Technologies which assist in copyright violation exist in realms outside of cyberspace. Photocopiers and dual-tape decks (which facilitate the easy dubbing of cassettes) are just a few examples of such types of technologies.

Since technology-related copyright violation is not a new problem, it seems to make sense to adopt the same philosophy toward the cyberspace-inspired technologies as has been adopted towards their predecessors. With the exception of those technologies which we have explicitly noted as being actually and inherently illegal, our research has led us to resolve that, although these technologies occasionally facilitate illegal behavior, they are best left unregulated and unconstrained.

There are four major reasons we advocate this philosophy:

• First, technologies like MP3's and emulators have practical, legal purposes. The technologies in and of themselves are not illegal - only the activities that a select group of individuals choose to use them for are. As such, it seems illogical to remove useful tools from the hands of many due to deeds of few.

• Secondly, banning or restricting the use of such technologies potentially hinders the creative and innovative process through which more technologies are borne. Taking steps to restrict these technologies could have the potential undesired side effect of slowing progress.

• Our third argument against constraining or restricting these technologies is that a spectrum exists among the technologies, and it becomes difficult to draw a distinction about what should be monitored, constrained, or restricted and what should not. On the one hand, we have technologies like those assisting in reverse engineering that are used largely to violate copyrights. On the other hand, we have technologies like cd-burners, which clearly have valid purposes aside from the illegal and do more good than harm. We also have a spectrum existing in between them. To decide that one technology is bad or "restrict-able" based on the percentage of users that use it for illegal activities seems arbitrary. This is particularly the case when you factor in that many of these illegal uses evolve or are in their very nature "trendy". In other words, technologies that today do not support illegal behaviors may be used rampantly for illegal purposes tomorrow. Some of these illegal uses might become widespread overnight (as in the case for MP3's); others may remain less prominent for years (like CD-burners). Hence, the problem of finding an absolute way to create a distinction becomes a significant one.

• Finally, we have to object to regulation based on the very principle which inspired us to entitle our project "Should we shoot the messenger?" This question conjures up the image of the wrong person taking the blame, i.e. the one who brought the news rather than the one who caused the problem. We would contend that trying to restrict these technologies or holding the people who produce them legally liable for the illegal acts committed with them places the blame in the wrong arena. When you get a speeding ticket, we do not hold the car manufacturer responsible. If you use a gun to hold up a bank, we do not blame the people who made the gun. If you use a photocopier to make a copy of a course reader, we do not charge Xerox with a crime. Clearly in these cases, the individual users of the technology have free will and should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. The same principle applies here.

Although the manufacturers of technology should not be held responsible for the crimes committed with their technology, we cannot escape the fact that crimes are occurring and that there are grieved parties (namely those whose copyrights are being abused) who have a reasonable expectation that the government enforce the laws put in place to protect them. The problems with enforcement are two-fold. First, tracking copyright violations is difficult. How can the government or any other regulatory agent detect and punish copyright violations? Right now, copyright violations are only enforced when the infractions are egregious. The chances of the cocky guy down the hall getting caught and charged for the copyright violations he committed when creating his 1000+ MP3 collection are relatively slim. It simply too difficult to micro-manage copyright violations.

The other problem with enforcement is that our society glamorizes, or in the very least disregards, copyright violations. If you make a tape mixing together your favorite songs, no one thinks twice. If you avoid the cost of buying a book by photocopying the few relevant pages, you are applauded for being so resourceful. It is this societal attitude that promotes the type of technology-assisted copyright infringement that our project concerns. Until that societal opinion is altered, we will continue to see these types of small-scale crimes committed a rampant basis.

In the face of the information age, when copies of knowledge may very well be our most valuable commodity, the severity with which copyright violations are addressed will become undoubtedly become a major issue for legislators and the courts. In the future, a way of detecting copyright infringements and applying penalties that make people take the crime more seriously will need to be found.