While the company hasn't confirmed any of the whispers, everyone on Wall St. knows the Zynga IPO is coming soon.

Several news outlets this week postulated the filing could come on Wednesday, but that deadline (like so many before it) came and went. What's taking so long?

The truth is: It really doesn't matter when Zynga (the maker of social networking games like FarmVille and Mafia Wars) decides to go public. The longer it waits, the more valuable the stock becomes as anticipation increases and investors who just want to be part of the next big thing shuffle for position in an effort to grab shares before they get ridiculously high.

So what's the holdup? Paperwork for a public offering is like renovating a kitchen. It always takes longer than expected. And given the interest this filing has generated – even before it happens – everyone involved will want it to be spotless. 

The news reports have been fairly consistent in saying the company hopes to raise between $1.5 and $2 billion with the offering. That would put the company's valuation at between $15 and $20 billion – more than Take-Two, more than Electronic Arts and even more than Activision-Blizzard.

Is it part of the growing bubble in the tech world? Probably – but Zynga is a company that is well-funded and actually turns a profit, according to reports. It's also moving its empire beyond Facebook and will likely be a part of Google Plus in the months to come.

The thing investors – and the gaming industry – really need to watch out for is what happens when employees are allowed to sell their shares. Zynga has been on a hiring tear in the video game industry for well over a year – and has wooed a lot of people with some generous stock options. Everyone who has taken that job knew an offering was coming – and with that, a big payday.

It will be interesting to see how many take that payout and go their merry way once that option is available to them. And if they do, will Zynga still be the powerhouse so many investors believe it to be now?

Sony's rearranging the executive structure of its PlayStation branch. Kaz Hirai, who holds the title of president and CEO, is stepping away from the group to widen his focus on the company as a whole.

Sony Computer Entertainment Europe chief Andrew House will take over those roles. (Hirai will remain involved as chairman of the group.) The switch takes place Sept. 1.

"We are facing new challenges this year, such as the successful launch of PlayStation Vita and further growth of PS3 platform as well as expansion of non-gaming business," said Hirai. "I'm confident that the skills and expertise Andy has gained over two decades working for Sony and SCE Group will contribute enormously in leading the PlayStation business and to bring new initiatives in managing the business in the networked era."

Given all of the recent drama surrounding the unit, it's easy to assume Hirai's move might be related, but the company is positioning this as a promotion – one that will let the assumed heir to Sir Howard Stringer's CEO play a bigger role in corporate-wide strategy.

The promotion of Hirai and House will mean the departure of two of the people who were essential to the creation of the PlayStation, however. Akira Sato, the group's current chairman – and one of the founding members of the Sony Computer Entertainment division, will retire. And Ken Kutaragi, who for many, many years was the company's personification of PlayStation will give up his honorary chairman role (though he will retain some ties to the company, acting as a "senior technology adviser". 

David Maisel, the former chairman and executive vice president of Marvel Comic's entertainment arm, is joining the Angry Birds.

Maisel is the latest hire at Rovio, which is looking to expand its hit iPhone game into several new fields, including television and film. And given Maisel's executive producer credits on "Iron Man" (and its sequel), "Thor," "Captain America" and "The Incredible Hulk," it seems to be getting more serious about film.

His role, officially is special adviser, but Rovio says Maisel will serve as executive producer on "future Angry Birds films" as well as help build the company's entertainment strategy and help it transition into new areas of entertainment.

"I’m very honored and excited to join Rovio, and my goal is to help unleash its great potential," he said in a statement. "The business model, intellectual properties, and the franchise potential of Angry Birds give Rovio the most exciting prospects I have seen in the entertainment business since Marvel in 2003."

It was earlier this month that Rovio acquired Finnish animator Kombo as the beginning of a push to expand its interests.

Monday's ruling that video games are protected under the First Amendment was the culmination of a long fight. And the victory was clearly a solid one for the industry.

But in reading through the 90-plus page decision and dissenting opinions, there are some interesting arguments – both for the industry's rights and those of parents. Much like the oral arguments of last November, Justices were split on the possible differences in interactive and passive forms of entertainment and the First Amendment issues at hand.

Ultimately, of course, the majority ruling will stand for some time – as video game opponents try to make hay from the dissenting opinions. It's a fascinating read – and well worth the time of anyone even remotely interested in First Amendment issues as they pertain to the entertainment industry.

In the meantime, here are some selected highlights from each:

From Justice Scalia's Opinion of the Court:

The free speech issue: "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."

On protecting children from violence: "California’s argument would fare better if there were a long standing tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read—or read to them when they are younger—contain no shortage of gore. Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed. As her just deserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red hot slippers “till she fell dead on the floor, a sad example of envy and jealousy.” Cinderella’s evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven."

On doubts about a lasting psychological impact: "The State’s evidence is not compelling. California relies primarily on the research of Dr. Craig Anderson and a few other research psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent videogames and harmful effects on children. These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them,6andwith good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively (which would at least be a beginning). Instead, “[n]early all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flawsin methodology.” They show at best some correlation between exposure to violent entertainment and minuscule real-world effects, such as children’s feeling more aggressive or making louder noises in the few minutes after playing a violent game than after playing a nonviolent game. Even taking for granted Dr. Anderson’s conclusions that violent video games produce some effect on children’s feelings of aggression, those effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media."

Taste vs. Constitution: "Disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression."

From Justice Alito's concurring opinion (which was much more narrow than Scalia's ruling):

On the difference between books/TV and games: "We should not jump to the conclusion that new technology is fundamentally the same as some older thing with which we are familiar. And we should not hastily dismiss the judgment of legislators, who may be in a better position than we are to assess the implications of new technology. The opinion of the Court exhibits none of this caution."

Fears that today's ruling doesn't look far enough ahead: "Today's most advanced video games create realistic alternative worlds in which millions of players immerse themselves for hours on end. These games feature visual imagery and sounds that are strikingly realistic, and in the near future video-game graphics may be virtually indistinguishable from actual video footage. … It is predicted that it will not be long before video-game images will be seen in three dimensions. It is also forecast that video games will soon provide sensory feedback... Some amici who support respondents [people who sided with the gaming industry] foresee the day when "‘virtual reality shoot-‘em-ups'" will allow children to " ‘actually feel the splatting blood from the blown-off head' " of a victim..."

On whether there's wiggle room for better-defined legislation to have a chance at passing: I conclude that the California violent video game law fails to provide the fair notice that the Constitution requires. And I would go no further. I would not express any view on whether a properly drawn statute would or would not survive First Amendment scrutiny. We should address that question only if and when it is necessary to do so. … I would not squelch legislative efforts to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing social problem.   If differently framed statutes are enacted by the States or  by the Federal Government, we can consider the constitutionality of those laws when cases challenging them are presented to us.

From Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion:

Why he disagrees: The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that “the freedom of speech,” as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents or guardians. I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The First Amendment doesn't apply to children: The founding generation would not have considered it an abridgment of “the freedom of speech” to support parental authority by restricting speech that bypasses minors’ parents. … Although much has changed in this country since the Revolution, the notion that parents have authority over their children and that the law can support that authority persists today. 'The freedom of speech,' as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors without going through  the minors’ parents or guardians."

From Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion:

Despite accusations otherwise, the California law isn't vague: "In my view, California’s statute provides “fair notice of what is prohibited,” and consequently it is not impermissibly vague. … Why are the words 'kill,' 'maim,' and 'dismember' any more difficult to understand than the word 'nudity?'"

It's also not trying to ban these games: " California’s law imposes no more than a modest restriction on  expression.   The statute prevents no one from playing a video game, it prevents no adult from buying a video game, and it prevents no child or adolescent from obtaining a game provided a parent is willing to help. All it prevents is a child or adolescent from buying, without a parent’s assistance, a gruesomely violent video game of a kind that the industry itself tells us it wants to keep out of the hands of those under the age of 17."

Today's ruling could make things more confusing:  "The majority’s different conclusion creates a serious anomaly in First Amendment law. Ginsberg makes clear that a State can prohibit the sale to minors of depictions of nudity; today the Court makes clear that a State cannot prohibit the sale to minors of the most violent interactive video games.  But what sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old  boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13­year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?   What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video  game  only when the woman—bound, gagged, tortured, and killed—is also topless?"

The case is about education, not censorship: This case is ultimately less about censorship than it is about education.  Our Constitution cannot succeed in securing the liberties it seeks to protect unless we can raise future generations committed cooperatively to making our system of government work.  Education, however, is about choices.  Sometimes, children need to learn by making choices for themselves.   Other times, choices are made for  children—by  their parents, by their teachers, and by the people acting democratically through their  governments.  In my view, the First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here—a choice  not to have their children buy extremely violent, interactive video games, which they more than reasonably fear pose only the risk of  harm to those children."

Google has long since moved past its roots as a company focusing on Internet search, but in the past month or so, it has been demonstrating an increasing interest in the world of entertainment – raising some questions about its end game.

In mid-May, it launched the Google Music cloud storage system and a month earlier, reports suggested it YouTube arm was looking to add up to 20 'channels' of original, professionally produced content, which will fill between 5-10 hours per week. Now it has the games industry in its sites.

A job posting from the company has shown it's looking for a project manager at the previously unheard of "Games at Google" division. The ad promises candidates "a rare opportunity to grow a brand-new business."

It could be just a push to expand (and refine) the Android OS's gaming selection or a larger push into social gaming, but it's an interesting twist.

Also in the works these days is a reboot of the struggling Google TV product. Developers already are working with the system's next generation software push – one that reportedly will be built from the Android 3.1 base and will include a true Web browser instead of the tacked on one in the original device. Whether Google has made headway with the networks, though, is still unknown – and ultimately, that remains a key element to the system's success.

It's a series of steps that may not all be headed in the same direction, but when you're dealing with a company as far-reaching (and with pockets as deep) as Google, it's smart to keep an eye on which way the winds seem to be blowing.

Amazon is ramping up its fight against Netflix.

The online retailer, which lets members of its Amazon Prime service stream over 5,000 films and television shows, has added another 1,000 offerings to the mix - and is prominently letting users know that on its front page today.

New to the service are titles like Denzel Washington's "Training Day" and Christopher Reeve's first "Superman" movie, along with "The Right Stuff," "Insomnia and the last seven seasons of Sesame Street.

Amazon's streaming catalog is nowhere near as large as the one at Netflix, but Prime's $79 annual subscription fee works out to $1.50 less per month than the competitor's least expensive service. And customers get the added benefit of free two-day shipping on all purchases, something they can share with several family members.

Amazon has a big enough footprint on enough devices to be a bigger competitor to Netflix than Hulu’s streaming service. The company is already integrated into many newer Internet-enabled TVs and the Roku box. Netflix does have the advantage of being available on all three video game consoles, however.

The fight, of course, is about more than the streaming video market. People who sign up for Prime are more likely to buy products through Amazon, which cushions the bottom line – the company's end goal in all of this. 

The sky is getting pretty crowded these days.

The already competitive cloud music space has another competitor stepping into the fray. Best Buy today unveiled plans for its own service, letting people access their digital music collection from virtually anywhere.

Dubbed Cloud Music, the service will compete with Apple's iCloud, Amazon's Cloud Drive and Google Music – three tough competitors whose reach in the digital space is much more dominant than the brick and mortar retailer.

It's a curious offering. The free service will only allow you to access music via the Best Buy Web player. If you want to add an app to access tunes on your iPhone, Android device or Blackberry, it will cost $4 per month. (Amazon and Google's services have a more robust free option.)

The company's also not offering an easy transfer service for music you buy in the store. Users will have to digitize and upload their songs and playlists on their own – a requirement that could steer people to other offerings. 

Executives shuffle in and out of companies all the time, so a couple moves in and of themselves don't necessarily have an underlying meaning. But Apple appears to be losing a number of its top dogs.

John Herbold, a senior product manager on Apple's recently announced iCloud service, has left the company, according to his LinkedIn page. His departure follows that of Apple Store creator Ron Johnson (who moved to J.C. Penney earlier this month) and OS X creator and Steve Jobs confidante Bertrand Serlet, who left in March.

Beyond his work on iCloud, Herbold also was integral in the development and marketing of Photo Stream.

Three departures, of course, doesn't mean something nefarious or worrisome is going on at Apple, but with Jobs still (officially) on a medical leave of absence, the rash of defections is bound to raise a few eyebrows in the investment community.

Hackers continue to run amok in the entertainment world.

Sega is the latest game company to be hit, following in the steps of Nintendo, Bethesda, Sony and more. Meanwhile, another group claims to have breached Sony Pictures – this time in France.

Sega, hit late last week, is the bigger of the two attacks, with cyberthieves taking personal information from 1.2 million users – including usernames, passwords, real names, birthdates and more. Sega says no credit card information seems to have been taken – but it's keeping its Sega Pass web portal closed for a bit to work on patching the vulnerabilities.

In a strange twist, the hacker group LulzSec has offered to assist Sega in the search for the culprits since it said its members were big fans of the Dreamcast. (LulzSec, by the way, has so far been doing all in its power to stay in the media spotlight – including announcing today that it was declaring "open war" against all governments, banks and big corporations in the world.)

At Sony, it's more of the same.

Hackers posted a list of 70 emails they claim to have taken from the Sony Pictures France site. The duo says it’s a small sample of the more than 177,000 they took from the site.

Third-party site Attrition.org, which has been tracking the Sony attacks, notes this is the 20th successful attack on the company in the last two months. 

While it's already illegal to upload and download copyrighted content, there's a loophole that lets streaming sites get away with it. The U.S. Senate is moving to close that fast.

The Commercial Felony Streaming Act – a bill that would make illegal streaming a felony - has passed the Judiciary Committee and now moves into the full Senate. If it's passed, it would carry penalties of up to five years in prison for offenders.

The language of the bill notes that anyone who streams "10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works" would be in violation and subject to prosecution. In addition, they must violate the copyright knowingly.

Several entertainment organizations – including the Screen Actors Guild, the Directors Guild of America, and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists - applauded the move.

"Make no mistake: the illegal streaming of content for commercial or financial gain is a crime, and the Commercial Felony Streaming Act places the appropriate criminal label on the activity," the organizations said in a statement. "This legislation is an important step forward in our efforts to stem the rising tide of Internet theft that threatens our members' very livelihoods."

The bill still must pass the Senate and the House, of course – but should it do so, it's likely to get a warm reception from the Oval Office. It was the Obama administration, in fact, that brought up the issue of illegal streaming to the Senate in March.