The Performing Right Society (PRS) has “commenced legal proceedings” against Steam owner Valve over the use of its members’ works on Steam “without permission.”
The organization claims that while games right across the spectrum use music to “transform play into emotional, immersive experiences,” Valve has “never obtained a licence for its use of the rights managed by PRS on behalf of its members, comprising songwriters, composers, and music publishers.”
PRS claims “many game titles which incorporate PRS members’ musical works are made available on Steam,” including “high profile series” such as Forza Horizon, FIFA/EA FC, and GTA.
PRS said that as it had sought to work with Valve about the licensing issues “for many years without appropriate engagement from Valve,” it has now issued legal proceedings under the UK’s s20 Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 and requires any game that uses PRS’ works to obtain a licence.
“The litigation will progress unless Valve Corporation engages positively with discussions and takes the necessary license to cover the use of PRS repertoire, both retrospectively and moving forwards,” the organization said in a press statement.
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.
“Great video games rely on great soundtracks, and the songwriters and creators behind them deserve to have their contribution recognised and fairly valued.”
PRS claims “many game titles which incorporate PRS members’ musical works are made available on Steam,” including “high profile series” such as Forza Horizon, FIFA/EA FC, and GTA.
Insanity. It’s like suing a grocery shop for selling the xyz branded milk for using their copyrighted font.
It’s like suing a grocery shop for selling the xyz branded milk for using their copyrighted font.
I came here to make this exact point.
The real reason they do it of course, is that Steam is big, and they can get more money from Steam if they win.
Juries are very unpredictable in such cases. And that’s what they are playing on.Juries are very unpredictable in such cases. And that’s what they are playing on.
This is in the UK, except in very rare exceptions, we don’t have juries for civil matters.
Ok thanks, I assumed it was in USA, since Valve is American.
Also frivolous suits tend to happen most in USA.That perception was largely created by McDonald’s after they were sued for giving a lady third degree vagina burns and a fused labia. “Haha, Americans are so frivolous with lawsuits, they’d sue a company for serving coffee hot enough to make you need skin grafts”.
- making a business decision that selling skin graft hot coffee will save more money than you will have to pay in damages to anyone injured. A decision that ultimately proved correct.
Complete and utterly false, USA has that reputation because it’s true.
USA has that reputation because it happens all the time, because it’s easy to make a lawsuit, even often finding a lawyer that will take the case it without payment, but take the fee as a percentage of the potential winnings. And because USA has insane rules of extremely high compensations.
USA is not known for this because of a single anecdote, but because it’s very common, and because of the insane compensations, which is part of why it is so common to also try with what would be a frivolous suit in any other country.
Point in case would also be the Apple lawsuit against Samsung, where part of the case was as simple as a tablet being a fucking tablet! When even Star Trek of the 60’s realized that it was a convenient form factor.
Apple won on just about all points of the case, but in following years they were completely dismantled, with decisions that the case didn’t have a basis, and the patents were interpreted way to widely.
This was a HUGE case that cost enormous amounts of money for both sides, and the only true winners are the lawyers. The US judicial system in this regard is completely rotten and that is being abused for frivolous cases that would be thrown out in other countries.You’re right about the effect (lawsuits and the threat of the same are more common in America than Canada or the UK) but not at all about the cause.
The USA has had a decades-long choice to have our industry regulated primarily not through government bureaucracy but instead judicial liability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_through_litigation
The reply that you are replying to is so off base I wonder if it’s Google Gemini trying to pretend to be a real user. So confident, so wrong, includes some real facts, but completely misapplies them.
I edited the word “myth” to “perception” because the well informed reply to My comment changed My mind about the truth of the facts, but I still think the fact’s prominence in culture is because of McDonald’s. Though, come to think of it, we were talking about frivolous lawsuits, not total lawsuits, so I’m not entirely convinced. It could be that the USA has a completely appropriate number of lawsuits and other countries have too few. After all, the judge in the McDonald’s case awarded the lady an entire day’s worth of profits, which is an absurdly high amount of money, but absurdity was in fact an appropriate response to an ongoing problem of absurd magnitude.
Omg there is always someone bringing up this McDonald’s case every time like they’re slam dunking some new information and not just repeating comments over and over that they read in the last thread.
McDonald’s McDonalds McDonald’s McDonalds McDonald’s McDonalds.
There are hundreds of examples of real frivolous lawsuits being filed in the US. This case did not create a myth about frivolous lawsuits. This was at one time an example of a lawsuit that seemed like it could be frivolous, but later there was media coverage that told the real story. There do exist many examples of real frivolous lawsuits.
McDonald’s McDonalds McDonald’s McDonalds McDonald’s McDonalds.
Of course there are examples, but the point is it’s not unique to the United States. You’re literally in a thread about it for those lawsuit in a different country. They aren’t unique to anywhere.
On the other hand there is a very real trend of American media manipulation existing to frame anti-corporate lawsuits as frivolous. Also extensive lobbying of elected officials to stop “frivolous lawsuits”. I’ll let you guess as to why.
Theres also the factor of suing steam is like getting to sue all the ofenders at once without actually putting in the work to sue each individual studio that used the music.
Seeing that this is in UK, my guess is that if they try to take it to court, the court will simply throw the case out.
The point is the studios WEREN’T offending. The music was licenced for the games. PRS wants to double dip by forcing Valve to also pay because they are distributing it.
brb suing VALVe to get 50 million, just so that I can send it back to GabeN and demand a deadline for HL3.
I am pretty sure I saw somewhere that HL3 was confirmed. 😜
Stop playing with my feelings.
What are the odds that PRS doesn’t represent the rights on the music they claim to?
I’d like to say highly likely but upon reading a bit on what they are, it’s highly unlikely. They’re a union focusing on publishing right of music, so they definitely represent the owner of the music. But still insane.
They do.
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.
Yeah, this… doesn’t really make sense, unless the goal is to get Steam to adopt a policy of delisting the specific offending games in the UK.
I am not a lawyer, but… this seems spurrious?
I don’t know, I can’t find a single example of a platform or ‘retransmitter’ being successfully ruled against, in cases where the content itself already had worked out a rights/royalties agreement with the rights holders… unless it can basically be proven that the platform operators / retailers knew that the content itself was not properly liscensed, and sold it anyway.
So basically they would have to prove that Rockstar and EA never had the proper liscensing, and also that Valve knew that.
I am going to go out on a limb and say that Rockstar and EA probably did/do have the proper liscensing.
That being said, the UK leaving the EU… makes all of this exceptionally confusing to my layman self, as to the exact current standards and precedents that are currently in play and relevant.
Identifying the audio out of an excutable would be hard to enforce. YouTube only has to do the ID. I guess a DMCA system should help but my guess it’s that it is already there.
Spoiler: DMCA system is there and, as the water is wet, it’s already being abused.
“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?
Lest we forget, Unity tried to do just that and walked back due to backlash.
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.
Are they going to sue to operating system owners next? What about the web browser that offers the steam installer download?
Meanwhile, big AI vacuums up the entirety of music produced by everyone from piracy sites for profit and noone bats an eye
Even if you only get your news from here, you can’t possibly have missed that AI companies are getting sued…
Abolish piracy!!!1
This was inevitable after valve caved to pressure from card processors. The sharks have smelt blood.
Isn’t this kind of like suing blockbuster over music in the films they rent? Seems a bit daft, but there must be a reason they think it might succeed.
It seems similar to the idea that you could sue Google for copyright infringement because it serves a website that infringes copyright. Like… valve just serves the content and facilitates sale, right? The act of infringement wasn’t committed by them, it was committed by the game developers. Am I mistaken?
From what I understand, the music was used under licence by the game developers. The plaintiffs want Steam to also pay them for a licence to offer the game, which is already legally using the music, on their store, which is absurd.
Interesting, but I can see how this might play into their favor too. If the developers license to the music doesn’t cover resale/relicense, and maybe they’re arguing that the music (by extension of the game) was licensed to Valve in a manner that isn’t covered by the original license? Effectively meaning, valve can’t profit off the music by any means; developers had a non-extendable license to it, allowing only for distribution to consumers who don’t resell?
But you still wouldn’t sue Valve over that, would you? You’d sue the developers for damages due to breach of contract?
If the games are using the music in violation of copyright and valve acquired it and is selling it, the distribution rights part of copyright law allows the copyright owner to sue anyone in the supply chain. If the music was originally licensed properly, then PRS is just looking for a settlement.
Once you purchase a legally distributed work, you are protected by the first sale doctrine, which allows you to do pretty much whatever you want with your single copy.
If they win, they set a precedent and then start suing everyone. If they lose, they don’t lose much.
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.
Love this. If the dev needs a license to play it, Steam needs a license to sell it, is it really much different for them to then sue owners for not purchasing a license to listen?
PRS vs Testes
This kind of lawsuit only makes things worse for musicians who are already struggling with making money performing and recording. This will be challenged, beaten and leave a bad image for artists as not everyone is going to draw logical conclusions from it.
It’s not about artists anyway despite their claim, it’s about labels. The artists doing well are doing their own thing recording, touring, selling merchandise and making sure their followers are getting value for money. The traditional labels are losing control the same way the magazines did.
everybody attacking Valve, maybe my tin foil hat is too cozy but it;s a concerted effort by the psychopathic elite to ruin our lives. may their glans be afflicted by a million paper cuts and a salty storm
Hell yeah. This is one the last big good things left in the world left kinda on top of Wikipedia and Internet archive
Their chooks turn into emus and kick their shithouse down.
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.
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.
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 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.
Do these lawsuits backfire if the ones suing lose? Cuz this is very clearly not on valve to sort but the games. I’m guessing they are hoping to strike gold with 1 lawsuit as opposed to having to go after the game developers individually, who may just stop using their work in the future which valve can’t do… because they don’t use their work already.
But is it just a case you made lawsuit you lost, oh well some lawyer fees and it’s over? Or do they have to pay valve for wasting their time and their legal expenses too?
It’s a common law court, the party that loses pays the majority of the others legal fees. In common law the risk of losing usually prevents stupid lawsuits.
Thank you for the succinct answer!
