This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Shouldn't they be suing the game publishers not the reseller?
So EA and Microsoft according to their docket?
No because they have a license to use the music already. They are seeking the equivalent of performance rights from Steam. They are extortionists.
For the people that don't see how manufactured some of the attacks against Valve have been lately (not that this will help convince them regardless...)
There have been so many lawsuits against Valve recently from so many different angles. I'm not usually one for conspiracy but I wouldn't be shocked if this is a coordinated campaign to unseat Valve from their monopoly on the PC gaming market so that other games industry corporations can move in. They've been trying and failing to break into this market for years because Valve has built so much consumer loyalty.
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.
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.
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."
I feel like by this logic Amazon and Walmart would also need to obtain lisences to sell video games that have music in them...
That or I'm too tired and bread dead to understand the stupid shit I just read.
The only way I can see this being different is steam shows preview videos of the game which have music.
Amazon often only shows the box it sells in and pictures.
Its still stupid because the game developer has the rights and that page is their place.
If I remember correctly, Walmart does have televisions up in the tech department displaying advertisements and trailers for movies and games.
As a general rule of thumb if something sounds stupid then it's probably been reported badly with some key information missing. I'm betting the music industry press reporting will be very different from that of a site called "gamesindustry.biz".
I've seen a lot of stupid patent and copyright trolling over the years.
I bet 100€ that they're trying to double dip and get valve to also pay for licensing songs that the individual game publishers already licensed.
Here's a music news site: https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/gaming-giant-steam-faces-legal-action-from-the-uks-prs-over-alleged-unlicensed-use-of-music-in-games/
It sounds every bit as stupid there, if not more so because it's apparently a normal aspect of distribution licensing in the UK.
Game developers and publishers typically secure sync licences to cover the embedding of music in their titles.
However, in the UK, those sync deals do not extend to the making available of that music when games are subsequently distributed via download or streaming platforms.
The ‘communication to the public’ right — i.e. the making available right — sits with PRS, not individual music publishers, meaning Valve requires its own separate licence as the platform operator distributing games that contain PRS members’ works.
bread dead
... Wha?
I can assure you that I'm still alive and do not currently hunger for brains of the living.
"The litigation will progress until Valve obeys" sounds an awful lot like extortion.
They are clearly trying to double/triple dip on shit that already been paid for and licensed.
Whats next?
Make us individual game owners pay license every time we download and install the game?
Make us individual game owners pay license every time we download and install the game?
This is how it’s been done for decades now? Every game you purchase off of Steam, Xbox, PlayStation is just a license to play that game.
Lest we forget, Unity tried to do just that and walked back due to backlash.
Unity never tried that? They wanted to charge the developer using Unity. It was stupid, but they pay for unity one way or another.
Next in convenience store owners and employees need to get a music license for selling CDs and DVDs so the public.
Apparently PRS already took it to another level by threatening an employee for singing to herself at the store she worked at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/8317952.stm
What fuck that company lost their goddamn minds. Wonder they are fucking stupid enough to sue YouTube for something similar. Maybe because Google billion dollar corporation that would bankrupt them.
Lets hope judge smart enough to throw this lawsuit out, and they have to go bankrupt due to a counter suit.
Wonder they are fucking stupid enough to sue YouTube for something similar.
They don't/no longer need to, YouTube has content ID and copyright claims.
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.
What is it about AI that these daylight robberies are celebrated when that's involved? Maybe it's just that a bigger cash grab can pay for more bots?
For the benefit of those here suggesting this is a spurious or vexatious lawsuit: in the UK, it's standard for a plaintiff to be forced to pay all the respondent's legal fees if they lose.
So... this is still a ridiculous case, but they're wealthy enough they aren't too worried even if they lose it? All right.
