This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
What the hell is with the Flurry of legal attacks against Valve now?
What even is this lawsuit? Can somebody help me understand the accusation(s)?
Because it kind of reads like "you sell games that have our music, and don't pay us" which obviously makes no sense. Most of the article is absolute fluff.
P1: prs is suing valve.
P2: valve doesn't have a license to.... Do what? Is this extortion?
P3: prs music is on steam.
P4: valve ignores us. We want to sue them for infringing "the UK's s20 copyright, designs, patents act 1988"
P5: musicians work hard. Prs protec.
P6: music important. Musicians important.
Looking through the things PRS does, I wonder why anyone would join. Why call yourself an artist when you contribute to an entity that stops people from playing music to animals or whistling to themselves?
Like seriously. It's a group of artists going around shutting down parties. Musicians telling everyone to go home. Probably thinking "it's not my fault, it's the industry, if I want my fair share I HAVE to bully individuals and small businesses."
They're an extortion racket for large music recording labels, who generally fuck over small music venues and individual musicians.
I think that these might be the same people who drove around to catch petrol and service stations playing the radio so that they could sue them for unlicensed public performance. This was right in the Napster days.
Wait what? Why would valve need to license the music? They're not making the games...That should be the responsibility of the game studio or developer that makes the game that uses the music.
You always sue starting from deepest to shallowest pockets.
... but that only makes sense if you genuienly believe that Rockstar and/or EA have less cash than Valve, and/or Rockstar and EA never had their own relevant liscensing agreements.
I may be wrong, but as best I can tell, there is no precedent in UK law for a platform/retailer being found liable under the cited Section 20, unless the content being distributed/retransmitted/sold itself did not have proper liscensing arrangements, and it can be proven that the platform/retailer/retransmitter knew that to be the case.
I kind of find it unlikely that Rockstar and EA did/do not have liscensing agreements in place.
My theory?
The entire Publically Traded gaming world seems to be mobilizing and coordinating efforts to get every kind of secondary organization they are connected to, to sue Valve, right now.
Because they are all financially imploding, and they're trying to do as much damage as possible to Valve, who isn't a part of their club, as a means of trying to level the playing field.
All these people on the boards of top gaming companies... are also on the boards of other top gaming companies, they know each other, they have people and contacts who sit in all the gaming industry lobbying groups, and the astroturf fake 'gamer advocacy' groups, in the IP rights groups, etc etc.
Dan Gopal, chief commercial officer, PRS for Music said: "Our members create music that enhances experiences and PRS exists to protect the value of their work with integrity, transparency, and fairness. Legal proceedings are not a step we take lightly, but when a business’s actions undermine those principles, we have a duty to act.
tl;dr they're after the money.
They're extortionists. This outfit is doing RIAA moves and surely annoying as those IP litigators whose business is to let loose bots and flag anything with a DMCA that remotely smacks of what they define as piracy.
This whole thing is utter bullshit. It sounds like the game studios DO have a license, and they're claiming that Steam does not but should. Because you can't tell me that Microslop, EA, and Rockstar, three ENORMOUS giants in the gaming industry, have willingly opened themselves up to litigation by not licensing music in their games, something they've been making for decades. Why are they entitled to a license from the developer AND a license from the shop selling it? Of course, they're not, but let's hope this doesn't set precedent that says they are.
Next logical step would be to sue producers of radios, speakers, headphones and so on, I assume. Their devices "perform" the music, after all.
And then they can sue hospitals for helping bringing new ears into the world.
See, this is why I fucking hate copyright law. It’s so fucked and even though this is clearly fucking bogus, watch them find some kind of loophole and set a precedent
Information should be free. It is as shackled as the rest of us under capitalism.
Because Valve has money.
If they sued games like Beat Hazard for letting players use their own music in the game, that'd be like suing a media player for letting people play music with it.
So imagine how much dumber this is.
Not that I love ActMan, but day to day news about Valve controversies do make me feel the same about these claims as ActMan. It really feels like if suddenly everyone wants to sue Valve to the ground so they got destroyed and other lesser fair gaming companies secure their market.
Valve is no angel. But if we compare to others, they are next best thing to a Saint.
Valve does seem to have a clause in their partner contracts to say all music must have proper licensing so they got that covered. They'll just ask PRS to point out which one and those games are gone within the hour. They can also give PRS a temporary license to the entire library to help them. Things are different if a judge says Valve needs to proactively check licensed materials in the game files, but that requires a library and methods to check against, so that's another discussion.
I think what PRS is stating is that Valve needs a license for the music to even display the game in their store, which is utter nonsense.
They aren't claiming the games are infringing, if that were the case with something like Forza, they would go after the game publisher.
It looks like they are trying to say Valve is infringing by having the games in their store.
I've looked at a few other articles. It seems that PRS says the game publisher has to buy a license for the music in the games, and Valve needs to buy a separate license and pay PRS again for distributing the music in the game. And this would be retro-active, so Valve would have to pay a license fee for every piece of music in every game it ever sold with PRS music. They claim Microsoft and Sony do pay this.
Does this mean places like Walmart and Costco that sell games and media also need to now get licensing?
What about smaller shops and libraries that sell or loan media or other products.
Honestly this just seems like a tax on a tax on a tax. Next in the consumer will need to pay a licensing fee.
Next in the consumer will need to pay a licensing fee.
They do try. These are the same people that sued someone for singing while working, claiming it was a public performance.
This was inevitable after valve caved to pressure from card processors. The sharks have smelt blood.
Does the RIAA know these scammers are trying to muscle in on their scam?
They're arguing it under section 20, probably this part
the making available to the public of the work by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.
It looks like they're arguing that by hosting the games valve are acting as a pirate MP3 site.
I think they would have to prove that they did so knowingly, which can only really be done if they ignored takedown notices.
That is silly, though, since that's something that each developer should be arranging for as part of obtaining the rights to use the music. Either the developer has the rights to use the music as part of the game (and thus sell the game with the music), and by extension Valve can be granted the limited right by the developer to transmit and/or perform the music (in trailers), or the developer does not have such rights and they should not be selling the game in the first place.
There is much to critique Steam for... This? This is nothing but a cash-grab, in my opinion.
