They definitely deserve to be called out (or rather, the one writer in particular), since letting this manner of journalism be accepted is likely to discourage others from sharing if they know they're going to get lambasted like this in an article just for sharing something they had no obligation to share in the first place. But I agree, wording it like the above is very detrimental to helping anything. What concerns me right now is despite the outcry, Heather doesn't seem to have any care to return and address any of the issues with how she chose to report this. Without any further input from her it feels like a lost cause that will just result in this topic getting filled with the vitriol of the more aggressive members. I certainly would hope this doesn't affect her livelihood, but I hope Kotaku notices how biased that article was and warns writers there not to do the same. It really should be removed, IMO. The last thing any respectable site (and a gaming one, of all things) needs is trying to get views by creating negative controversy when it isn't needed. I mean, I'm just seriously doubting Kotaku as a whole is even concerned about game preservation and how there's some bits and bytes changed in a ROM. It was very clearly just made to stir up controversy. This is just an example of a writer who maybe wanted a feather in their cap. As far as ROM editing goes, I'm pretty much in agreement with people like Frank in terms of how history should be preserved, but as he implied, you take what you can get, and as much as I like seeing history preserved in its 100% detail, I don't see why anyone would ever hold a negative grudge against someone who shared a totally unreleased game. Heck, if the original Conker 64 were released but a guy said he changed some bytes around, I can't imagine how anyone in their right mind would get mad at him. This stuff could have just otherwise rotted away, you know? I think I'd rather take what I can get. Just my two cents on the matter.