PRS sues gaming platform giant Steam for copyright infringement

PRS sues gaming platform giant Steam for copyright infringement​

UK collecting society PRS is suing Steam, the online games distribution platform operated by US gaming giant Valve Corporation, over alleged copyright infringement.

According to legal papers filed by PRS, Steam has never secured the licences it needs in place to make available games that include music composed and written by PRS members - despite the best efforts of the collecting society, which has “sought to license” Steam for “many years”, but “without appropriate engagement from Valve”.

Steam isn't the publisher, unless they're talking about valve games? Then they should be sueing valve. Steam is a distribution platform and store, and the game publishers on that store are responsible for obtaining a license for the music they use. If they publish a game or music on steam without a license, that's on them. Best you can do is dmca steam and have the content taken down while you persue legal action.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean they will win. Goodluck to them. I bet steam has some good lawyers vs prs.

Uhhh I don't see what their argument even is here

Steam isn't the publisher

for music (radio/event), in many jurisdiction distributor are those who has some right to pay, not just publisher. (like the article say, those licences will not cover the subsequent making available of music)

The making available to the public right exist in the UK, a bit like radio, wedding DJs that pay to play musics, that could apply to all digital distribution of music here if they win this one.

It sounds like this is similar to ASCAP fees venues pay when they host live music. In case some band plays a cover they are covered if they pay some "protection" fees to ASCAP to prevent them from being fined/sued. Still I don't see how this applies, games already license the music for distribution and steam doesn't distribute it unless the publisher/developer already paid any licensing/distribution fees. This would be a serious overreach IMHO, since a lot of the world uses AWS as a backbone, then wouldn't AWS also be liable?

LukeTbk said:

for music (radio/event), in many jurisdiction distributor are those who has some right to pay, not just publisher. (like the article say, those licences will not cover the subsequent making available of music)

The making available to the public right exist in the UK, a bit like radio, wedding DJs that pay to play musics, that could apply to all digital distribution of music here if they win this one.

Click to expand...

I'm curious then. Do British retail stores or UK amazon have to pay a licensing fee if/ when someone purchases a music CD from them?

Conceptually it appears to me the distribution of a music CD is effectively the same as the distribution of music embedded in a published game on Steam.


On another note, British law regarding licensing of content is in my opinion generally dumber than American law which is surprising when one reflects on how dumb American law is in this respect. For example, terrestrial RF TV broadcasting is pushed out over communities all over Britain. If you dare to set up a receiver for the broadcast signals that they are bathing every one in constantly whether you are in public or your own private property, they require you purchase a license for the privilege of utilizing their OTA RF that is inundating your private property at all times whether you like it or not. I'm sure if someone created on their private property a use requiring terrestrial broadcast TV RF not be present, there would be no standing or relief in the legal system for the constant encroachment of their broadcast RF signals. So the license thing is truly only a one way street in that regard.

Sure a similar lawsuit would fail in America too, but we don't have to pay a license fee for the privilege of putting up a aerial antenna and receiving public terrestrial TV broadcast signals either.

LukeTbk said:

for music (radio/event), in many jurisdiction distributor are those who has some right to pay, not just publisher. (like the article say, those licences will not cover the subsequent making available of music)

The making available to the public right exist in the UK, a bit like radio, wedding DJs that pay to play musics, that could apply to all digital distribution of music here if they win this one.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's the same. Steam isn't "broadcasting, performing, or displaying" the music. The publisher, or the end user, is. The only thing steam does is facilitate the transfer of license to use the program and all it's assets from the publisher to the user, and provide them a copy of the same. It would be like if I were to sell you a copy of The Titanic, and then hand you the copy. As long as I obtained permission to sell you the copy, I have no further obligation. Rights of users of video game software containing copyrighted works should have been settled in an agreement before distribution began.

Even if they are correct in asserting their copyright claim, I think it is a bullshit, predatory practice. How are you going to let someone else sell copies of a game with your music on a storefront without informing the storefront that they are liable for the music? The license should be revoked from the publisher and action taken against them, for agreeing to the sale terms without discussing the license first. Otherwise you aren't protecting your property, you are gold digging.

CVNet1 said:

Do British retail stores

Click to expand...

if they do not play music in background, just sell the physical unit apparently not, they seem closer to steam (outside some music appearing in trailers/ads maybe) than radio or DJ (or apple music)

Nobu said:

Steam isn't "broadcasting, performing, or displaying" the music.

Click to expand...

making available is extremelly broad but yes it seem very similar to buying a CD, buying a game, their angle seem really thin here (supreme court of canada where we have something really similar for music right to play in public, esa vs Socan ruled that it was the same and that steam others would not have to pay twice), https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/9994/index.do.

They try to argue because steam is always available on demand for an users that it become "broadcasting" it and because those platform sell you a license vs an absolute ownership, that the first sales doctrine does not apply to them, they are selling a service not a product.

Goes to show the RIAA isnt just a US thing

LukeTbk said:

if they do not play music in background, just sell the physical unit apparently not, they seem closer to steam (outside some music appearing in trailers/ads maybe) than radio or DJ (or apple music)


making available is extremelly broad but yes it seem very similar to buying a CD, buying a game, their angle seem really thin here (supreme court of canada where we have something really similar for music right to play in public, esa vs Socan ruled that it was the same), https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/9994/index.do.

They try to argue because steam is always available on demand for an users that it become "broadcasting" it and because those platform sell you a license vs an absolute ownership, that the first sales doctrine does not apply to them, they are selling a service not a product.

Click to expand...

Seems to me, by that logic, if I store a copy of my game library on a remote backup server that some company provides as a service, then that company will now need a license for the music. I call BS.

Oi! You got a loicense for that mate?

The only one that should need a license are the developers of the game.

They PRS is trying to double dip, triple dip, quadruple dip or some obsurdity.

The person playing the game should not have to pay anyone but the store.
The store should not pay anyone but the developer.
The developer is responsible for paying everyone and paying any licensing deals for content in their game.

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist but Valve has been getting attacked a lot lately after they won against the Rothchild's. Remember that whole thing was about patent rolling, and here we are with PRS doing the same thing. Out of nowhere people who were affiliated with Valve like Yanis Varoufakis is being taken to court as well for admitting to taking ecstasy about 40 years ago. It's as if anyone who's been associated with Valve is getting hit with a frivolous lawsuit.


View: https://youtu.be/FEgLITCUyYM?si=BCunP-336bTlJj5w

DukenukemX said:

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist but Valve has been getting attacked a lot lately after they won against the Rothchild's. Remember that whole thing was about patent rolling, and here we are with PRS doing the same thing. Out of nowhere people who were affiliated with Valve like Yanis Varoufakis is being taken to court as well for admitting to taking ecstasy about 40 years ago. It's as if anyone who's been associated with Valve is getting hit with a frivolous lawsuit.


View: https://youtu.be/FEgLITCUyYM?si=BCunP-336bTlJj5w

Click to expand...

I think that's exactly what it is.

sharknice said:

Oi! You got a loicense for that mate?

The only one that should need a license are the developers of the game.

They PRS is trying to double dip, triple dip, quadruple dip or some obsurdity.

The person playing the game should not have to pay anyone but the store.
The store should not pay anyone but the developer.
The developer is responsible for paying everyone and paying any licensing deals for content in their game.

Click to expand...

well, the recording industry is infamously greedy and has shown they'd be fine with double-dipping. For comparison, look how some musicians think they should get a royalty on used media sales.

I specifically remember Alan Wake was delisted on Steam when the publisher's license for the soundtrack songs expired, then brought back when the publisher was able to renew licensing. That tells me Steam pays attention to this kind of thing and makes sure they are compliant. I hope PRS loses AND gets hit for legal fees.

jfreund said:

I specifically remember Alan Wake was delisted on Steam when the publisher's license for the soundtrack songs expired, then brought back when the publisher was able to renew licensing. That tells me Steam pays attention to this kind of thing and makes sure they are compliant. I hope PRS loses AND gets hit for legal fees.

Click to expand...

Think it the publishers that do that.

It’s a frivolous suit, but I have zero faith in the legal system in the UK at the moment. Could go either way.

DukenukemX said:

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist but Valve has been getting attacked a lot lately after they won against the Rothchild's. Remember that whole thing was about patent rolling, and here we are with PRS doing the same thing. Out of nowhere people who were affiliated with Valve like Yanis Varoufakis is being taken to court as well for admitting to taking ecstasy about 40 years ago. It's as if anyone who's been associated with Valve is getting hit with a frivolous lawsuit.


View: https://youtu.be/FEgLITCUyYM?si=BCunP-336bTlJj5w

Click to expand...

Yeah, it looks a lot like a conspiracy to get revenge against a privately held company aka Valve that has won a couple of lawsuits against a powerful patent troll with lots of connections. It appears linked to the "real id" push for computer usage we're seeing with OS's now among other things like online gambling that kids get addicted to supposedly. This guy below has had a few good videos on this, this one from today:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEBj5u12FXw