Robinson v. Binello

Background

Aaron Robinson brought a copyright-infringement action against Roblox. Robinson alleged that Alex Binello uploaded Robinson’s 1993 recording of Scott Joplin’s “Maple Leaf Rag” to Roblox for use in Binello’s game, MeepCity, without Robinson’s knowledge or permission. Robinson alleged that the recording played on a loop in the game from 2016 to 2022.

Roblox operates an online gaming platform. According to Robinson, Roblox employees reviewed and approved the uploaded audio file, copied it, assigned it a unique identification number, and stored it on Roblox’s servers. Robinson also alleged that users could download the recording to Roblox “boomboxes” for a fee and could download copies to their personal hard drives. He asserted claims against Roblox for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement.

Webpages and judicial notice

Roblox asked the court to consider several webpages, including its terms of use, moderation webpage, Digital Millennium Copyright Act guidelines, and community standards. The court granted incorporation by reference for the “Moderation” webpage because Robinson relied on it and Roblox’s moderation practices were central to his claims.

The court granted judicial notice of the webpages’ existence and contents because they were publicly available. Judicial notice allowed the court to recognize that the webpages existed and what they said, but not to treat the representations on those pages as proven true. The court did not incorporate the terms of use by reference because Roblox had not shown that they were material to Robinson’s claims.

Direct copyright infringement

A direct copyright-infringement claim requires allegations that the plaintiff owns copyrighted material, the defendant violated an exclusive copyright right, and the defendant caused the infringement through conduct sufficiently connected to the copying. Roblox argued that it merely operated an automated, user-controlled system and did not directly cause the copying.

The court rejected that argument at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Robinson alleged that Roblox’s moderation team reviewed and approved Binello’s upload, created a copy, and stored it on Roblox’s server. The court held that these allegations were enough to plead that Roblox caused the copying.

Roblox also argued that the claim was barred by copyright’s three-year statute of limitations. The court explained that a limitations defense can support dismissal at this stage only when the complaint or judicially noticeable materials establish the defense beyond dispute. The parties disputed when Robinson should reasonably have discovered the alleged infringement, and the court found that Roblox had not shown that the claim was clearly time-barred. The court therefore denied dismissal of the direct-infringement claim.

Contributory copyright infringement

Contributory infringement requires allegations that the defendant knew about the direct infringement and induced, caused, or materially contributed to it. The required knowledge must be actual knowledge of specific infringing acts, not merely general awareness that infringement might occur.

Robinson alleged that Roblox knew about the copyright risks associated with its business and had opportunities to investigate uploaded works. The court held that these allegations did not show that Roblox knew the specific recording uploaded by Binello was Robinson’s copyrighted recording. The court therefore granted Roblox’s motion to dismiss the contributory-infringement claim.

Vicarious copyright infringement

Vicarious infringement requires allegations that the defendant had the right and ability to control the infringing activity and received a direct financial benefit from it. Roblox did not challenge the allegation that it could permit or prevent users’ infringing activity. It argued instead that it did not receive a direct financial benefit from the alleged infringement.

The court held that Robinson plausibly alleged a direct financial benefit because he claimed Roblox charged fees for uploading and downloading the specific allegedly infringing work. The court found that those alleged fees created a sufficient causal connection between the infringement and Roblox’s financial benefit. It therefore denied dismissal of the vicarious-infringement claim.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor

Roblox also argued that it was protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor for certain online service providers. The court treated safe harbor as an affirmative defense, meaning a defense that generally cannot support dismissal unless the complaint or materials properly considered at this stage show an obvious and indisputable bar to relief.

The court held that Robinson’s allegation that Roblox received a financial benefit directly attributable to the alleged infringement was enough, by itself, to prevent Roblox from establishing the safe harbor beyond dispute. The webpages Roblox submitted also did not conclusively establish the safe harbor’s other requirements. Although the court could recognize that Roblox publicly represented that it had policies addressing copyright infringement, it could not treat those representations as proof that Roblox actually had or followed those policies.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Roblox’s motion to dismiss. It granted the motion as to the contributory copyright-infringement claim and denied it as to the direct and vicarious copyright-infringement claims. The court also granted in part Roblox’s request for judicial notice and incorporation by reference. Robinson may file an amended complaint within 21 days of the order.