Skip to content


John Hodgman on the Violent Video Game Debate

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
You’re Welcome – Violent Video Games
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

Posted in Friday: Game Review.


Copyright Society Event and CLE Tonight

What are you doing tonight? Interested in hearing about the First Sale Doctrine in the Digital Age? Then come to the event and CLE at Davis Wright Tremaine (it actually is there this time) from 6-8pm for a presentation and potential diatribe on the topic. $25 for attorneys (1.0 CLE credits), $15 for non-attorneys, and FREE for students!

What is the first sale doctrine? It’s an exception to the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. §109) that allows consumers to do certain things with their physical copy of a copyrighted work. Usually explained using a book, the first sale doctrine allows readers to resell, recycle, or photocopy limited portions of their books without fear that the author will shut down the secondary market of used books. It does NOT extend to transferring the copyright contained within the book, or to create derivative works from the contents of that book.

So what does this mean with digital content? Can you separate the property right from the “physical copy” of the work when the copy is intangible? Should the first sale doctrine apply to digital works? Besides DRM, how would the copyright owner or publisher be able to ensure that the end user is only doing what they are allowed to do under the relatively narrow exception? Should that even be a concern? All this and more (probably) tonight!

Posted in Thursday: Media.


Violent Video Game Arguments Recap

Tuesday, in addition to being Election Day, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Schwarzenegger v. EMA. Speculation is rife as to the actual ruling, but many commentators are saying that the Justices seemed interested in letting “common sense” govern the issue. The Court seems poised, it is said, to state the general principle that video games MAY be regulated by the states, but that California’s law did so with too many restrictions.

What does this mean for the video game industry? Well, it could mean that states try to tweak their regulations to more narrowly describe the types of video games they want regulated. Or it could mean that the Court will issue another Bilski opinion, where it was expected to overturn years of patent interpretation and prosecution, and instead only stated that Bilski’s patent was invalid. In other words, the Court could propose an actual, practical test for the regulation of video games, or lacking the majority to carry the opinion, they could have 9 Justices agree that California’s law is too broad and vague, and be done with it there.

And now for the 9-12 months of speculation by the press before the opinion actually issues. For some great early speculation, based on the questions and the tone of voice of the Justices, check out the SCOTUSBlog’s Argument Recap.

Posted in Wednesday: Current Issues.

Tagged with .