Setting the stage: Arnold Schwarzenegger and video games prepare for battle in the United States Supreme Court

Video games often feature a character that evolves into an iconic superhero. In a strange twist of fate, the video game medium will have the opportunity to become a superhero itself. The recording, comic book, and movie industries have rallied around video games as the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association reaches the Supreme Court of the United States. The case concerns a 2005 California ban on the sale of violent video games to minors. The law was later overturned by the District Court and the 9th Circuit Court on appeal. At issue is whether the law violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. Do video games deserve the full protection of the Constitution as a legitimate form of speech, or should it be limited due to its alleged effects on the psychological well-being of minors? This Article will look at the impact this case may have when it reaches the Supreme Court, an analysis of the issues that will be argued, and the history of legislation involving violent video games.     

Are Internet protocol addresses personal data? The fight against online copyright infringement

Internet Protocol addresses [IP addresses] are central for Internet electronic communications. They individualize computers and their users to make the delivery of data packets possible. IP addresses are also often used to identify websurfers for litigation purposes. In particular, they constitute a key in the fight against online copyright infringement to identify infringers. However, it is a matter of dispute to know if IP addresses are personal data. In a review of relevant case law, the present paper seeks to identify when IP addresses are - or should be - considered as personal data. It suggests a contextual approach to the concept of personal data.     

Intervening in gun markets: an experiment to assess the impact of targeted gun-law messaging

The objective of this study was to assess whether targeting new gun buyers with a public safety message aimed at improving gun law awareness can modify gun purchasers’ behaviors. Between May 2007 and September 2008, 2,120 guns were purchased in two target neighborhoods of the City of Los Angeles. Starting in August 2007, gun buyers initiating transactions on odd-numbered days received a letter signed by prominent law enforcement officials, indicating that law enforcement had a record of their gun purchase and that the gun buyer should properly record future transfers of the gun. The letters arrived during buyers’ 10-day waiting periods, before they could legally return to the store to collect their new gun. Subsequent gun records were extracted to assess the letter’s effect on legal secondary sales, reports of stolen guns, and recovery of the gun in a crime. An intent-to-treat analysis was also conducted as a sensitivity check to remedy a lapse in the letter program between May and August 2007. The letter appears to have no effect on the legal transfer rate or on the short-term rate of guns subsequently turning up in a crime. However, we found that the rate at which guns are reported stolen for those who received the letter is more than twice the rate for those who did not receive the letter (p value = 0.01). Those receiving the letter reported their gun stolen at a rate of 18 guns per 1,000 gun-years and those not receiving the letter reported their gun stolen at a rate of 7 guns per 1,000 gun-years. Of those receiving the letter, 1.9% reported their gun stolen during the study period compared to 1.0% for those who did not receive the letter. The percentage of guns reported stolen in these neighborhoods is high, indicating a high rate of true gun theft, a regular practice of using stolen-gun reports to separate the gun buyer from future misuse of the gun, or some blend of both. Simple, targeted gun law awareness campaigns can modify new gun buyers’ behaviors. Additional follow-up or modifications to this initiative might be needed to impact the rate at which guns enter the illegal gun market and ultimately are recovered in crimes.     

Reconstructing ‘conflict of interest’ in financial markets: Private management, public challenges, future prospects

Following widespread criticism of financial market (self-)regulation, there is a shift in regulatory mood, explored here with reference to evolving conceptions of conflict of interest. The pre-crisis distinction between conflict of interest (normal, manageable) and its exploitation (unacceptable, legally actionable) has become somewhat eroded, as exemplified by the SEC’s 2010 civil fraud action against investment bank Goldman Sachs. However the settlement of that case on the basis of ‘mistake’ left many questions unanswered: about the meaning(s) of conflict of interest, about managerial mistake versus exploitative intent in administrative/civil cases and equally about the potential for action under criminal law. Looking forward, a judgement of the European Court of Justice on insider trading – concerning a rebuttable assumption of intent – could be taken as a template for ‘drawing the line’ on conflict of interest. Acting on the basis of informational asymmetry could be taken as an indicator of intent and serious wrongdoing unless financial market actors can demonstrate otherwise.