I think the most recent M&A example I heard is connected with AdMob, where Apple wanted to buy it as a defensive move, to prevent google from getting an intimate peek into the inner working of the app store, and google ending up paying a huge premium specifically for that.

On your fantasy sports example, perhaps it may be more interesting to go into the next level for the analysis. For example. rather than just looking at ownership %, look to see if auction values or draft position successes have any patterns. “Hey, a high % of people that pay between $10 and $20 in the first half of an auction for an AL 3B that is in his second year after having an OPS+ over over 100 end up making a great buy”. Maybe that would just be fun, rather than useful.

Any ones you want to contribute?

To that end, the music deals you propose make a lot of sense. I'd add Last.fm to the list as I think that CBS would be happy to flip it at the right price.Services like Last.fm and Pandora could be hugely valuable as data troves.
The one worry that I'd have is whether they would lose some of their credibility if owned by the music labels. The value in Pandora or Last.fm is to drive awareness of relevant music. I'd want to see a Chinese Wall established before trusting that a label wouldn't try to tweak the recommendations (”Pandora Payola”?) to drive sales of their products.
In terms of Spotify, I think it would be hard for any one label to own it (would make it very hard to get the other labels to participate) but I think there could be a huge business licensing the spotify data back to the labels.

The other two are a bit more of a reach IMO.
I am an avid sports fan and think this is one area where the wisdom of crowds often falls victim to hype. Plus, I think much of the data is already accessible (you can see which players are being added or dropped or traded on platforms like Sportsline already)

Wikipedia is another case where credibility is hugely important. Part of what makes the Wikipedia model work is its status as a nonprofit for the public good. Ownership by a hedge fund (especially if it were perceived that the hedge fund were leveraging that data) would generate huge animosity among the volunteer editors IMO. While I think the traffic trends on Wikipedia are interesting, I'm not sure they are more credible than Google traffic data. In fact, I'd argue that Google is more accurate, as it's a greater indicator of consumer interest.

I'm a big believer in data driven businesses. And I think that many data businesses miss a huge opportunity to license their data (and metadata).