Quoting: Cloversheen

Quoting: F.UltraThey actually do (to some extent), if you are a songwriter you have to register each work you create to PRS. Organizations that then pay license to PRS have to also track which song is played so the payouts is actually divided per how much your music was played.

How much of this is "in theory"?

Because that seems like an (in reality) impossible task outside planned organised events like a music festival.

I guess that they use different approaches for different venues. Looking at their own website they claim to use "advanced algorithms" for public venues, hopefully that is a bit better than $RANDOM :). I do know that their local equivalent here in Sweden (STIM) gets complete playlists from e.g radio channels due to me having helped out to create an automated database for that for a local radio station years ago.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dpanterYou can also elect to not watch the trailer and be better off. Trust me.

Each to their own I guess, IMHO it was far more lame than a CoD trailer.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: tmtvlOn the other hand, it would be neat if Steam paying the royalties meant that products containing copyrighted material could be sold through Steam as long as the royalties are paid; DDR/Audiosurf/GH clones could ship with a ton of songs, for example.

That assumes that these parasitic bodies know, much less care, whose work is being licensed. They don't. These bodies don't have a membership list of artists and composers. They don't know whose music is being played by the licensed facility nor to they require that playlists be filed after each event. They are just demanding a general fee because music is involved with the event.

This puts a lie to their claim that a performing artist putting on a show would pay a fee for performing live music but then get that fee back in royalties as the artist and/or composer. Most of the money they collect is likely being consumed by the organization itself with the balance just being distributed to large record firms to line their already considerably wealthy pockets.

Quoting: tmtvlAnyone could make a Harry Potter/Song of Ice and Fire/Lord of the Rings game.

Well, these "royalties" only applies to music, not other intellectual property...

They actually do (to some extent), if you are a songwriter you have to register each work you create to PRS. Organizations that then pay license to PRS have to also track which song is played so the payouts is actually divided per how much your music was played.

One major caveat happens when a piece of music that is not registered is played and when that happens they hold the payments for 3 years before they simply divide that collected amount to the registered songwriters according to some form of internal ranking.

There are other organizations that collect fees from harddrive makers and mp3 makers and those ofc do not know what is played and when so those organizations simply payout to their members (which are music companies like Sony) and perhaps you are thinking about this type of org.

When it comes to the actual issue itself this lawsuit will not go anywhere, PRS only have the rights to collect license fees for performances and since Steam/Valve does not play music from any of the games that they sell anywhere PRS does not have legal standing.

One small caveat here (I mean PRS is not stupid so why did they file) could be the trailer and gameplay videos that sometimes are shown in Steam, silly I know but this is the way the law is written.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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 [External Link]

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...

That is not where it's headed, that is the way it has been since the 80:ies when these licensing firms was allowed power by politicians to not allow music to be used at all for any means without a separate license in every step of the chain. This is the entire reason why so called Muzak is used in public spaces and why there is a whole industry of people making music "with low entertainment value" which is exempt from this licensing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: eggrole

Quoting: GustyGhostValve: "Wins" case against Rothschild patent troll

Rothschild global influence: [External Link]

Totally a coincidence that after this case we have NYC, Washington, and the music copyright lawsuits, right? Certainly this isn't a case of "the process IS the punishment."

Most likely it is a coincidence yes, note that this patent troll is not a member of the famous Rothschild family, they just happen to have that surname.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kit89It's a bit weird. When you buy a beer we have age verification at the point of purchase, we don't have age-verification at the point of opening.

Well technically they do in the US since mere possession of a beer (even if unopened) if you are under 21 is a violation (and consumption an offence) there, so yes the bottle itself does not verify your age but that is a mere technical limitation. The second we get "smart bottles" I can assure you that they will implement age verification on those bottles over seas.

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Cyba.CowboyNope, I checked three different sources, and that would be India... Not where I was expecting, but I knew it wouldn't be America. And apparently it's by a pretty big margin, too.

He might still be right about the USA being "one of the places where linux is used the most".

Yeah the Indian government promotes Linux usage to "ensure digital sovereignty and reduce dependence on foreign software" so many branches of the Indian government (including military and police) use their native distro BOSS.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuza) Please provide as source for said roadmap. b) I said like Spotify. c) Again: Stop inventing statements! I never claimed the DMA was instigated by Spotify.

The roadmap for the DMA started with the DSM during the Junker Comission and was defined here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/8210/DSM_communication.pdf [External Link]

Regarding Spotify it was my interpretation of what you wrote that you meant that they instigated the DMA, it that was a misreading of what you wrote then I am sorry for having done that.

Quoting: poiuzI'm perfectly aware that "they" are Apple's business "partners". Any other reading you imagined.

Great that we are in agreement in this, your previous comment sounded like you saw "they" as the legislators when you wrote "You still fail to explain how the payment processing regulation is not about the cut" and refered to "they" which IMHO was a very strange wording since "they" did not create the legislation and thus it does not matter one ounce what "they" want or don't want. But perhaps you just worded it wrongly.

Quoting: poiuzThe effect is still the same: Businesses are allowed to use their payment processors & avoid Apple fees, i.e. would work as intended. Except it's not - because Apple still wants their fees & as such the process is still ongoing. Again: How can that be? (Emphasised so that you stop ignoring it)

What does this have to do with what we are discussing? Aka weather or not the DMA is about the specific cut that Apple et al is allowed to take.

Again I conclude that you have still not linked to a single piece of the DMA that defines what cut Apple et all are allowed to make...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: JarmerIf all they're doing by this idiotic law is making a new checkbox that says "are you over 18?" then 🤣

Even that would be a risk. It would signal to law makers that the idea works and that they just need to change the requirements for how age is checked.

signal what? If you are American the government already knows 100% about you thanks to Palantir so whatever this is, I highly doubt that it is some nefarious scheme. It is dump and idiotic and it should be abolished, but IMHO not some shadow tactic, that game we already lost.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleWhile I do agree that lootboxes need to be banhammered out of the gaming industry, I am curious of why they picked Valve of all companies to target first. And not, you know, the studios actually famous for predatory business practices, such as EA or Ubisoft.

Because you have to start somewhere and AFAIk Valve:s loot box market is probably larger than EAs and Ubisofts combined.

And finally we see a real lawsuit against Valve where they are IMHO actually in the wrong.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraIE was never part of the DMA […]

Then why bring it up if there's no relevance?

That it wasn't part of the DMA doesn't mean that there is no relevance. The relevance is that the IE case was a similar case with the only different that it was under ordinary anti-competition laws since Microsoft have a clear monopoly, meanwhile the DMA is created to address issues where there does not exist a pure monopoly as such (and therefore ordinary anti-competition laws cannot be applied) but where firms/services are large enough to have such a impact that legislation is deemed necessary. The main relevance of the IE case to this discussion was to point out that there can be abuses to these laws even if the service is completely free, something that is in stark contrast with your idea that this is all about a specific cut.

Quoting: poiuzBut the Juncker Commission did not formulate the DMA. The Juncker commission conceived this kind of big tech regulation (& I think even defined the term gate keepers) and very likely in this period rule sets were defined. But the DMA itself was formalised later (2020) & will contain lobbying input from various parties (e.g. said complain from Spotify).

Doesn't change the fact the the roadmap was designed before Spotity was involved and thus again shows that you are wrong in your assumption that the DMA was instigated by Spotify.

Quoting: poiuzYou still fail to explain how the payment processing regulation is not about the cut - when you already said yourself "[they] simply do not want to give Apple any money" (i.e. it's about Apple's cut).

There are no payment procession regulation and "they" are not the legislators ("they" are the Apple customers who decides to distribute their apps on the Apple Appstore but use a different payment option for in-app purchases even if that payment processor takes a higher cut than Apple).

Aka you are confusing end users of Apple:s services here with the EU regulators. I cannot explain something that only exists in your mind, again there exists no such legislation. The legislation that exists is that a gatekeeper cannot use their gatekeeper status in one market (e.g app stores) to gain advantages in another market (e.g payment options).

Everyone who understands anti-competition legislation knows this so the outlier here with the extraordinary claim is you, so it is you that have the burden of proof to show that the DMA contains text that matches your claim (aka that they have a clause about what cut you can take), which if they existed you could do very easily since the entire directive is public. But you cannot since there exists no such text.

edit: FYI here is the text of Article 5(7) of the DMA that covers app store payment options:

7. The gatekeeper shall not require end users to use, or business users to use, to offer, or to interoperate with, an identification service, a web browser engine or a payment service, or technical services that support the provision of payment services, such as payment systems for in-app purchases, of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services.

Note the complete absence of any mentioning of a cut or even a definition of what a cut should or should not be.

Article 5, Obligations for gatekeepers [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments