These idiotic lawsuits. First of all, this isn't even Valves responsibility. Second, Steam/Valve are small frys compared to Amazon/Apple/Google/Microsoft. In gaming they may be smaller than Sony and Nintendo and those two have full on closed software platforms. Steam is one software store among many on Windows, Linux, and MacOS. All these groups want to enshittify PC gaming. They want to enshittify personal computing in general. Turn pre-iPhone smartphone operating systems into iOS
Technology
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
What even is this lawsuit? Can somebody help me understand the accusation(s)?
Because it kind of reads like "you sell games that have our music, and don't pay us" which obviously makes no sense. Most of the article is absolute fluff.
P1: prs is suing valve.
P2: valve doesn't have a license to.... Do what? Is this extortion?
P3: prs music is on steam.
P4: valve ignores us. We want to sue them for infringing "the UK's s20 copyright, designs, patents act 1988"
P5: musicians work hard. Prs protec.
P6: music important. Musicians important.
Sounds a lot like a license troll. Probably the specific court and potential violation of a law were picked with care. Perhaps they looked through valve's terms in advance to find a loophole, design their own terms to exploit that etc.
I don't think it's a troll. I think it's specifically game publishers trying to carve out a niche and get more power to make more money, both from valve, and on their own digital distribution platforms by saying
"valve needs to pay us to sell our games because we are the license holders. And since we are the license holders, we can pay ourselves from sales on our own platforms"
So I think it's dumb on the surface, but ultra shitty underneath.
Like if they win, that's a bad precedent.
If they lose, that's still precedent.
And in the process, there's a SHIT TON of discovery, of a company that doesn't give out much information that competitors would love to get their hands on. Because if you know how a competitor operates, you can undermine them. Knowledge is power. It's super pathetic, but also scary, like a demon trying to figure out your style so they can steal your friends. Hopefully, we can rely on " just don't be shitty" to hold up.
All of these lawsuits popping up are like a distributed attack on Valve.
Sounds like they want to get paid twice.
If they sued games like Beat Hazard for letting players use their own music in the game, that'd be like suing a media player for letting people play music with it.
So imagine how much dumber this is.
My hate of the copyright-ownership side of Hollywood / Nashville / Atlanta, etc. has been burning white hot since the days that the RIAA was suing people using P2P networks. But, I had to admit that at least they could probably make a valid claim for copyright infringement. But this?!
It's interesting how it's the "Performing Right Society" (which I've never heard of). The "performing" part of that suggests that maybe they have an issue with people sharing clips containing music, or live streaming games where they share music. But, again, why Valve? Sure, people can share clips with friends. And, occasionally you see developers streaming their games. But, nobody is really "performing" live streams on Steam. I suspect they just think Valve is rich and so they can strong-arm them and Valve will settle to make them go away. I hope they bit off more than they can chew. Valve is indeed rich, and they have a tendency to be stubborn. I think they might well fight, and fight hard.
I wish a possible outcome was that the PRS ceased to exist. But, I suspect they're like a flea or something, and even if you knock them off from this attempt to suck someone's blood, you can't kill them, and they'll just find another victim.
But the game publishers already had licence, and if they didn't have a licence then their beef is with the publishers not the storefront.
Anyway I've bought GTA V from physical brick and mortar stores in the past, so are they going to start suing the brick and mortar stores as well?
Hopefully they lose this case because copyright law is an absolute joke. It hasn't been fit for purpose for about 20 years.
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.
Unless valve is ignoring court judgments that the content is infringing they can GTFO.
I feel like they should get a committee of people together who understand how technology works before they start making laws about it
Oi do you have your music loicense?
Can't they just leave the one company that's been consistently good to its customers alone?
I think ever since Valve fought through their first lawsuit with Sierra and lucked out with them finding evidence showing destruction of evidence, they probably developed zero appetite to fold for frivolous lawsuits lol.
Once again reminding people that you can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean it'll go anywhere
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.
Wait- that lawsuit is stupi- oh ok, it's from UK, it make sense
Lately a lot of stupid lawsuits were made in UK...
What's the VPN uptake in the UK these days, considering the state of government restrictions and surveillance lately? If Valve just said fuck it and pulled out of the market, would they even take a financial hit? Or would most of that revenue magically shift to other countries/currencies?