2. T HE L EGAL P ERSPECTIVE I NTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY C ONTENT, L AW, AND P RACTICE I NTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY C ONTENT, L AW, AND P RACTICE C ONTENT R EGULATION C ONTENT R EGULATION CS 382.001 A PRIL 26, 2016 P ARTS 7.5-7.6

3. I NTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY C ONTENT, L AW, AND P RACTICE P AGE 265 T HE L EGAL P ERSPECTIVE T HE GAME INDUSTRY HASN ’ T BEEN A REAL STICKLER FOR THE LAW … 1978: M ATTEL RELEASES A LICENSED B ATTLESTAR G ALACTICA GAME CALLED S PACE A LERT 1979: M ATTEL DEVELOPS AN UNLICENSED VARIATION, FILLED WITH BG- STYLE SHIPS AND C YLONS, BUT IS FORCED TO REMOVE THE B ATTLESTAR G ALACTICA LOGO AND TO RENAME IT GENERICALLY AS S PACE B ATTLE 1998-1999: H ASBRO I NTERACTIVE PURCHASES THE A TARI LIBRARY (C ENTIPEDE, M ISSILE C OMMAND, A STEROIDS ) AND LICENSES THE N AMCO LIBRARY (P AC -M AN, P OLE P OSITION, G ALAGA ). 2000: H ASBRO I NTERACTIVE SUCCESSFULLY SUES SIX OTHER COMPANIES FOR BLATANTLY COPYING GAMES TO WHICH H ASBRO OWNS THE EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHT.

4. I NTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY C ONTENT, L AW, AND P RACTICE P AGE 266 G AME S OFTWARE P IRACY S ALES IN PC- BASED GAMES HAVE DECLINED, A TREND FREQUENTLY ATTRIBUTED TO SOFTWARE PIRACY. G AME DEVELOPERS INCREASINGLY USE THE PC PLATFORM TO DEVELOP GAME ENGINES AND GAMES BEFORE PORTING EVERYTHING OVER TO CONSOLES.

5. C ONTENT R EGULATION P AGE 267 C ONTENT R EGULATION C OURTS HAVE REPEATEDLY RULED THAT COMPUTER AND VIDEO GAMES ARE PROTECTED SPEECH AND THAT RECENT LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO BAN OR LIMIT ACCESS TO GAMES VIOLATES THE F IRST A MENDMENT OF THE U.S. C ONSTITUTION. Indiana, March 2001 Judge: “To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.” Missouri, June 2003 Judge: “…the government cannot silence protected speech by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority.” Washington, July 2004 Judge: “…there has been no showing that exposure to video games that ‘trivialize violence against law enforcement officers’ is likely to lead to actual violence against such officers.” Illinois, December 2005 Judge: “…if controlling access to allegedly ‘dangerous’ speech is important in promoting the positive psychological development of children, in our society that role is properly accorded to parents and families, not the state.” Michigan, April 2006 Judge: “It would be impossible to separate the functional aspects of a video game from the expressive, inasmuch as they are as closely intertwined and dependent on each other in creating the virtual experience.” Minnesota, July 2006 Judge: “…there is no showing whatsoever that video games, in the absence of other violent media, cause even the slightest injury to children.” Louisiana, November 2006 Judge: “The Court wonders why nobody objected to the enactment of this statute. In this court’s view, the taxpayers deserve more from their elected officials.” Oklahoma, September 2007 Judge: “…the presence of increased viewer control and interactivity does not remove these games from the release of First Amendment protection.” California, February 2009 Judge: “…there remain less restrictive means of forwarding the state’s purported interests, such as the improved ESRB rating system, enhanced educational campaigns, and parental controls.” U.S. Supreme Court, June 2011 Justice: “ ” Justice: “Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And “the basic principles of freedom of speech... do not vary” with a new and different communication medium.”