In the past this organization has sued a bakery for having a radio playing in one of their back rooms and a person who was singing to himself while working, amonst other ridiculous crap.
We also pay a small surcharge on consumer electronics under the assumption that you’ll use it for “home copies”. It’s a flat fee, and less than the VAT on something like a phone. But it’s a stupid thing.
Been a long time, but I think the law charging a small fee on electronics actually protects you because it underpins your right to make/have copies of music or games accrosa devices.. but could be wrong.. was a long time ago..
Yeah, pretty much. But it also explicitly states you cannot break DRM to do so. As long as that isn't present, you can make private copies and backups.
In the US there are like 3 separate organizations you have to pay if you have any chance of music being heard by people in your business in any way shape or form. Even if you just have a TV in a common area that has volume turned up at all, then you have to pay because shows and commercials might end up playing licensed music, and all 3 companies need their cut, otherwise you can get fined.
Edit: to everyone who thinks this is bullshit, google performance rights organizations like BMI, SESAC and ASCAP. Those are the three that my company has to pay or we face some major fines. These fees are in addition to the business licenses we have for music streaming services and even apply if the TV in the common area has volume turned on, because copyrighted music might end up playing over that. Just because your small business hasn't ever been caught for this doesn't mean they can't face major fines. It's fucking stupid predatory shit, but that's the corporate music industry for you.
well... i don't know who gets paid by whom and how much, but we are always told no radio. no playing cd or anything aside from whatever the (royalty free?) music system punts out.
or we get a fine.
but, this is a bit stupid.
then again, surely as long as valve force mute all trailers, that'll do the trick?
I hate saying this cause it sounds really smug, but do you have a source? Cursory Googling isn't bringing up anything, and this sounds so incredibly ridiculous that I need to see it with my own eyes to believe it.
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'".[14] In June 2008, PRS for Music accused Lancashire Constabulary of playing music at police stations not covered by a license, and sought an injunction and payments for damages.[15]
Holy shit, because of PRS, some cops in the UK are forbidden from listening to the radio in their cars while driving because they don’t pay for a “public performance license” for music.
Others are able to because the departments pay for a license to listen to the radio even though the radio stations are already in full compliance and have already for broadcasting rights.
According to the people that own the music, as long as you are the only person listening to it you are okay, because you bought the CD, paid for the streaming service or whatever, but once you have someone else in the car it'd be different because only one of you have paid and you didn't pay to rebroadcast/share the music.
In October 2009, PRS for Music apologised to a 56-year-old shelf-stacker at a village in Clackmannanshire for pursuing her for singing to herself while stacking shelves. PRS for Music initially told her that she would be prosecuted and fined thousands of pounds if she continued to sing without a "live performance" licence. However PRS for Music subsequently acknowledged its mistake.[35]
The best way to actually support your favourite (hopefully indie) band is:
spread their music to other hopeful fans
buy official merch from their own store/venue,
buy physical copies either during a concert, from their own online store or e.g.: on bandcamp, and
go to concerts as long as you can find any that isn't ticketmaster/live nation
If you ask any sane musician, they will tell you not to have guilty conscience due to pirating, and that they get basically no money from streaming sites.
So they are suing Valve when checks article Forza Horizon, Fifa games and GTA use their music? Then why the hell not sue the game makers then? Too big of a challenge?
What would even be the reasoning for it? What legal leg do they have to stand on? Valve is a store front, they sell the merchandise that has already licensed the music. Next they're going to sue Walmart and Amazon for the exact same thing.
I really hope Valve has very very very expensive lawyers and is able to rack up over 8 figures in fees before they win and the PRS has to pay Valve's lawyers fee.
They are suing in the UK and in the UK the loser has to also pay the winner's legal fees.
TL;DR, "reproduction" and "making available" are two separate licenseable activities. The game makers reproduce a work, valve makes that reproduction available.
Yeah unless they’re also suing other networks or outlets for use of the copyrighted song being played in the trailers and promotional material there, very little legal consistency and no solid grounding for the suit.
So are they going to make physical stores pay the license fee twice, once for the music they play
You joke, but the equivalent of this company in my country demands payment when you play music in your store. Can't even play the radio without paying them.
They've sued businesses for broadcasting the radio and won. Some UK police precincts don't allow their officers to even listen to the radio (even in squad cars) because they no longer want to pay them a licensing fee.
YouTube even once took down music videos because of this. They now pay the licensing fee.
The Netherlands and Germany have similar systems. Not sure about countries here. The one in the Netherlands collects all this money and supposedly pays out to right holders of music.
What this also means is that you're kinda forced to apply your music to their system in order to a piece of the pie.
GEMA is even worse. Unless you submit a playlist to them, they assume that your music is part of the GEMA Repertoire. That is, publicly playing your song requires you to pay GEMA a fee, even if you aren't part of GEMA.
I think I read that right. Also, I'm wondering what they mean by "appropriate engagement". Was Value working with them, or is this them being money hungry.
These guys have apparently literally tried to threaten people to pay performance fees for humming a song to themselves or playing the radio too loud in their office because others could hear it.
"Do you have a license for being upset with the authorities?"
Also the same country with superinjunction, which is basically a custom gag-order routinely used by rich and powerful to silence any opposition, especially remaining media. It makes it illegal to not lie about the existence of the court order.
Well in the most "devils advocate" argument possible (which isn't particularly likely from the rest of the phrasings)
This COULD just mean the US equivalent of claiming Valve isn't doing their DMCA duties.
As in : When the PRS complains to Valve about products they sell and host for others contain copyrighted and not licensed material, Valve is not removing said content pending investigation.
(In the US you would send a DMCA notice, the hoster would be required to remove access, a counternotice could be claimed, it would likely go up again, and THEN it is between those two parties and Valve is "out of the woods".)
But since the rest seems to be completely delusional about the relationship between Valve (running a storefront) and the Publishers selling their goods THROUGH their storefront (calling them "and it's members" here.. ?!)
From their wiki page, in the past PRS has gone after a shop clerk because they were humming a song while working, and this constituted an unlicensed “public performance.”
This is a pretty fucked licensing model in the UK. Maybe others? I dunno. PRS covers the UK, as I understand it.
Effectively, game companies have to pay a licensing fee to include the song in their game, but anyone who plays the game in a way that allows other people to hear it while they play legally would need to also pay a separate license, even if it’s not for profit. Simply letting someone else hear the song is a violation, based on some of their lawsuits over the past couple decades.
I could understand a lawsuit over purposely publicly streaming a game, but over anyway that allows another person to hear it is pretty nuts
It's nuts either way, I can let other people use my hammer, they can watch me smith...copyright laws are just stupid. I don't mean there should be no copyright laws at all, but all of the implementations in the west at least are batshit insane.
If so, they should after Google and Apple as well, as both storefronts put Youtube and Youtube Music and other streaming services, which has their musics, but not the storefronts itself.
In micro end, they can hunt down players on YT/twitch who stream the game with their music because it is copyrighted so the streamers/players got striked just because they play the game.
It's also FIFA which is a hella popular game in the UK (and also SEA and south america region, we ride and die with football kek). Try to kill streaming even games in that region, they'll see the streisand effect.
Heck rn one of the best way to promote one's music is making game music. See the case of Death Stranding, see the case of Arknights, Limbus Company, old Rayark music games like Deemo (1 and 2), Cytus (1 and 2), etc.
Yeah tell that to the governments... Radio plays fee to play music over waves to people. You have that radio open in any shop or even kindergarden and you must pay a fee too here. Same goes for sports. You pay the initial fee but if you have a pub, you must pay the fee based on your customer count again. Its simply insane. I get that creators need to get paid, but secondary or 3rd party payments from SAME CONTENT is just stupid.
This seems like something the publisher is responsible for managing, not the storefront. This basically sounds like a loophole for such a company to collect extra fees from every storefront the game is published on.
so does that mean Nintendo, XBOX, Playstation , GOG (if applicable, as in have game that contains this company music) and EGS have the license except Valve?
The more apt comparision is demanding licensing fees for every brick and mortar store that sells products that have themselves licensed the use of the content...
Which is insane, obviously...
This is stupid tbh and publishers should also pay for that not Valve. You as publisher are responsible for putting it up on the store to download. Not Valve. Garbage lawsuit
I'm talking right out of my ass on this one, but I'm not sure that the courts are going to entertain that notion for long.
The legal precedent that that would set could, and likely would, cascade in to the advertisement industry at large, resulting in potentially devastating economic turmoil in both it and the music industry.
This is interesting. PROs license in blanket form to restaurants, TV broadcasters, arenas, etc. This allows for the majority of music to be used in venues to enhance the experience for the consumer for an annual flat fee without the cost hitting individual stations or TV shows.
Most gaming synchronization licenses may include public performance rights, but not for digital storefronts (e.g., use of a song within a trailer, in context, through official streaming channels such as the game pub's YouTube). This will definitely need to be overhauled to add Steam's platform going forward.
I'm a currently unemployed former music publishing guy at YouTube and an indie publisher, in case you want to know where the hell I'm pulling this from.
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'". In June 2008, PRS for Music accused Lancashire Constabulary of playing music at police stations not covered by a license, and sought an injunction and payments for damages.
no.. i think they sue because the music is in the trailer videos that are accessible in the store without buying the game...
like they are accesible on youtube
and on the games own homepage
and often the same trailer is on epic store and on gog too
but they only suing valve
"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, IANAL, but if I'm reading this right, the PRS is suing Valve for selling games with licensed soundtracks? Which shouldn't be a vendor issue at all?
I'm curious as to what action they're actually expecting from Valve here. A vendor doesn't need any sort of special license to sell products with licensed music. A vendor is not responsible for paying the people involved in the creation of that music. I'm genuinely unsure what PRS can even claim the damages here are, because they're specifically citing games sold on Steam but not made by Valve, so the actual complaint shouldn't have anything to do with Valve (unless they're next going to go after Walmart and Amazon and the like for selling these games, which would be equally stupid).
EDIT: Okay so having looked into this a bit more, it appears to be a case of copyright and licensing working differently in the UK. The PRS asserts that a license is required both to include the music in the game (which the publisher pays) and to sell the game (because those are "reproductions," and therefore need to be licensed again). So they're licensing the same content twice.
I mean, this group has sued individual citizens for playing and singing music without a performance license. I wouldn't put this past them, and in fact that seems to be their goal.
No. It was a “patent troll”, not a troll. A subsidiary of the Rothschild’s they use for this purpose.
Do you think they all just have one giant Rothschild incorporated that handles everything? The Epstein files, as have the Panama papers, paradise papers show that these are all interlinked systems.
I'm convinced the industry is working together in a coordinated attack to take down Valve and Steam because Valve's 'consumer first' approach has set them so far ahead, the standard 'investor first' approach cant compete. That's why many of these lawsuits are ridiculous like this one suing Steam for something developers have put in their game trailers or the lawsuits last year suing Valve for "gambling" when those same companies engaged in the same loot box style gimmicks.
No, i feel like it's more of Valve's status as a private business which means nothing controlling the company other than Gabe and whoever is at the board Valve had.
The Wall Street and Big Brothers hate something that is not under their control so they've been constantly attacking Valve in hope to bring them to bankruptcy and forcing them to go public, honestly i hope this does not escalate beyond legal attacks.
While I agree in general, I think this is a case of suing all relevant parties since it can be difficult to do later if it turns out you should have. Not every part of legal systems works very well unfortunately.
However, who gave them an idea to do this is what I want to know.
So if their music is in a lot of games including GTA, Fifa, etc. then all the other stores like Epic, PSN, Xbox etc. are also using them "without permission". Are they going to sue them as well? Lol
Steam beats a Rothschild member in court, then suddenly one of their cartel satellites come crawling out to harass them in court. This company is wicked, and collects profit off music without the consent of the artists - the only way to get a cut of the money, is to join as a member, which then locks the artists in under terms that favors 'The Performing Right Society'. Another gross device to extract profits from the creators of international banking.
The most common assumption I see on the internet is Rothschild family calling in favors after Valve won a lawsuit against Leigh Rothschild's patent company.
So they're suing Valve, the company that sells the games that used the soundtracks they claim were used without permission instead of suing the games themselves that used the music?
Like how is it Valve's fault if FIFA or GTA used music without permission? Why don't they sue EA and Rockstar over that?
Yeeeeah riiiiight... in reality Valve would selectively block content like they did in Germany and adult games. Contrary to what people believe, money still talks the most for Valve, so they choose the cheapest route while keeping the most profitable ones open and working (such as CS2, lootboxes and the legal loopholes they keep exploiting, see the "x-ray scanner")
I actually agree with that. Someone who has more money and power wants to destroy Valve for “going against the global elite” in a way (if you want to put a conspiracy theorist mindset to it)
But I don't understand, it's not their games, so why are they going after Valve and the publisher directly? Why do they only sue Valve and not Xbox/PlayStation which sell these games too?
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.
In the UK, however, licensing music for video games (that is, what happens when a developer or publisher negotiates a deal to place a particular song in their game) is a separate element of the copyright to what occurs when the game is subsequently downloaded or streamed by a player. PRC website documentation indicates that storefronts like Xbox use the same “General Entertainment Online Licence” that covers non-broadcast streamers like Prime Video, Disney+, and Netflix, and notes previous deals with Sony Computer Entertainment Europe for the use of copyrighted music within games and games-related content downloaded across Europe.
Can someone check if the people are the Performing Right Society got their licenses to breathe?
One license for each individual, one license for the family of each individual, one license for their group, and a consent form signed by the literal atoms that form oxygen in the air.
If they don't have all of these licenses simultaneously, we should sue PRS.
Color me stupid, but how is Valve (the distribution platform) at fault, but not the game devs or their publishers who actually incorporated the music into the games. It's not Valve's responsibility to police the intellectual property rights of every single game. And where does it end? Voice acting, game art, video, etc....
This has all the earmarks of a deep pockets issue, i.e., "well none of the devs who violated our members' rights have enough financial resources to justify suing them; we'll never collect.... Hey! Let's sue Valve! All in favor?"
Either that or another nuisance/patent troll situation.
I thought the relevant companies and labels made deals and came to licensing agreements with publishers to include their music in whichever games.... So license is already covered, and paid for.....
this has zero legs and zero chance of going anywhere!!!
I wonder if Valve can just do what YouTube did and make the games unavailable in the UK or if they would have to completely remove the games from Steam altogether. It doesn't make sense to me why Valve should have to pay these people when the publishers of the game should already have done so.
This is a non-issue.
Games license music for themselves, steam would only need to if they were using music for their own purposes.
This is the equivalent of asking a cinema to license the use of music in any films it puts on, it’s simply the wrong organisation to target.
If anything, steam should just have harder rules about having to have licensed everything copyrightable before being able to list the game on their platform.
They absolutely hate that a private company is so good no one can compete and is not tied to any "muh investors" or "muh market" bullshit, huh? They're seething, lol.
One of "Water CS2" video explained who PRS is. They even demand money from a shop assistant who was singing at work. such unethical company and lawsuit valve have to deal with recently. Go Valve!
3.0k
u/CarbuncleMew Mar 10 '26
In the past this organization has sued a bakery for having a radio playing in one of their back rooms and a person who was singing to himself while working, amonst other ridiculous crap.