This case was brought to raise questions about the legality and constitutionality of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The argument is that "the DMCA's anti-device provisions are not a valid exercise of any of Congress' enumerated powers," and that they also "violate limits on the scope of copyright protection required by the First Amendment." The first part says that the Intellectual Property Clause does not give the authorization that anti-device provisions give, which allow technology to be banned regardless of how the device is actually used. The second argument is that in the anti-device provisions, Congress overstepped the authority given by both the Intellectual Property Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause, and upset the balance created by the Intellectual Property Clause, resulting in the monopolies that the framer sought to avoid. The third argument is that the Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to override other constitutional constraints. The fourth argument is that anti-device provisions violate First Amendment Limits on the scale of copyright protection.

            I am researching why copyright holders in the case specifically of major record labels are willing to waive their copyright in certain situations such as MP3 blogs while choosing to exercise the copyright in similar situations such as peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. The case is relevant although it is not about blogs in that it provides an argument against a proposed end goal for copyright holders, the DMCA's anti-device provisions. The argument is that it upsets the balance intended between copyright and censorship and monopolies. Anti-device provisions would ban many devices even with commercially significant uses and would contradict fair use and First Amendment arguments, and would effectively end any possibility for use of technology such as MP3 blogs.