"Induced obsolescence"? Really?
How would you like to have to re-buy ALL your software, books, movies, CDs EVERY SEASON instead of every time a new digital media appers?
Just because the update cycle is not annual, does not mean there is not induced obsolescence.
Do you still run DOS? No, it's obsolete, no modern apps run on it. In fact, I doubt you would even consider using anything before Windows 2000 at the earliest these days. And if you're not a Windows user, would you use a Linux with a 2.0.x kernel? Probably not, aside from the fact it does not support modern hardware (x86_64 and such), there are big advantages to newer versions of Linux.
Would you still use Office 95? Of course not, at least, not in a business setting, it cannot open the majority of documents that would be sent around today in the business world. Indeed, it's rapidly becoming inconvenient to use any version of office before '07, due to people starting to send/receive ooxml files.
So you want to talk about art then. Sure, you CAN play games from bygone years, but they start running into the same issues as other apps - newer machines are too modern for them, operating systems have changed and you need emulated environments. Or even if that's not the case, they just don't look as good as games designed for current hardware. So, except for the nostalga crowd, yes, Games have 'induced obsolescence' by virtue of the improvements in computing technology make older games just less appealing. And nobody would try and claim computer games aren't artistic expressions. Hell, I recently purchased Monkey Island again because they re-vamped it with newer graphics and such. Sure, I could have still played the older version, but why not get the updated look that looks nicer on hardware that didn't exist when the original was released. But I am still playing the exact same game, with the exact same puzzles and story line.
So there are many ways computer software can become obsolete without changing the media on which it is distributed, and trigger you to buy it again. But even media progression is a valid reason to re-buy media you own. Many people have re-purchased music they already own on cassette tape on CD, or videos they already own on VHS on DVD, because the media makes them much more convenient an they don't need to keep old clunky players around. Indeed, even re-buying books they own as eBooks so they can carry their entire library around on a single portable device. Or even bought stuff they already own on DVD on Blu-Ray because the movie they love looks that much better in HD. And I'm sure once 3D TV's become more prevalent, there might be another round of re-buying (mainly animated films which can be more readily re-mastered in 3D) to get the 3D experience their older DVD did not offer. It's still induced obsolescence, triggered by the advance in technology.
How is that any different to obsolescence induced by a change in fashion trends? The point TFA is trying to make is, there is enough other impetus to spur on the industry without needing to lock down content like they have done. Even despite technology advances triggering a subset of people to re-buy stuff they already own, a lack of copyright protection would also stop authors of creative works being so lazy, and force them to be more ambitious or adventurous (as she mentions many big-name designers have said they have had to become, and it has elevated both their creativity and bottom lines at the same time). When you can just create something, and lock it down, you have no real need to innovate and do something daring as a next project, you can just sit back and earn royalties or keep selling the same old stuff.