The death of Apple co-founder and tech visionary Steve Jobs was something we all suspected was coming, but still were shocked to hear had occurred. His impact on the entertainment and tech industries is something that will be measured for years to come.

As news of his passing spread Wednesday night, impressions and condolences came flowing from all corners of the entertainment and technology worlds. Here is a collection of some of those tributes:

Steve Jobs' Family - Steve died peacefully today surrounded by his family.

In his public life, Steve was known as a visionary; in his private life, he cherished his family. We are thankful to the many people who have shared their wishes and prayers during the last year of Steve's illness; a website will be provided for those who wish to offer tributes and memories.

We are grateful for the support and kindness of those who share our feelings for Steve. We know many of you will mourn with us, and we ask that you respect our privacy during our time of grief.

Disney CEO Bob Iger - Steve Jobs was a great friend as well as a trusted advisor. His legacy will extend far beyond the products he created or the businesses he built. It will be the millions of people he inspired, the lives he changed and the culture he defined. Steve was such an 'original,' with a thoroughly creative, imaginative mind that defined an era. Despite all he accomplished, it feels like he was just getting started. With his passing the world has lost a rare original, Disney has lost a member of our family, and I have lost a great friend.

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates - I'm truly saddened to learn of Steve Jobs' death. Melinda and I extend our sincere condolences to his family and friends, and to everyone Steve has touched through his work.

Steve and I first met nearly 30 years ago, and have been colleagues, competitors and friends over the course of more than half our lives. The world rarely sees someone who has had the profound impact Steve has had, the effects of which will be felt for many generations to come.

For those of us lucky enough to get to work with him, it's been an insanely great honor. I will miss Steve immensely.

News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch - Today, we lost one of the most influential thinkers, creators and entrepreneurs of all time. Steve Jobs was simply the greatest CEO of his generation. While I am deeply saddened by his passing, I'm reminded of the stunning impact he had in revolutionizing the way people consume media and entertainment. My heart goes out to his family and to everyone who had the opportunity to work beside him in bringing his many visions to life.

Cary Sherman, chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Assn. of America - Like all music fans, we are saddened to hear of the passing of Steve Jobs. Steve was a larger-than-life personality -- passionate about music and one of its biggest fans and advocates. He was a true visionary who forever transformed how fans access and enjoy music. With the introduction of the iTunes software and other platforms, Steve and Apple made it once again easy and accepted to pay for music. His legacy will live on, long past his all-too-short time on earth.

It's hardly a secret that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il is a big fan of the entertainment industry, but who would have thought he was using parts of it to fund his government?

Police in South Korea have arrested a group of hackers accused of heading a team that attempted to set up a series of unmanned computers to play massively multiplayer games like "Lineage" and Samsung-owned "Dungeon and Fighter" nonstop. The goal? Gathering in-game points that are convertible to cash.

The New York Times reports that the 5- four South Koreans and one Korean-Chinese – put together a squad of 30 gaming "experts". The team managed to make over $6 million in less than two years – which was split between the hackers and agents in North Korea  capital Pyongyang.

Korean police believe the increasing number of sanctions against the nation have forced it to explore non-traditional ways to find income for the country's nuclear weapons program and other initiatives.

Gaming farms like this are nothing new. China has several "gold farms" that have players gathering the virtual currency in "World of Warcraft" to be sold to others. This is the first time, though, that they've been tied to something this complicated.

Turns out that Hogwarts isn't an easy school to get into.

Pottermore, J.K. Rowling's interactive Website for fans of her Harry Potter series (as well as the only place to buy eBook versions of the tomes, began the search for its first million members over the weekend – and the competition is tight.

Fans have one chance per day (through Saturday) to gain access, by answering a trivia question from the books and attaching the answer to the end of a specific Web address. First, though, they'll have to find the "Magical Quill" to determine the question.

"The Magical Quill is located in Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry," the site explains. "It detects the birth of a magical child and writes his or her name down in a large book. Every year, Professor McGonagall checks the book and sends owls to the children who are turning eleven, to inform them that they have a place at Hogwarts. The lucky few who locate The Magical Quill during the Magical Quill challenge (which will run from 31 July to 6 August 2011) will have the chance to register for Pottermore early and gain access to the site before it opens."

Most visitors are going to be met with the greeting shown in the picture accompanying this story. Spots go fast – and you really have to know your Potter trivia to stand a chance.

1 million people worldwide will gain entrance to the site for the beta test. The rest of us Muggles will be welcomed in October.

'Anonymous' may not be quite as anonymous as they believed.

The FBI has arrested 16 people as part of a crackdown on the Internet's best-known hacker group. These come on top of five arrests by British and Dutch police yesterday, which were part of a coordinated effort. 

Agents also reportedly raided 35 other addresses in connection with a series of attacks on companies such as PayPal, which took place last year. (Anonymous targeted the site for its decision to not allow users to make donations to the whistleblower site WikiLeaks

“In retribution for PayPal’s termination of WikiLeaks’ donation account, a group calling itself Anonymous coordinated and executed distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against PayPal’s computer servers using an open source computer program the group makes available for free download on the Internet,” the US Justice Department said in a statement.

The defendants, who (for the most part) are in their 20s, are charged with various counts of conspiracy and intentional damage to a protected computer. 

Anonymous' exploits go far beyond PayPal, though. The group has a checkered history with Hollywood as well. Sony has pointed a finger of blame at the group for being at least partially to blame for the theft of personal information in over 100 million user accounts in May.

Prior to that, the group attacked the MPAA and RIAA for actions the trade groups took to squash filesharing Websites, such as “The Pirate Bay”. The Web sites for both organizations suffered some offline time, but the impact was muted.

Anonymous got its start on 4chan, the Internet’s most infamous imageboard, specifically its sometimes gritty "/b/" subforum. The founder of that site, though, says while the site (and the group) have become notorious for their exploits, there's a value in hiding behind that wall of anonymity.

"One of the things that 4Chan does that’s really special is the way people come together to collaborate en masse," said Christopher Poole at South by Southwest this year. "It’s the process at which you arrive at the product that is fascinating. … Anonymity is authenticity. It allows you to share in a completely unvarnished, raw way. … The cost of failure is really high when you’re contributing as yourself."

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."

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. 

Hounded by critics for remaining silent despite the theft of personal information from 100 million accounts, Sony's CEO is finally speaking out.

Sir Howard Stringer, in an open letter to customers, addressed the data breach yesterday for the first time since the crisis began on April 20.

"Let me assure you that the resources of this company have been focused on investigating the entire nature and impact of the cyber-attack we’ve all experienced and on fixing it," he wrote. "We are absolutely dedicated to restoring full and safe service as soon as possible and rewarding you for your patience. … As a company we — and I — apologize for the inconvenience and concern caused by this attack." 

Stringer's silence on the matter has brought critics out in force, including some who have called on him to resign for the company's handling of the matter. In the note, Stringer hinted that the restoration of the PlayStation Network may be pushed beyond this week, despite the company's vow on May 1. Rather that targeting a specific date, he couched the date by saying networks would return "in the coming days".

Stringer's note comes as CNET reports that another significant hack could come as early as this weekend. (It's worth noting, however, that sophisticated hackers, like the ones who stole personal information for over 100 million accounts from Sony, rarely announce their plans in this fashion.)

Cyber Monday is an entirely manufactured event – but it’s one that has found legs in the retail world. And Cyber Monday 2009 is looking to be a strong one.

CNNMoney reports that online shoppers numbered 4.3 million visitors per minute by 2:20pm ET. That was spread across 270 retail sites, such as Overstock.com, QVC.com and more. It’s a 39 percent improvement over last year.

Akamai, which collected the data, expected the number to spike even higher as the day went on (and the west coast hit the lunch hour and late afternoon office doldrums).

The National Retail Federation says 96.5 million Americans will shop online today – though the real surge in online shoppers will come in mid-December, as the last day with guaranteed pre-Christmas shipping draws near.

As with Black Friday, HD TVs, Blu-ray DVDs and video games are the most frequently discounted items on sale today.