Guess i owe you five buc—damnit i could have used that to buy some DLC!

Agreed there for sure.

That is exactly my point. Behavior while obeying the rules of gaming is subject to the rules of life, as with every other activity. That's why there's sportsmanship, etiquette, professionalism, courtesy, and many many other terms therefor.

So while many League players might come across as curt, rude, even hostile given the way they succinctly order each other around, they usually have a good reason for doing so. Even taking the time to type out a message to teammates—let alone a message longer than "come to bot" or a non-verbal ping—pulls you away from…

They don't build a new court for the same reason a public bball court doesn't get new bleachers, etc. added to it. Free2Play for the win.

It blows some people's minds that their entertainment orbits around their time and effort, not the other way around.

The exact statement was "Profit is not necessary for infringement" (emphasis added). Profit does not have to exist for there to be a finding of infringement. It's definitely true that a huge motivation to infringe copyrights is profit, but it is not the case here, and this case is still infringement. Copyright is a…

True, and i'd guess that, here, the image is the big issue. People who target kids fight tooth and nail against their characters getting Biebered (in real life, not the original image).

Hey i just replied with an overview of all the test factors to someone else, so sorry be lazy and just quote a section, but...

There's way more complexity for deciding how each factor applies in a particular case (thanks, law), but the basic idea is to CANE it: Character, Amount, Nature, and Effect.

Un-grey-lliarmus!

(Argh, trying to keep you out of greytopia. I didn't know each post started there even if a prior one on the thread was cleared.)

How is it covered under Fair Use? It fails every single factor in the balancing test. It's also called a "reboot", which is by definition a work superceding the original.

Agreed!

The game box explicitly omitted campaign co-op as a technical feature? If so, then refunds are still legally enforceable against the retailers themselves: a key feature omitted from a product version that they should have discovered via due diligence when advertising it for sale.

If it's a healthy sum, then the collective cancellations would be bad press enough to get some people chewed out. If a fundamental feature is advertised, was never included in your version from the start, was a material inducement to your pre-order purchase of that version, and should have been known by the seller to…

So only offline co-op for campaign, and just PC doesn't have it? Is there a secret huge group of PC offline co-op players? If so, clearly communicated missed profit will deliver the swiftest punishment anyway. If not, then let they who have never lobbed anything akin to "no one plays [game] for the campaign" (implying…