Yet. A league for a given game needs a plan for its long-term existence should the game's publisher get bought by a holding company unfriendly to the league. Besides, if the exception were to stop being the exception and start being the rule among major video game publishers, how would leagues react? And the Ars Technica article I linked earlier states that Capcom also requires royalties for Street Fighter tournaments.

"No one will pay attention to your league" is not the same thing as "you would be sued for even attempting to draw attention to your league."

For one thing, a lot of skills won't transfer, especially the need to re-learn how everything is balanced. It'd be like trying to switch from Tetrinet to Puyo Pop or from baseball to cricket or from soccer to Gaelic football. For another, once a league switches to a different game, how can the league be sure that the new game's copyright won't get sold, such as at acquisition or bankruptcy, to another "company that is being irritating"? I can't see any way other than making sure the game is free software or has some other sort of irrevocable guarantee of non-interference with public performance for profit.

Independent baseball leagues are free to make money without having to negotiate with any owner of exclusive rights to a sport, as were the African-American leagues before them.

By no means does a static proof of type safety substitute for all unit tests, but it still substitutes for some. Or could you explain why it doesn't?

I don't know who, but I do know when. IE 8 introduced the X-ua-compatible header. "Use the following value to display the webpage in edge mode, which is the highest standards mode supported by Internet Explorer."

That's in part because it took so long to make visual editors for animated SVG and HTML5 Canvas that were comparable to Flash MX, let alone Flash CS. And Edge Animate, the HTML5 animation tool from the maker of Flash, is available only on a rental model, not a purchase model. So things like animutations and Weebl's Stuff still tend to depend on Flash.

In what way?

One advantage of the .NET Framework is static typing. In a fully dynamic language such as PHP, Python, or JavaScript, you need to put unit tests into your program to make sure the correct types are getting passed in and out of functions. A language with static typing, such as C#, already ensures type safety. So it's like the compiler writes a lot of your unit tests for you.

The .NET Framework used to have the disadvantage of being a non-free platform, which put .NET programs in what FSF calls a "Java trap". But nowadays, a lot of the interesting parts of the .NET Framework are released under a free software license.

If not on the Internet, then on what means of delivery does video produced for profit belong?

To play games that are exclusive to an Xbox platform or games that are released on Xbox and PlayStation platforms but not PC. Or because a video game console can be cheaper and easier to operate than a comparable gaming PC.

The video game Mino was not a bit-for-bit copy of Tetris but was still ruled pirated.

From the article "Crafting an Industry: An Analysis of Korean Starcraft and Intellectual Properties Law" by Jacob Rogers:

From 2007 to 2011, Starcraft was actually involved in a controversy regarding its broadcasting rights. This began with requests for fees from Blizzard and culminated in a settled lawsuit in 2011.

The lawsuit began with a disagreement between Blizzard Entertainment and the Korean broadcasters over licensing rights to Starcraft television broadcasts. Shacknews, a games review and journalism website, reported that according to Blizzard CEO, Mike Morhaime, the company had begun to negotiate with KeSPA in 2007 in order to “get them to recognize [Blizzard’s] IP rights.” Blizzard further clarified the meaning of “IP rights” in an open letter written to the Korean e-sports community on May 27th, 2010. In this letter, Mike Morhaime explained that Blizzard was dismayed that KeSPA had sold broadcasting rights without Blizzard’s permission. Blizzard therefore chose to bypass KeSPA and license its rights to Starcraft and Starcraft II to Gretech Corporation, which broadcasted games under the name Gom TV.

Blizzard provided the other television stations a grace period lasting until August 2010, after which it would require them to cease broadcasting altogether. KeSPA prevented Gretech from running any leagues by forbidding all the teams from sending any players to the Gretech leagues. Blizzard responded to these moves by breaking off negotiations entirely, then filing suit in October 2010, first against MBC and then against OGN and KeSPA. The parties settled in mediation in the summer of 2011 and now the companies have a 2-year agreement in place for broadcasting rights.

So yes, Blizzard filed a lawsuit against a broadcaster of a tournament.

Blizzard disagrees. It filed suit.

Technically they do, at least if they're streaming the tourney to the public. The graphics of StarCraft and StarCraft II are copyrighted.

It's considered performing the video game publicly. Video games are considered audiovisual works in U.S. copyright law, and the owner of copyright in an audiovisual work has the exclusive right to perform that work publicly. Doing so without express permission is copyright infringement, as if you were offering to stream . Please see the article "Why Nintendo can legally shut down any Smash Bros. tournament it wants" by Kyle Orland and this appellate brief from a moot court.

The lack of ownership of a sport allows a competing league to begin operation without having to first seek permission from the owner of the sport. This allows for competition among leagues.

From any of several competing equipment manufacturers. Only Blizzard can sell copies of StarCraft.

In any of several competing leagues, not just the one endorsed by the owner of a sport.

Then seal arrest records six months after a person leaves custody.

A knowingly false DMCA claim is perjury. A copyright owner that cries wolf with the big megaphone of the DMCA could be looking at doing hard time.

Reference: The Tetris Company's victory in court three years ago