Tim Wu's article has plenty to like, but the examples are pretty selective. The idea that, eg, Facebook owns the social space when it's not the biggest player in many key markets (Orkut for Brazil and India, Mixi for Japan) or verticals (LinkedIn for work, Flickr for photos) means there's a big leap being made from "large company with a significant network effect" to "monopoly".
This'll be another ruling from a Belgian regional Court of First Instance. There are about 25 of the things, they're supposed to deal with civil cases that go above a threshhold of about E2k but the Brussels one has been handing down landmark copyright rulings since 2004 when it held Tiscali liable for p2p activity by the ISP's customers and the in the Google/Copiepresse case, and while this is the same court in a different region the pattern is interesting.
Grateful though I guess I am to "catullusrl" for linking back to my post (and amused though I am by your entertainingly robust pro-criticism policy that lets him diss you on your own website!), I just wanted to say that it isn't anyone at Virtualeconomics calling you clueless. No doubt he's a lovely chap but he isn't me. Love your work dude.
The potential trolling that really worries me is EULA-trolling. At the moment lots of people (me included) sign up to EULAs unread on the assumption that the business providing the service I'm buying can't realistically screw me that hard and keep trading. But as businesses go under, I can envisage a resale market in all those unread EULAs that troll buyers can then have a go at making money out of enforcing on the service's (ex) users.
I hope the professor, if he exists, has excellent back-ups of his own notes then. My father works at a university and when one of his colleagues had his office burn to the ground, taking twenty years of accumulated notes and teaching materials with it, he was able to recover some of his work with an appeal to his former students to make him copies of any notes they'd kept. Harder to do if you've instructed the same students to destroy their copies.
"It is possible for the government to own a newspaper and still have that newspaper report critically on that government(?)"
By most definitions the government "owns" the BBC in Britain, since the BBC is funded via a hypothecated tax on all British TV owners that the BBC has to renegotiate with the government every ten years. It's impossible to say, of course, whether BBC news would be even more critical of the government under some hypothetically different funding arrangement but under the current arrangement it's pretty far from being a mere pro-government shill.
Not a lawyer, but...even in the UK, fair comment is a solid defence against libel. Can't see how it can fail to get thrown out.
Mike - the US/UK extradition situation became contentiously one-sided when the 2003 Extradition Act came in. Some details here and here.
It's widely considered problematic in England - particularly by civil rights campaigners - that our citizens can be extradited to the US on much weaker grounds than would be required for an extradition the other way. I think there's more going on here than a guy who cocked up his hack turning down a plea bargain.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by seamusmccauley.