Yesterday, in the Viacom v. Google litigation, the federal court for the Southern District of New York ordered Google to produce to Viacom (over Google's objections):

all data from the Logging database concerning each time a YouTube video has been viewed on the YouTube website or through embedding on a third-party website

The court’s order grants Viacom's request and erroneously ignores the protections of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), and threatens to expose deeply private information about what videos are watched by YouTube users. The VPPA passed after a newspaper disclosed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental records. As Congress recognized, your selection of videos to watch is deeply personal and deserves the strongest protection.

Debian Etch will include a browser called “IceWeasel,” which is simply Firefox rebranded with open source artwork, whereas Ubuntu Feisty will include a browser called “Firefox” which is a little bit pregnant.

— Mark Pilgrim again. "A little bit pregnant" here is code for "a little bit non-free". (Apparently Firefox isn't free software because it contains non-free artwork; you can distribute it without the non-free artwork, but then you're not allowed to call it Firefox. That's what Debian is doing.)

I found an HTML e-book version of it, which is apparently more or less identical to the version published in book form. Right down to the copyright notices. Yup, it even says "Copyright © Lawrence Lessig, 2004. All rights reserved." It is of course his copyright, but the second part is incorrect, because the book is licensed under CC-BY-NC, which allows noncommercial distribution provided you give the author credit. So his right to restrict distribution is not entirely reserved. It gives the other boilerplate copyright messages as well: "no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored ... or transmitted ... without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book" (of course the CC license constitutes permission, so this clause has little effect and is rather misleading) and most laughable:

The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book via the Internet or via any other means without the permission of the publisher is illegal and punishable by law. Please purchase only authorized electronic editions and do not participate in or encourage electronic piracy of copyrighted materials. Your support of the author's rights is appreciated.

I've not read the book yet, but I gather it criticises the lack of creativity caused by the current draconian copyright regime and talks about alternatives, including CC. So the fact that it has a copyright notice of this sort strikes me as very, very bizarre.

"If we are to believe Microsoft's numbers, it appears that 120.000 person days are not enough to document its own software. ... For users, this should be a shock: Microsoft apparently does not know the software that controls 95% of all desktop computers on this planet. Imagine General Motors releasing a press statement to the extent that even though they had 300 of their best engineers work on this for two years, they cannot provide specifications for the cars they built."

It's long been my opinion that closed "standards" (including protocols and file formats) are an unmitigated loss for many reasons, though most especially because they lock the user into the first vendor's solution. It's gratifying that the European Commission has the intelligence to realise this, though given the trend in European (and other) governments towards open standards, perhaps not too surprising.

1. Throughout the "agreement", I am referred to as a "consumer". Yes, in an economic sense I am a consumer, but this is not an economic essay, it is a... whatever it is, maybe a contract (see above). The term is demeaning. It suggests that my purpose is to eat what Valve feeds me, as if I am a pig and Valve the farmer. Here's my tip for all companies that want their customers not to despise them: call them "customers", not "consumers". Calling them "customers" doesn't indicate any particular level of respect for them, but calling them "consumers" makes it crystal clear that you are only interested in the contents of their wallets.
2. The section entitled Acceptance/Rejection/Returns, referring to non-software merchandise, begins: "The terms of this Section 3.C do not apply to European Union consumers." In this case I don't care, because I am trying to buy a computer game, i.e. software, so this section doesn't apply. But suppose for some bizarre reason I wanted to buy a T-shirt via Steam, and got a rag in the post, or nothing. What am I supposed to do to remedy this?
3. Limitation of liability: "IF YOU ARE A RESIDENT OF A EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRY, THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU." So, again, what does apply?
4. Exclusive remedy: "YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY DISPUTE WITH VALVE WITH REGARD TO STEAM OR THE STEAM SOFTWARE IS TO DISCONTINUE USE OF STEAM AND CANCEL YOUR ACCOUNT." So if their software sends my credit card number to some random third party who then abuses it, am I not allowed to prosecute them? (As far as I know, contracts can't trump criminal law, but IANAL.)
5. Amendments: "Valve may amend this Agreement at any time in its sole discretion." It goes on to say that you have 30 days to accept the changes or not, and if you don't, you have to cancel your account. Again, this is forcing terms on me, and means this cannot meaningfully be described as an "agreement", as I have not been consulted or given a chance to object and negotiate.
6. Applicable law/jurisdiction. This is the most evil and cowardly section of any EULA. "You agree that this Agreement shall be deemed to have been made and executed in the State of Washington, and any dispute arising hereunder shall be resolved in accordance with the law of Washington. You agree that any claim asserted in any legal proceeding by you against Valve shall be commenced and maintained exclusively in any state or federal court located in King County, Washington, having subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the dispute between the parties and you hereby consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts. In any dispute arising under this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to attorneys' fees and expenses." I object strongly to this. Valve is selling me a product in my country, using servers located (presumably) in my country. This means they are doing business in my country. A fundamental prerequisite of doing business in any country is that you agree to abide by that country's laws, which implies that you are prepared to expose yourself to lawsuits in that country's courts. They should not be allowed to be so cowardly as to specify a jurisdiction outside the country that they're doing business in. I should be entitled to sue them in my own country, not have to fork out for a flight to Washington.