If by “never about harassment” you mean “always about harassment”, you may be right.

If you’re claiming it’s about “ethics”, you seriously need a reality check. To the Gamergate fuckwads, “unethical” journalism is anything that they disagree with...and nothing more.

Then why, pray tell, do publishers keep making the DLC if most people find it disgusting? It must sell and it must be profitable...otherwise the practice would stop.

Inflation has reduced the purchasing power of the dollar by 20% since the start of the Xbox 360 generation. Costs are increasing by at least 20% while the value of the revenue has decreased by 20%. While some of the blame is laid upon the publishers for allowing extra-large budgets, the other part of the blame is laid…

If this is the “best” of webcomics, I’d hate to see what the worst look like.

You seem to be in the minority. People pre-order games and buy season passes. They’re not going away...because most people don’t agree with you. They’re not “terrible marketing practices”, they help keep the initial cost of games down at a time when prices haven’t been adjusted for inflation but development costs keep…

Perhaps, as an attorney, I should make my services available to eSports players for affordable contract writing. :D

You don’t really have a choice.

The “regular gamer” has no right to use someone else’s property without permission. The consumer should not be able to profit off of someone else’s hard work; the consumer is being a parasite in that case.

Smartphones are the future. Handhelds are going the way of the dodo. Adapt or perish.

The Filipino government organization is the NCCA, not the NCAA. :D

I thought I was respectful in the correction - I didn't insult him in any way.

"Chock full", not "choke full".

Copyright rests with the creator, but the creator can sell any of those rights off and profit from the creation that way. Also, if you create a work for hire, the copyright rests with the person who hired you to create that work (think animators or artists creating logos for a corporation). It's the author's choice…

Why? Creators have a limited amount of time during which to profit from their creations, at which time they become public domain. There is no reason why anyone should be allowed to ride the coattails of true creators by borrowing their creations. It's sad that people think that little of other people's hard work…

It's not? What about all of the rules that defensive backs in the NFL have had to adjust to over the past number of years? No high hits, no hits on defenseless receivers, no contact after 5 yards, etc.

Just like how real athletes deal with competitive rule changes in their chosen sports, these players will deal with the rule changes and the game will evolve.

It's not so much selling as CREATING that causes the violation. Everyone is so focused on money as the determining factor when, in actuality, it's only a small part of the test to determine the validity of a Fair Use defense.

I wish! I'd love to work as a corporate lawyer in the video game industry.

Considering it fan art doesn't make it any less of a copyright violation. Profiting from the work is only part of the equation when considering a Fair Use defense - on the face of these works, they're easily copyright violations.

It has nothing to do with trying to make money off of something - it has everything to do with other people using the property of another without their permission. Copyright holders are granted exclusive rights, and one of those rights is the right to create derivative works. These "fan remakes" are derivative works…