This doesn't look meaningful at all. Why target valve and not the developers and publishers of these games? Were they not licensed appropriately such that they were compensated for their use? To my untrained eye this seems like they're trying to double dip.

Valve profited, Valve is liable, Valve is a lot easier to get money out of than a bunch of indie studios that don’t exist any more.

With great margins comes great responsibility.

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.

This has "I'm throwing my lawsuit at everything and I hope it sticks" energy

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.

So what is Rockstar, EA, etc doing producing games without a proper music license? Why is Valve being punished for selling something those game devs didn’t have rights to distribute?

What about cinemas playing movie trailers that feature music? They need special permission beyond the licensing agreements already in place or something?

How about the games sold on Amazon? Epic?

Disband the clown show bringing this to court. Embarrassing.

As always the US music industry is showing it is a massive embarrassment.

To me it looks like, "It's cheaper to sue this company rather than the individual companies even though we know we don't really have a leg to stand on".

While your statement is true, PRS is UK.

This would be like suing Walmart because people watch pirated content on TVs they buy from Walmart

I've only just realized this after thoroughly reading more articles. Embarrassing, but I stand by my statement. I'm starting to wonder if this is a universal greed.

I'm pretty sure those games have licenses, this lawsuit is saying valve needs a separate license to distribute those games

Which... Is kinda fuckin bullshit?

No. The publishers and developers have already paid for the right to use the music.

This is would be akin to having your local record store also pay a licensing fee to sell a CD or a movie store pay a license fee for selling a movie that has music in it.

It's a bullshit frivolous lawsuit.

The modern music industry is entirely built upon the idea of middlemen seeking rent from other people's work. They have a long history of trying to screw over musicians and customers for a little extra cash flow; them going after distributors as well tracks with all the other greedy and self-defeating shit they've pulled over the years.

Kinda really bullshit. This case states it's not enough to get permission from the publisher. Now every digital store would need to get licenses for the assets of the content they're selling, on top of a license for the final product.

Absurd.

And then they can sue the hosting company Valve uses for distributing the assets without a license, and the ISPs that transmit the assets without a license, and the speaker manufacturers for playing the assets without a license, and ...

The PRS needs to pay the wanker down the street for the licence to act like such bellends.

Interesting how they're only going after Valve and not Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo. 🤔

Music licensing is complicated as hell.

How are you so sure the indie devs got it right when big companies screw it up all the time?

And what does that have to do with anything this article is pointing out here? They're not suing small indie developers for using unlicensed music they're talking about suing a store front that sells games that already has a damn license for their games. Hell they used examples of the large publishers here not even making a case that indie companies are the issue with them probably because indie studios aren't using big name artist unlike the large publishers they're pointing to.

No good sir, you do not get to provide a non-sequitur as a valid argument.

Explain how it's perfectly valid to sue a store to make them obtain a music usage license for selling a games that has already licensed their music in their games. Explain how they are liable for music used in the games they simply sell and don't develop.

Don't you dare hum a tune from you favorite game in public! That's theft!

We aren't even talking about pirated content. The game devs paid the licenses for the music in their game. They want to double dip and have Valve pay, too.

I really hope these leaches will have to pay all of Valve's legal expenses for this shit.

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, let alone a UK lawyer, but this seems insane. Why not sue Amazon, Walmart, and Best Buy for selling games that use their music, too, while they're at it. The license to use their music is, presumably, licensed by the game creator. And, if it's not, you go after them, not the storefront that's selling the game, right?

If this case holds water, then didn't that mean storefronts are liable for validating the licenses of all assets used by all products they stock? That would be insane. ("Prove you own the copyright to your packaging, design, layout, copy, music, textures, models, SFX, .......")

This doesn't appear to be about games that don't have the proper licenses though. They do, but the licenses don't mention Steam and some chucklefuck thought that would be the key to making a ton of money.

It's like suing Spotify because an artist correctly licensed a sample.

Well dang. I misunderstood, and thought the devs hadn't paid the music licensing. That makes this thing even more unreasonable, legally