We live in a litigious society. That's not a secret. So it's no surprise that, in the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado Batman shootings, lawsuits will be filed. But as always the question is: who do you sue? Well, if the linked TMZ article is accurate, Torrence Brown Jr., who was in the theater, but not directly injured (though a friend of his was killed), has lawyered up, hiring an attorney named Donald Karpel to sue Warner Bros. for making the movie too violent. He's also apparently planning to sue the theater for not properly guarding the emergency exit, which is apparently where Holmes left and re-entered with the weapons. Oh yeah, and the doctors of shooter James Holmes for not properly monitoring him.

This certainly seems like a frivolous lawsuit. Going after Warner Bros.? For what? That's likely to get laughed out of court. This seems like a clear case of a "Steve Dallas lawsuit," named for the famous Bloom County comic strip in which lawyer Steve Dallas gets beat up by Sean Penn after trying to take a photograph of the star. He then explains why the proper target of a lawsuit is not Sean Penn, but the "Nikolta Camera" company, because "a major corporation with gobs of liquid cash ... was criminally negligent in not putting stickers on their camera which read, 'warning: physical injury may result from photographing psychopathic Hollywood hotheads." In a coincidence that you simply couldn't make up, it turns out that Karpel once represented (no, seriously) a paparazzi photographer beat up by Sean Penn. Life imitates comic strips.

I'm going to assume that most of us are by now aware of the tragedy that occurred late last week, when an Aurora, Colorado theatre showing the new Batman movie was allegedly shot up by a James Holmes for whatever reasons people like him have for this kind of depravity. I'll refrain from discussing any details about the shooting, since that's not really apropros for Techdirt. However, I did notice something that seemed worth pointing out.

First, Reason has been keeping a running list of all the things politicians and media pundits are blaming for the shooting (hat-tip to E. Zachary Knight for the link). For those of you keeping score at home, based on the aggregate blame-machine that that article has counted up, the shooting can so far be blamed on: The Tea Party, a lack of Christianity throughout the country, bullying, Star Trek (not kidding), or Occupy Wall Street. And, of course, video games.

The organization responsible for the salvo against gaming is CNN, via Pat Brown, who stated his stance simply:

"Teenage psychopaths get inspired by [video games] and want to make it real"

Interestingly, I was somewhat heartened (as much as one can be in a situation like this) that I had not seen such a rush to judgment against violent video games in this case, particularly considering that this whole tragedy occurred mere miles from Columbine, where violent video games were skewered over a decade ago. But maybe there is a good reason we aren't seeing violent games being blamed in this case: because suspect James Holmes apparently didn't play them. He is apparently known for playing video games, but not of the violent variety (via TMZ):

"one of James Holmes' classmates at the University of California at Riverside played Guitar Hero with the shooter all the time, and "for hours."

The male student is telling friends he is "shocked," never having had a clue that Holmes had a propensity for violence. It's an interesting side note, because people with violent tendencies often act them out in various ways, and video games are definitely an outlet."

The point that needs to be made is that we're likely not going to understand what motivated James Holmes to do what he did for a long time, if at all, and the rush for media members and political forces to judge a tragic situation through their own biased viewpoints rather than to simply wait for the facts to bear themselves out is dangerous.

With the release of the latest Batman movie, Jeffrey Tucker makes an interesting point: does the movie really even need any copyright protection to make money? It's almost guaranteed that the film will be both widely available in unauthorized forms online... and will make an absolute ton of money:

We all know that in a matter of weeks or even days, there will be streamed copies online. There could be hundreds and thousands of them. At first, the quality will be terrible. Later, the quality will improve. By this time next year, you will be able to download an HD copy of your own without too much trouble. And this is despite the millions and billions of dollars, and the gigantic apparatus of the state, plus all the warnings and jails, dedicated to preventing this inevitable thing.

And yet: what does it matter? “Dark Knight Rises” will still make a zillion dollars. I like millions of others will shell out to see it in the theater of course. Like everyone else, I want to consume it sooner rather than later. Sure, I could save $11 bucks by waiting but there’s a time-preference issue. The movie makers are going to make a mint with clever management, clever marketing, and a high-quality product. In other words, they will make money the old-fashioned way: getting people something they want in a form in which they want to consume it.

I can easily imagine that not much would be different about this scenario if there were no IP — except that a major element of fear and force would be purged from the system and consumers would no longer be treated as the thieving enemy.

It's possible that without IP certain aspects of the marketing and monetization plan would be different, but it seems likely that the movie would still bring in a ton of money. As we've seen over and over again, people pay for what they like (and to support creators they like), if offered in a reasonable and convenient package. And yet, there's this myth that goes around that without aggressive IP laws and aggressive IP enforcement, it's impossible for content creators to make money. That just doesn't seem to be supported by reality. As some copyright holders have noted -- often derisively -- paying today has already become somewhat voluntary. Whether or not we agree with this or think it's a good or bad thing, it's basically a fact. And, it's also a fact that an awful lot of people are handing over cash to watch this movie via official channels.

We recently wrote about the fact that PIPA sponsor and head of the Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Patrick Leahy has received yet another cameo appearance in the latest Batman flick. We're sure it's because of his acting skills, rather than his ability to pass legislation that favors Time Warner (who -- coincidentally, of course -- is a major contributor to his campaigns). In response to this story, the good folks at Demand Progress have set up HolyConflictOfInterest.com with an original comic, "The Adventures of Leahy & Time Warner": Click through not just for a larger version, but also for tools from Demand Progress that let you tell your elected officials that you don't appreciate such conflicts of interest.

Update: By the way, we're hearing that the MPAA hosted a "special screening" of the new Batman movie for members of Congress and their staff. Now, that would normally run afoul of gift giving guidelines... but they worked around that by spending the first 15 minutes "educating members and staff on important issues" (take a guess what those might be).

I heard from more than a few people that Senator Patrick Leahy would never be convinced of his distorted views on copyright for one key reason: he loves the way Hollywood puts him in movies -- with Batman being a particular infatuation. As you can see on Leahy's IMDB page (yes, he has one), he appeared in both the Batman TV series and The Dark Knight. Now, it's being reported that he's also making an appearance in the upcoming The Dark Knight Rises, where he gets to appear in a scene with Christian Bale. Of course, normally you might think that this kind of thing, something that Leahy is clearly excited about and proud of, would count as a "gift" and potentially run afoul of Senate ethics rules. It's not as if the studio is putting him in these films because of his acting chops...

Kids are notoriously picky eaters when it comes to anything that isn't a dessert. Parents aren't helped when their kids are bombarded by ads on TV for all kinds of junk food. But here are a few food efforts that might divert kids' attentions back to healthier foods.

• Disney is adopting new standards for food advertising on its shows targeting kids and families -- to promote fruit and vegetable consumption and meet healthy nutritional guidelines. Awesome, now all healthy food will be approved by Mickey! [url]
• Mickey Mouse isn't the only fictional character who can influence what kids eat. Superheroes can, too. What would Batman eat? [url]
• Food trucks are trendy now, so what better way to bring free meals to kids? Sounds better than an ice cream truck... [url]
• Exercise your palate and try new foods that are bitter. Instead of sticking with salty and sweet (which are generally associated with junk food), a more bitter-flavored diet might provide a healthier range of food. [url]
• To discover more food-related links, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Recently, we were talking about the horrible customer reviews that Warner's Ultraviolet DRM was getting. These customers were having such a hard time trying to justify the headache that came from complying with the requirements to watch their legally purchased movies. Warner seems to be trying to make the service worthwhile and is now bundling free digital movies with video games. If you buy Batman: Arkham City, you will also get a digital Batman movie for free. Which movie will you get? Batman Forever of course. Wait. What? If the goal of these promotions is to get people to start using the service, wouldn't you think they would try giving away a movie people would actually want to watch? As opposed to the worst Batman flick ever?

I guess the people running Warner just don't realize that customers want quality content. Sadly, when you are offering crap to customers there really isn't much you can do to polish it up. Maybe the next deal will actually be worth it. Most likely not though.

We all know that many game companies are really upset about being locked out of the used games revenue stream. Warner happens to be one of those companies. With the release of Batman: Arkham City, Warner is giving a free code to new game buyers that lets the gamer play as Catwoman during the game. If you buy the game used, you will need to buy a new code to access Catwoman. That is if you buy it used anywhere other than GameStop.

According to a memo sent to Kotaku, Warner and GameStop have partnered up to give free codes to buyers of used copies of Batman. Granted, GameStop is most likely paying for these codes for the customer and is most likely getting them at a discounted rate. This happens to be a great deal for both companies and even some customers. Warner gets the satisfaction of capturing used game revenue with a reduced risk of customers deciding not to buy the redemption code. GameStop gets a leg up on the competition which don't have the same deal. Finally, customers of GameStop don't have to shell out the extra cash to play as Catwoman.

This is an interesting move on Warner's part. GameStop is the poster child for the evils of used games, according to many games industry veterans. However, even the toughest critic of GameStop's policies recognizes the power this one brand has over the game consumer, thus the deal. If GameStop is willing to make such a deal with Warner, would they be willing to do the same with other companies such as EA or Ubisoft?

Of course, there are additional ramifications to consider. How will this affect the relationship with other game stores, both in and outside the US, which don't have the same leveraging power? Will those smaller stores be coerced into deals that are not as sweet for them and their customers? Regardless of the ramifications, it is nice to see a company actually be proactive about capturing used games revenue rather than just complain and punish players. Why can't more companies act this way?

Not quite sure what to make of this one, but the Consumerist alerts us to a bit of a trademark dispute between DC Comics and a small BBQ restaurant called BATS. Apparently, the restaurant's name comes from the names of its owners, "Beau And TraviS' restaurant," and they designed the following logo: Now, that clearly does have some similarities to the Batman logo, even though they insist "Our bat is not their bat." In fact, they're correct that the bats are not the same. As someone in the comments on the Consumerist post notes, the actual Batman logos, which have morphed over time, are ever so slightly different from this logo: But, of course, that doesn't matter. All that really matters is if there's a likelihood of confusion in areas for which DC has the trademark or (potentially) if DC can make a case of dilution. Given how many people see the logo and pretty much immediately think "Batman," DC probably can make a strong "likelihood of confusion" case. The restaurant owners are apprently fighting DC, specifically by suggesting that DC's trademarks on Batman don't extend into the restaurant space, but that does seem like it might be a difficult sell. At best, it's a total crap shoot based on the judge -- and given the cost of fighting a trademark battle over such a logo, this is one where it actually seems like it could make more sense to just change the logo.

You may recall when The Dark Knight opened, we pointed out that its record breaking opening was because movie makers created a movie that people wanted to see in a theater. The fact that parts of the movie were designed for IMAX theaters drove many people to pay even more (or even see the movie multiple times) in order to experience the IMAX version, which simply can't be replicated at home. As we pointed out, this was a perfect example of how the movie studios could compete with free. In fact, in such a scenario, you could even make the argument that the more people saw the movie in download format, the more willing they would be to go pay to see the IMAX version, to get the full experience.

However, it was stunning to hear movie industry execs then claim that the reason the movie was so successful was because of their anti-piracy efforts. That was clearly untrue at the time, and now Parker Mason alerts us to the fact that The Dark Knight was not just the biggest grossing film, but also the most pirated film of the year. Of course, if you believed the studio execs, that would be impossible. After all, if so many people are downloading the movie, then clearly they're "stealing" from the industry and would never go see the movie. But, seeing that the movie made record profits, it seems to show that's simply incorrect. Many people, reasonably, viewed the download as marketing, convincing them to go see the movie in the theaters.