Napster argued that the First Amendment protected its actions. The appellants in that case argued that the First Amendment rendered aspects of the Act unconstitutional. This obviates further inquiry under the First Amendment . True to this long line of authority, the injunction issued in this case protects DVD CCA's intellectual property and the Studios copyrighted movies from theft and unauthorized use, thereby encouraging the development and proliferation of new ideas and new forms of expression. It does not enjoin the defendants from developing their own encryption or decryption technology.
Defendants are free to study, discuss, debate and experiment with cryptography.
Any ruling to the contrary would stifle expression by denying to intellectual property owners the rewards of their work. The First Amendment never has been and cannot now be used as a license for the unauthorized use, sale or distribution of others' intellectual property. The advent of the Internet, and the ability for rapid and widespread distribution of information that has come with it, cannot be used as an excuse for wholesale theft and misappropriation. Rather, such technological innovations make all the more essential the preservation of this nation's intellectual property protections.