Ingram and Hinduja (2008)

From Copyright EVIDENCE

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Ingram and Hinduja (2008)
Title: Neutralizing music piracy: an empirical examination
Author(s): Ingram, J. R., Hinduja, S.
Year: 2008
Citation: Ingram, J. R., & Hinduja, S. (2008). Neutralizing music piracy: An empirical examination. Deviant Behavior, 29(4), 334-366.
Link(s): Definitive
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by: Hinduja and Higgins (2011), Hinduja and Ingram (2009), Sheehan, Tsao and Pokrywczynski (2012), Siponen, Vance and Willison (2012)
About the Data
Data Description: Dataset consists of questionnaires answered by a large and heterogeneous group of 2032 undergraduate students in 2003 at a large public Midwestern university.
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2003
Funder(s):
  • None

Abstract

The current study sought to test the viability of employing Sykes and Matza’s (1957) techniques of neutralization as a framework for understanding online music piracy. Using data from a sample of 2,032 undergraduates from a large Midwestern university, the relevance of neutralization theory is tested via multinomial logistic regression while controlling for other theoretical predictors and demographic variables. The findings indicated that greater acceptance of the techniques associated with denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, and appeal to higher loyalties significantly predicted moderate levels of piracy participation. Furthermore, the effect of appeals to higher loyalty on piracy was found to be conditioned by the respondent’s approval of the behavior. Overall, results suggested that university settings may unwittingly facilitate a climate for online piracy whereby students place a higher value on group norms rather than legal norms and do not consider the harms associated with the behavior.

Main Results of the Study

This article aims at assessing neutralization theory’s applicability to online music piracy to determine its empirical validity. It seeks to test the relevance of neutralization techniques to music pirating behavior and examines the proposed nonlinear relationship between acceptance of the techniques and the level of participation in music piracy. It shows that:

  • The neutralization techniques were weakly related to piracy, with greater acceptance of the techniques being associated with higher participation levels.
  • The relationship between this specific neutralization and music piracy appears to be conditioned by students’ beliefs regarding unauthorized downloading.
  • Students who disapproved of unauthorized music downloading were significantly more likely to be influenced by the neutralization measure of higher loyalty.
  • Disapproving students with low levels of involvement in music piracy were also significantly more likely to invoke the technique of condemnation compared to those in the no participation category.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

- Neutralization theory can be a useful framework for understanding online piracy and bear important policy and theoretical implications for efforts to address this behavior, especially within university settings.

- Universities should develop strategies to demonstrate the tangible harm that is caused by music piracy, and that can reach a wide student audience.

- Academic institutions may need to take a greater role in addressing the potentiality and actuality of the phenomenon through macro-level practice or policy.



Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Green-tick.png
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)
Green-tick.png

Datasets

Sample size: 2032
Level of aggregation: University students
Period of material under study: 2003