Performing Right Society (PRS) sues Valve over video game music

Quoting: syylkBut... That music, licensed by the game devs, is not played on Steam. It's only played in the game(s) - where it's already handsomely licensed!

Valve is not letting users listen to the music besides what's already licensed within the videogame, and the users are exposed to the IP only after purchasing the game - and its musical license(s) - and paying the due to the authors, directly or indirectly.

How that claim could have merit?

Steam also sells soundtracks and has a built-in music player, maybe that's what they're trying to exploit?

Valve 1vAll they're getting a ton of XP for this.

Quoting: BloodScourgedouble-dip? 🤔

The music industry has been the front runner for double dipping for decades. And while they say it's to protect "the artists", I highly doubt that the artists would see any notable income from it.

Quoting: syylkBut... That music, licensed by the game devs, is not played on Steam. It's only played in the game(s) - where it's already handsomely licensed!

Valve is not letting users listen to the music besides what's already licensed within the videogame, and the users are exposed to the IP only after purchasing the game - and its musical license(s) - and paying the due to the authors, directly or indirectly.

How that claim could have merit?

You can listen to the trailers I guess.. 😑

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: BloodScourgedouble-dip? 🤔

The music industry has been the front runner for double dipping for decades. And while they say it's to protect "the artists", I highly doubt that the artists would see any notable income from it.

That was a rhetorical question 😇

Quoting: pb

Quoting: _Mars

In 2007, PRS for Music took a Scottish car servicing company to court because the employees were allegedly "listening to the radio at work, allowing the music to be 'heard by colleagues and customers'".

From the Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRS_for_Music#Legal_cases

It happened in other countries, too. My hairdresser has a plaque informing that the music is only for employees and the customers ought to abstain from listening to it. That's where it's headed...

Smart 😅
In France you pay SASEM for any public diffusion and they pay the rights owners. But you have to have a public diffusion and it's clearly defined by the law.

I bet epic or microsoft are behind so many companies suing valve, especially ms, they mhave more to lose.

So the consensus is, this is obviously stupid. The question is, is the relevant law in Britain just as stupid? If this were some jurisdictions I'd try for a jury trial, because juries are less practiced at accepting insane things for the sake of the law. Not sure that's an available option in Britain.

Quoting: Jau

Quoting: pb

Quoting: _Mars

In 2007, PRS for Music took a Scottish car servicing company to court because the employees were allegedly "listening to the radio at work, allowing the music to be 'heard by colleagues and customers'".

From the Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRS_for_Music#Legal_cases

It happened in other countries, too. My hairdresser has a plaque informing that the music is only for employees and the customers ought to abstain from listening to it. That's where it's headed...

Smart 😅
In France you pay SASEM for any public diffusion and they pay the rights owners. But you have to have a public diffusion and it's clearly defined by the law.

The Sacem is also a bunch of extortionists.

If you pay royalties directly to the rightsholders, the Sacem will still ask for its cut. And if you only broadcast royalty-free music available in the public domain or under the terms of a Creative Commons licence, then they can still ask for royalties for some goddamn reason.

Will be surprised if this doesn't get thrown out. They are trying to extort Valve.

Quoting: pbSteam also sells soundtracks and has a built-in music player, maybe that's what they're trying to exploit?

You have definitely a point (or two, actually).

But I guess the soundtracks *are* licensed, by the producer/publisher of the soundtrack itself. Or else, the producer/publisher could not sell it in the first place!

About the music player, yes, that's a possibility. It means that every digital music player ever (including Windows Media Player, VLC, WinAMP, etc.) should license every possible song in the remote possibility it could be used to play one?

What about other stores selling videogames - dunno, Amazon, EGS, GOG, the various app stores? They should license every song in every product they sell as well?

Quoting: elmapulI bet epic or microsoft are behind so many companies suing valve, especially ms, they mhave more to lose.

Considering how it was MS behind SCO suing Novell and IBM over Linux, I see a pattern of proxy-suits here...

[Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group,_Inc._v._Novell,_Inc. & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group,_Inc._v._International_Business_Machines_Corp. ]

Quoting: syylk

Quoting: pbSteam also sells soundtracks and has a built-in music player, maybe that's what they're trying to exploit?

You have definitely a point (or two, actually).

But I guess the soundtracks *are* licensed, by the producer/publisher of the soundtrack itself. Or else, the producer/publisher could not sell it in the first place!

About the music player, yes, that's a possibility. It means that every digital music player ever (including Windows Media Player, VLC, WinAMP, etc.) should license every possible song in the remote possibility it could be used to play one?

What about other stores selling videogames - dunno, Amazon, EGS, GOG, the various app stores? They should license every song in every product they sell as well?

Should the likes of Walmart get a licence for selling physical medias (CD)?! Yea! It's still a thing.

All that stuff is pure nonsense.

Quoting: scainePure greed. Plain and simple. Just a bunch of copyright trolls.

Why be paid for our music once when we can bully storefronts to be paid for the exact same effort multiple times!?

Exactly. It goes beyond storefronts too. These organizations are bureaucratic parasites that unfortunately have been legally sanctioned to do this (at least, in Canada, they have).

I used to sit on a civil government board that oversaw a community hall. Our manager brought to us a demand that the facility pay a fee to cover music played or performed in the facility. This was the first I'd ever heard of such a thing.

The manager investigated further and discovered that not only was there a group with their hands out for playing pre-recorded music or for live performances but there was another parasite demanding "royalties" on behalf of the composers, authors and -- of all things -- the publishers too. Their ability to collect these "royalties" is actually backed by Canadian law. Furthermore, there is some sort of connection to the World Trade Organization as well.

While trying to recall the name of the initial group that contacted us, I discovered that, in Canada, there are FOUR federally-sanctioned nonprofits with their hands in the music royalties pie. It is obscene.

Studies have shown that very little of the fees actually make it to the composers and performers of the music. IMO, it is just a parasitic scam to enable the existence of these trolls.

Hi, I hope Valve wins, and this parasite has to pay Valve's legal costs plus a very large compensation payment

I am not a native English speaker, but I doubt this being a reason why I didn't understand the point of this lawsuit, nor almost any sentence of this legal bureaucratese nonsense.

I can see the lawsuit will fall apart, because Valve doesn't have anything to do with it.
Developers and publishers make games, they hire composers to write music, or buy licences for existing music. Then they publish games in Steam, claiming all content in games was obtained legally. What Valve can do with it, except take down games that break law, when they get DMCA complaint?