This really isn't at all accurate. It doesn't do *anything* to your local content. It uploads a list/files for your music to a central server, which you can then stream (but not download) through their (quite nice) web-based media player. It's basically a way to access your music away from home. I use it all day long at the office to listen to music - and I can get my whole collection (not just what fits on my iPhone) and I don't need to set up Orb or something like that. Again, it does NOTHING to your local music.
In addition to that, they will sell you streaming-only songs (available through the same web player) for 10c a pop. No, you can't download them, etc, but they're 10c. So I can check out an album I like for $1, and if I decide to get the mp3 version (no DRM), they sell that for a standard price and apply the 10c you already paid to the price.
Really, there's NOTHING sinister going on here. It's actually a really great service. I have no affiliation with them, but I'm a very pleased customer. I listen to music via Lala all day at work, and I buy a lot of music for streaming through them. It's an excellent, well-designed store and media platform. I lose no control over my own media, and I'm happy to pay an extremely discounted rate for *access* to other music, with the option to pay for DRM-free MP3s. It's a valuable service, and I lose no control whatsoever. I do wish they'd give me the option to re-download music I'd uploaded (so it could serve as a backup, not just an alternative form of access), but I imagine that's as much a bandwidth issue as anything else.
In short, this is a highly misleading and biased article. There's nothing sneaky or underhanded going on here, this is Michael Robertson bashing a competitor who has a far superior and really quite excellent product.
