Top Law Schools

Thirty-two million.

I might have picked a larger number, but feared that it might overshadow the core of my argument. A smaller one was similarly problematic, for it may have underscored the foundation for my performance; and thus thirty-two million seemed fitting.

Just as I decided on an opening statistic, the first presentation of honors week had concluded; an analysis of literary theory in survival horror video games. A somewhat appropriate precursor to my own presentation, albeit ironic as I thought I would be the only one to go through with an academic thesis on video games. As the question and answer session ended and the applause subsided, those who paid attention to the program began to shift attention to my chair in the front row. As my name was called and my thesis title was announced, the countdown began. Fifteen minutes to convince a group of my peers, faculty members and other esteemed guests that my senior thesis not only deserved the respect and equal standing as the others being presented, but that it had practical application at all.

The first slide appeared, only bearing the title of my yearlong endeavor "Copyright in the Digital Age: The Importance of Transformative Use in Video Game Streaming" and my name. I paused for a moment, taking inventory of the room, gauging the reactions to my protracted title, everyone was expecting an elaboration in layman's terms. Next slide.

A picture of the Staples Center in Los Angeles, a sold out crowd, red and blue lights flashing everywhere. "Thirty-two million people watched the League of Legends World Championship in 2013". Another pause, the audience slowly drew forward, intent, careful not to miss a detail. As if the initial shock of the figure I had just released had not been enough, animated text faded in even more impressive statistics: 67 million monthly players, 13 billion hours played. To contrast this, on average, 15 million people watched the 2013 World Series; only 27 million watched the seventh game in the NBA Finals.

Just as quickly as the foundation had been laid, I moved swiftly to address the core of my presentation - why should we care about video games and intellectual property law? Unlike other forms of entertainment, which is merely a relationship between the program and the viewer; video game streaming has a triangular relationship between the game developer, the streamer and the viewer. This triumvirate makes applications of copyright law, particularly fair use, very precarious. As entertainment moves from traditional programming models towards heavy user-generated and on-demand content; there is bound to be overlap between "original" sources, their ownership and therefore, profits. Streamers, those who play video games for an audience, can earn the equivalent of a middle-class salary; some even in the six-figure range from donations, sponsorships and advertisements, but they are using the video game itself, to profit. The act of playing, commenting and interacting with others creates an entirely new source of authorial content not found in the code and other copyrighted areas of the game itself; effectively transforming the original game into something beyond the scope of each individual component.

As my presentation drew to a close, I reiterated a more general conclusion about the practicality of video games as a medium to examine intellectual property law. Technology generally outpaces the law, rather exponentially; and it would be preposterous to presuppose that we could have the alternative situation, where the law is always at or beyond technological advancement, however ideal it may be. Video games have the mark of an established industry, but one that provides the ability to analyze the existing framework of intellectual property law in a new light; that of authorship and transformative use. Rather than the precedent of fair use, which has shown to be at its limits when addressing newer forms of entertainment, transformative use shows promise for looking at these hybrid systems of entertainment and the future of intellectual property law.

As my monologue concluded, over a year of work summed up in fifteen minutes and a few follow up questions, I returned to my seat not worrying whether or not I had convinced my audience that my topic was worthwhile; that it had a place at honors week, that video games and law was not a joke. I returned with a conviction that I was able to address a complicated area at the forefront of intellectual property law; that it was something that I could one day have a tangible impact on.

Big Red wrote:alright so, by way of hypothetical

what do you think an admissions counselor who reads this takes away?

Also, just because a semi-colon works grammatically doesn't mean it's advisable. Sometimes when they show up without reason it screws the flow, and sometimes I see them when they're just plain wrong and I get a lot of more critical with the writing. (both of these things are happening here)

LazyPaladin wrote:Tried a new approach; a little lengthier, probably has a varied amount of grammar and structural issues but I'll work that out if the content is better. I believe it's a little less thematic than my other two drafts, focusing more on my thesis presentation and how that affirmed my desire while kind of addressing the video game aspect a bit more subtly. Conclusion might needs some more work

Thirty-two million.

I might could have picked a larger number, but I feared that it might overshadow the core of my argument. A smaller one was similarly problematic, for it may would have underscored undermined [underscored means the exact opposite of what you want] the foundation for my performance; and thus thirty-two million seemed fitting.

Just as I decided on an opening statistic, the first presentation of honors week had concluded; an analysis of literary theory in survival horror video games. A somewhat appropriate precursor to my own presentation, albeit ironic as I thought I would be the only one to go through with an academic thesis on video games. As the question and answer session ended and the applause subsided, those who paid attention to the program began to shift attention to my chair in the front row. [I don't think you need this.]As my name was called and my thesis title was announced, the countdown began. Fifteen minutes to convince a group of my peers, faculty members and other esteemed guests that my senior thesis not only deserved the respect and equal standing as the others being presented, but that it had practical application at all.

The first slide appeared, [you can make this more active] only bearing the title of my yearlong endeavor "Copyright in the Digital Age: The Importance of Transformative Use in Video Game Streaming" and my name. I paused for a moment, taking inventory of the room, gauging the reactions to my protracted title, everyone was expecting an elaboration in layman's terms. Next slide.

A picture of the Staples Center in Los Angeles, a sold out crowd, red and blue lights flashing everywhere.This is a fragment. "Thirty-two million people watched the League of Legends World Championship in 2013." Another pause, The audience slowly drew forward, intent, careful not to miss a detail. As if the initial shock of the figure I had just released had not been enough, animated text faded in even more impressive statistics: 67 million monthly players, 13 billion hours played. To contrast this, on average, 15 million people watched the 2013 World Series, and only 27 million watched the seventh game in the NBA Finals.

Just as quickly as the foundation had been laid, I moved swiftly to address the core of my presentation -But, why should we care about video games and intellectual property law? Unlike other forms of entertainment, where there is only a relationship between the program and the viewer, video game streaming has a triangular relationship between connectingthe game developer, the streamer, and the viewer. This triumvirate relationship makes applying existing copyright law, particularly fair use, very precarious[think of a more accurate and direct word]. As entertainment moves from traditional programming models towards heavy user-generated and on-demand content, there is bound to will be overlap between "original" sources, the ownership of those sources and therefore, profits.[maybe I ruined it but think about what this sentence is saying and if you're actually conveying what you want.] Streamers, those who play video games for an audience,move this much earlier can earn the equivalent of a middle-class salary, and some even in reach the six-figure range from donations, sponsorships, and advertisements. But, they are using a video game made by another to profit. The act of playing, commenting, and interacting with others creates an entirely new source of authorial content not found in the code and other copyrighted areas of the game itself, effectively transforming the original game into something beyond the scope of each individual component.

As my presentation drew to a close, I reiterated shared a more general conclusion about the practicality of video games as a medium to examine intellectual property law: technologygenerally will always outpace the law. rather exponentially; and It would be preposterous to presuppose that we could have the alternative situation, where the law is always at or beyond technological advancement, however ideal it may be.[add a better sentence with meaning here] Video games have the mark of an established industry, but one that provides the ability to analyze the existing framework of intellectual property law in a new light; that of authorship and transformative use.[suggestion: The video game industry is well established, but provides challenges to the existing framework of intellectual property law. In particular, video games force us to examine the areas of authorship, fair use and so-called "transformative use." Rather than the precedent of fair use, which has shown to be at its limits when addressing newer forms of entertainment, transformative use shows promise for looking at these hybrid systems of entertainment and the future of intellectual property law. [i'd nix this]

As my monologue concludedAfter I concluded my presentation, summing up over a year of work summed up in fifteen minutes and a few follow up questions, I returned to my seat not worrying whether or not I had convinced my audience that my topic was worthwhile, that it had a place at honors week, or that video games and law was not a joke a serious topic. I returned with a conviction that I was able to address a complicated area at the forefront of intellectual property law that it was something that I could one day have a tangible impact on.

smaug wrote:
beyond the above:

it's much better than your earlier attempt but i think it's still has structural flaws. i would make the body more terse. sorry for picking it apart a bit.

i think it needs a conclusion. you have something to say about video games and intellectual property law, right? what's the conclusion. it surely isn't important. i think you need to more clearly state the conclusion of your thesis, i.e., that video games streaming, the act of playing, editing, and commenting is a fair use that must be protected by the law. moreover, you need to clearly tie it back to law school. i.e., "this was my thesis, and i have something to say about video games, and i want to go to law school to continue to explore these topics and one day put my thoughts into practice."

LazyPaladin wrote:One last thing I forgot to ask: thoughts on the introductory paragraph? I felt like it was out of place compared to my other one, which I preferred to be honest, as it felt more engaging.