NOTICE

IANAL

Introduction

I visited my friend at REDACTED to see the reliability of VisualPlugin's argument according to the law. His argument attempts to justify the use of leaked Roblox binaries for revivals under the fair use doctrine. His analysis misinterprets several key legal concepts and overlooks critical factors that strongly suggest these actions are copyright infringement, not fair use.

1. Transformative Use:

The argument claims revivals are transformative because they offer a new use not originally intended by Roblox. This is a mischaracterization.

• Merely Re-implementing Existing Functionality: The revivals are not creating a new work with a new purpose; they are simply reproducing Roblox's existing functionality in a different environment. This is not transformative; it is copying.
• Previous Case Law: Cases like Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) emphasize that transformative use must be something "more than merely superseding the objects of the original creation." This is not the case here.

2. Non-Adverse Impact on Roblox's Commerce:

The argument assumes that revivals won't harm Roblox's commerce because players will still buy Robux for games on the official platform. This argument ignores several key points:

• Direct Competition: The revivals (while not intentionally) directly compete with Roblox by offering a similar experience, potentially diverting users and revenue (if a product is sold).
• Value of Exclusivity: Roblox's value lies partly in its exclusive content and its platform's features. Offering copies of this content outside of the platform undermines this value.
• Previous Case Law: Cases like Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984) recognize that even non-commercial uses can harm copyright holders by creating competition.

3. Favoritism of Non-Commercial Ventures:

While non-commercial uses are sometimes considered more favorably under fair use, this is not a guaranteed win.

• Commercial Impact: The argument ignores the potential for these revivals to be commercialized later, even if they start as non-commercial projects.
• Google v. Oracle: The Google case is not a precedent for allowing commercial infringement. It dealt with a very specific situation involving API interfaces and the nature of software licensing.

4. Importance of the Copied Material:

The argument downplays the significance of the copied material, claiming it is not at the core of Roblox's functionality. This is incorrect:

• Essential Elements: The leaked binaries likely contain core elements like game engines, physics systems, and user interfaces, all vital to Roblox's platform.
• Future Is Bright: The claim that the 2021E client is the complete product of the "Future Is Bright" binary from Roblox further highlights the importance of the copied material.

5. Breach of Contract:

The argument claims that reliance on a breach of contract will prevent copyright claims. This is a misinterpretation of the law:

• Copyright Infringement is Independent: Copyright infringement is a separate issue from contract breaches. Violating a contract does not automatically excuse copyright infringement.
• Enforcement: Roblox is likely to pursue copyright claims regardless of contract breaches, especially given the commercial implications of the "revivals."

Conclusion:

The "fair use" argument for these revivals is weak and ignores key legal principles and case law. These actions are more likely to be deemed copyright infringement, facing potential legal consequences.

** Notice #2**
I am not a lawyer, Stan is not a lawyer. Stan is not a lawyer. Stan is fed.