First Amendment is unnecessary. The government offers two argu- merits: 1) the statute bans the sale of technology and the sale of technology is not “speech”; and 2) the AEBPR, in object code form, is not speech protected by the First Amendment. Neither argument is persuasive. First, the government erroneously contends that the DMCA does not implicate the First Amendment because defendant’s sale of circumvention technology is not speech. While selling is the act giving rise to potential criminal liability under Section 1201(b), the DMCA bans trafficking in the AEBPR, software which at some level contains expression, thus implicating the First Amendment. As noted by defendant in reply, the government could not ban the sale of . U.S. Dep’t of State, 922 F.Supp. 1426, 1436 (N.D.Cal.1996) (<HOLDING>). As the Reimerdes court explained: It cannot
holding that the challenge to the sign code is moot because the original code was repealed and superseded and there was no reasonable likelihood the city would reenact the old code recognizing that source code is speech but not reaching the object code issue recognizing that object code may be copyrighted as expression under 17 usc  102b recognizing that code is speech holding that criminal defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution under the oregon vehicle code