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.
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.
Does the RIAA know these scammers are trying to muscle in on their scam?
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.
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.
I mean many of those publishers, like it says in the article, are "high profile" and will have more than enough money to cover a music copyright issue.
But suing Valve means you only need to sue 1 company instead of dozens, and it also makes Valve responsible for keeping the songs out of its entire library of tens of thousands of games.
brb suing VALVe to get 50 million, just so that I can send it back to GabeN and demand a deadline for HL3.
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 myth 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".
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.
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.
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 just want to cash in twice.
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.
They're probably going after Valve because they have more money.
This was inevitable after valve caved to pressure from card processors. The sharks have smelt blood.
Gaben really just should've said "fuck you" to card processors and created his own PayPal-like system that doesn't expose purchase data to card networks and is big enough that the networks can't afford to lose them...
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.
YouTube isn't responsible for licensing any music either, but they are responsible for keeping it off their platform, and they've gone to great lengths to achieve this.
Now do physical game label printing organization lawsuit for decreased profit from enabling digital sales.
... idiot attorney took this case
Oi do you have your music loicense?
I have some experience in licensing music in the UK. it's simple and cheap and it means the artists get paid (well the record labels, but that's another problem)
You paid a tiny amount of the profits you made after filling in the form which is pretty much just name and address and the tracks you used. It was something like £20 to play 5-10 songs for a three week run of a live show
Unless valve is ignoring court judgments that the content is infringing they can GTFO.
This is probably bogus and already covered in steamworks' terms of use, I'm going to check but I expect them to have some kind of "you (the developer) are responsible for clearing copyrights stuff" clause
TOU doesn't supercede law, but this lawsuit is probably bogus anyhow (then again UK can have some crazy laws and their judicial system is weird).
Still, they as the storefront aren't (or shouldn't be, uk law is mental at times) responsible for licensing the content used in a product they sell made by someone else.
This would be like suing a grocery store because they sell a CD that didn't properly license their samples. They received a product and sold it, expecting the artist/manufacturer/publisher to clear rights prior to sale.
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.
Can't they just leave the one company that's been consistently good to its customers alone?
Wait- that lawsuit is stupi- oh ok, it's from UK, it make sense
Lately a lot of stupid lawsuits were made in UK...
Copyrasts kick each other. I hope both sides will be harmed. A lot. Alas the customers will pay for any damage anyway, but at least it will be some show.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.