't use the RIAA's extra-restrictive DRM, which they want to be the standard instead of Apple's less restrictive (and already cracked) DRM.
Remember, just like the oracle in the Matrix, she doesn't speak the "truth," just what she wants you to hear. In this case, that's "abandon Apple." She's just using the false promise of freedom to twist people to her will.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
She's lobbying for market acceptance of DRM the RIAA can control -- apparently they're upset that Apple isn't dopping its pants and bending over for them enough.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
She can have music other than that from iTunes on her iPod. Its just that removing the DRM from those other legit music files obtained at other legal music distribution sites would be illegal.
Steve Jobs has little to do with what DRM systems other companies implement. No, the DMCA is more to blame here for causing this mess. The very act that she helped pass.
It is because (indirectly albeit) of her own actions that using music legitimately bought any way seen fit (ie. using it on more than just one brand specific MP3 player) is illegal.