Watson, Zizzo and Fleming (2015)

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

Watson, Zizzo and Fleming (2015)
Title: Determinants of Unlawful File Sharing: A Scoping Review
Author(s): Watson, S.J., Zizzo, D. J., Fleming, P.
Year: 2015
Citation: Watson SJ, Zizzo DJ, Fleming P (2015) Determinants of Unlawful File Sharing: A Scoping Review. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0127921. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127921
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by: Fleming, Parravano and Zizzo (2016), Watson, Zizzo and Fleming (2016)
About the Data
Data Description: These results come from a scoping review on the determinants and implications of UFS of digital media consumed for entertainment, initially defined as music, film, television, electronic games, books and pornography. Our search strategy maximised the breadth of literature regarding UFS from English language academic and grey literature. “Grey literature” refers to any research not published in academic journals. For example government or industry reports, as well as academic research that has not been published.Keywords were developed that combined a range of methods of sharing with relevant types of content that could be shared.

Due to search string incompatibility a reduced search was performed in the Westlaw database. It was “(piracy OR file sharing) AND (music OR books OR video games OR film OR television OR pornography)”. To capture pre-publication articles, the database of working papers “Social Science Research Network” was searched for the past four full years (2009–2013) using the keywords “file sharing” and “piracy”. This database does not support Boolean operators and the two searches were run separately and manually combined. Searches were performed and articles extracted from the 20th to 27th of February 2013. One author (SJW) screened the titles of all identified articles. After excluding obviously irrelevant articles, two authors (SJW and PF) independently screened a random sample of 100 abstracts for inclusion. A large majority of the initially identified studies were excluded, this is common when searches are highly sensitive (12). Fig 1 summarizes the inclusion and exclusion process for all articles identified through electronic databases. Reasons for excluding 134 articles at full text review were, not being an empirical study (46), not being relevant (43), being a duplicate publication (37), only examining exchanges which included a financial transfer (7), and one study was excluded for being in a foreign language. This left 195 articles to be included in the review, though only 192 were useable. Three studies did not provide data that could be synthesized into any of the categories of our conceptual framework and so were not used further. They only compared UFS attitudes and behavior depending upon occupation (20), provided a typology of those that UFS but without presenting sufficient information for the individual factors that determined this typology to be extracted and combined with similar studies (21), or else provided insufficient description of the variables included in their model to permit accurate classification of included factors (22). One hundred and twenty-two reports were identified from the grey literature, of which 108 were excluded. The reasons for exclusion were not being empirical (48), not being relevant (43), being a duplicate publication of an already identified article (13), only examining exchanges of media which included a financial transfer (2), and being published in a foreign language (2). This included an additional 14 articles in the review. Therefore the final number of studies included in the review is 192 + 14 = 206.

Data Type: Primary and Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: Yes
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2013
Funder(s):
  • RCUK
  • Centre for Copyright and New Business Model in the Creative Economy (CREATe)
  • University of East Anglia

Abstract

We employ a scoping review methodology to consider and assess the existing evidence on the determinants of unlawful file sharing (UFS) transparently and systematically. Based on the evidence, we build a simple conceptual framework to model the psychological decision to engage in UFS, purchase legally or do nothing. We identify social, moral, experiential, technical, legal and financial utility sources of the decision to purchase or to file share. They interact in complex ways. We consider the strength of evidence within these areas and note patterns of results. There is good evidence for influences on UFS within each of the identified determinants, particularly for self-reported measures, with more behavioral research needed. There are also indications that the reasons for UFS differ across media; more studies exploring media other than music are required.

Main Results of the Study

We presented a conceptual framework that considers the decision of a consumer to engagein unlawful downloading, purchase a legal copy or do nothing, depending on the utilities obtained from five interacting sources: legal and financial, experiential, technical, social and moral utility. This framework enables us to represent the studies on the determinants of UFS along the three dimensions of a ‘cubic’ space, where the dimensions are the net utility source, the market medium and the outcome measure. We find a complex relationship between UFSand purchasing, limitations for legal influence, but alternative social, moral, technical and experiential avenues of influence for which more research would be useful, as would be for media other than music files, and particularly videogames, books, or TV content.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

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: 206
Level of aggregation: Studies
Period of material under study: 2013