Kartas and Goode (2012)

From Copyright Evidence
Jump to: navigation, search

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.
  • You do not have permission to edit pages in the Page namespace.

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

Kartas and Goode (2012)
Title: Use, perceived deterrence and the role of software piracy in video game console adoption
Author(s): Anastasiou Kartas, Sigi Goode
Year: 2012
Citation: Kartas, A and Goode, S (2012) Use, perceived deterrence and the role of software piracy in video game console adoption. Information Systems Frontiers, Volume 14(2), pp 261 - 277
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: Initially, the authors conducted four focus groups consisting of five people each, with two groups being adopters of video games consoles and the remaining two as non-adopters. Having identified relevant themes through these focus groups, the authors then followed with a survey questionnaire (resulting in 306 respondents). In both the focus groups and survey respondents, participants were disproportionately in a young age group (under 25), with roughly equal gender splits.

A model framework based on rational choice theory was then applied to study the motivation of participants in undertaking software piracy (largely based on attitudinal factors and cost/benefit analysis). The relevant hypothesis reads: “adopters with greater usage intensity have different perceptions of deterrence to non-adopters”.

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:
Funder(s):

Abstract

“This paper is an exploratory study into the role of software piracy in the decision to adopt a video game console. The paper takes a rational choice perspective, where actors evaluate the deterrent cost of moral transgression before acting, to explore how users with different levels of video game usage intensity approach the adoption decision, on the grounds that more experienced users can better assess the costs and benefits of moral transgression. The study used focus groups and a literature review to develop a set of factors based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. The resulting factors were operationalized in an online survey of 285 subjects of a variety of ages and incomes. The ability to pirate console software was significant for adopters but not non-adopters. Perceived deterrence was associated with greater system use, as measured by hours of console use per week.”

Main Results of the Study

A correlation is evident between the adoption of video games consoles and the capacity of that console to run pirated software. This suggests that the desire to run pirated software is a potential driver of adoption choices, rather than simply a product of its use post-purchase.

Nonetheless, the influence of communal value, family and friends may potentially be more significant in determining piracy behaviours in the games console context. Anecdotal evidence supplied in the survey results of this study suggests that friends, family, and social networks (e.g. networks dedicated to the supply of pirated software) may be more readily influencial in dictating "controls" to the consumer. The authors therefore suggest that piracy behaviour is learned, and less an “endemic” behaviour.

Deterrence systems built into consoles (e.g. DRMs) may also influence consumer choice in adopting a console; the more restrictive, the less likely they will be selected (particularly if the restrictions impact use of legitimately acquired content). The perceived high costs of transgression of these deterrence systems is correlated with intensity of use of a system (e.g. high hours of use per week) suggesting that those who use consoles less are least likely to jump through the “loopholes” required to pirate software.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The study does not make any explicit policy recommendations, and instead provides some suggestions for video game console vendors as to how to limit software piracy behaviour. Firstly, given the correlation between attitudes of family and friends, marketing strategies may focus on branding consoles to a “family unit”. Secondly, differences between deterrence mechanisms and high/low-intensity users suggests alternative anti-piracy methods may be required for each group.



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