Difference between revisions of "Collopy, Bastian, Drye, Koempel, Lewis, Jenner (2014)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
Line 5: Line 5:
 
|Title=Measuring Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
 
|Title=Measuring Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
 
|Year=2014
 
|Year=2014
|Full Citation=Measuring Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights. / Collopy, Dennis; Bastian, Vanessa ; Drye, Tim; Koempel, Florian; Lewis, David ; Jenner, Peter. IPO, 2014. 127 p. Commissioned report
+
|Full Citation=Collopy, D., Bastian, V., Drye, T., Koempel, F., Lewis, D., & Jenner, P. (2014). Measuring Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights.
 
|Abstract="The review is wide-ranging in scope and overall our findings evidence a lack of appreciation among those producing research for the high-level principles of measurement and assessment of scale. To date, the approaches adopted by industry seem more designed for internal consumption and are usually contingent on particular technologies and/or sector perspectives.
 
|Abstract="The review is wide-ranging in scope and overall our findings evidence a lack of appreciation among those producing research for the high-level principles of measurement and assessment of scale. To date, the approaches adopted by industry seem more designed for internal consumption and are usually contingent on particular technologies and/or sector perspectives.
 
Typically, there is a lack of transparency in the methodologies and data used to form the basis of claims, making much of this an unreliable basis for policy formulation.
 
Typically, there is a lack of transparency in the methodologies and data used to form the basis of claims, making much of this an unreliable basis for policy formulation.

Revision as of 12:27, 11 March 2016

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

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing Video game publishing 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

Collopy, Bastian, Drye, Koempel, Lewis, Jenner (2014)
Title: Measuring Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
Author(s): Dennis Collopy, Vanessa Bastian, Tim Drye, Florian Koempel, David Lewis, Peter Jenner
Year: 2014
Citation: Collopy, D., Bastian, V., Drye, T., Koempel, F., Lewis, D., & Jenner, P. (2014). Measuring Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights.
Link(s): Definitive,Definitive ,
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: 1. Literature review

1.1. Trade marks and offline copyright infringement (counterfeiting and piracy) (28 studies) 1.2. Online copyright infringement (23 studies) 1.3. Patent infringement (6 studies) 1.4. Design rights infringement (7 studies)

2. Trade Bodies’ Views on IPR Infringement Research 18 bodies, 11 documented meetings, 3 documented e-mail exchanges, 2 documented telephone phone calls (one individual, one conference), 1 documented Skype call.

3. Trade Bodies’ Questionnaire Responses (10 responses)

4. Research Experts’ Views on Online Measurement of IPR Infringement (7 views)

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?: Yes
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • Not stated. The study focuses, with a few exceptions, on the literature of the last decade.
Funder(s):
  • IPO

Abstract

"The review is wide-ranging in scope and overall our findings evidence a lack of appreciation among those producing research for the high-level principles of measurement and assessment of scale. To date, the approaches adopted by industry seem more designed for internal consumption and are usually contingent on particular technologies and/or sector perspectives. Typically, there is a lack of transparency in the methodologies and data used to form the basis of claims, making much of this an unreliable basis for policy formulation. The research approaches we found are characterised by a number of features that can be summarised as a preference for reactive approaches that look to establish snapshots of an important issue at the time of investigation. Most studies are ad hoc in nature and on the whole we found a lack of sustained longitudinal approaches that would develop the appreciation of change. Typically the studies are designed to address specific hypotheses that might serve to support the position of the particular commissioning body. To help bring some structure to this area, we propose a framework for the assessment of the volume of infringement in each different area. The underlying aim is to draw out a common approach wherever possible in each area, rather than being drawn initially to the differences in each field. We advocate on-going survey tracking of the attitudes, perceptions and, where practical, behaviours of both perpetrators and claimants in IP infringement. Clearly, the nature of perpetrators, claimants and enforcement differs within each IPR but in our view the assessment for each IPR should include all of these elements. It is important to clarify that the key element of the survey structure is the adoption of a survey sampling methodology and smaller volumes of representative participation. Once selection is given the appropriate priority, a traditional offline survey will have a part to play, but as the opportunity arises, new technological methodologies, particularly for the voluntary monitoring of online behaviour, can add additional detail to the overall assessment of the scale of activity. This framework can be applied within each of the IP right sectors: copyright, trademarks,patents, and design rights. It may well be that the costs involved with this common approach could be mitigated by a syndicated approach to the survey elements. Indeed, a syndicated approach has a number of advantages in addition to cost. It could be designed to reduce any tendency either to hide inappropriate/illegal activity or alternatively exaggerate its volume to fit with the theme of the survey. It also has the scope to allow for monthly assessments of attitudes rather than being vulnerable to unmeasured seasonal impacts."

Main Results of the Study

- Lack of appreciation among those producing research for the high-level principles of measurement and assessment of scale

- Lack of transparency in the methodologies and data used to form the basis of claims, making much of this an unreliable basis for policy formulation

- The research approaches found are characterised by a preference for reactive approaches that look to establish snapshots of an important issue at the time of investigation

- Most studies are ad hoc in nature and there is a lack of sustained longitudinal approaches that would develop the appreciation of change

- Online copyright infringement is particularly focused on consumers, whereas patents and design rights are very much about relationships between businesses. Trademarks are of interest across a broader range of sectors, especially those that provide consumer-based products and services.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

[[Has intervention-response::- "[W]e propose a framework for the assessment of the volume of infringement in each different area. The underlying aim is to draw out a common approach wherever possible in each area, rather than being drawn initially to the differences in each field." - "We advocate on-going survey tracking of the attitudes, perceptions and, where practical, behaviours of both perpetrators and claimants in IP infringement [...] the key element of the survey structure is the adoption of a survey sampling methodology and smaller volumes of representative participation. Once selection is given the appropriate priority, a traditional offline survey will have a part to play, but as the opportunity arises, new technological methodologies, particularly for the voluntary monitoring of online behaviour, can add additional detail to the overall assessment of the scale of activity." - "It may well be that the costs involved with this common approach could be mitigated by a syndicated approach to the survey elements. Indeed, a syndicated approach has a number of advantages in addition to cost. It could be designed to reduce any tendency either to hide inappropriate/illegal activity or alternatively exaggerate its volume to fit with the theme of the survey. It also has the scope to allow for monthly assessments of attitudes rather than being vulnerable to unmeasured seasonal impacts."

- "each type of IP right infringement could be implemented as follows: – Online copyright infringement should be assessed by the blended combination of the number of ‘take-down’ notices, omnibus research of the level of compliant and infringed activity by consumers, and a survey of organisations regarding their evidence of infringement notifications prior to enforcement and their assessment of criteria for a challenge. The use of emerging technological tools to measure observable online behaviour should be added to the blend of approaches to provide a more accurate picture. – Offline copyright ‘piracy’ and counterfeiting (i.e. trademark infringement) should include a multi-tiered but blended approach encompassing data from industry, government and consumers. This could take the form of counting industry and Customs ‘seizures’ along with consumer, producer, distributor and retailer surveys, and mystery shopping. – Estimates of patent infringement levels are distorted by the effects of patent assertion entity activities and widespread aversion to the high costs of litigation amongst most stakeholders in the market. Levels of actual infringement are best assessed by a combination of surveys of inventors and practitioners, together with quantitative data on the number of court cases. The latter at best represent the ‘tip of the iceberg’ and certainly cannot represent the full range of infringements taking place. – Assessing levels of design right infringement are less well developed but could follow similar approaches to those for patent infringement, including capturing infringement data from designers. There is potential overlap on industrial designs and patents where a syndicated approach to measuring infringement of both elements could be a way forward. We note the suggested use of Customs data for assessing levels of infringing goods internationally and also the possibility for capturing some industry data from exhibitions and trade fairs."

- "Future research into the measurement of IPR infringement should be framed around the following essential criteria: i. Research Funding It is of utmost importance that any research provides full disclosure on who commissioned the research. ii. Validity To improve the general validity of the input data on the level of infringement research should be carried out by trusted third parties who are independent of vested interests. iii. Comparability/benchmarking In order to assess the level of counterfeiting and piracy to justify policy, it is key to apply transparent and comparable methodologies to enable benchmarking. Benchmarking might also provide a solution to the difficulties of establishing comprehensive input data, if it is based on transparent and comparable parameters of studies using a robust snapshot with the same methodologies. iv. Standards The team recommends a minimum set of standards to improve the quantitative and qualitative methods used by industry. Overall, any quantitative methodology must be designed to ensure validity and reliability by allowing for replicability. New quantitative surveys should be piloted, and care must be taken to ensure sample sizes involved are large enough to provide a valid representative sample. Greater care also needs to be taken with constructing appropriate qualitative surveys by the use of ‘hermeneutics’.  v. Repetition Any recommended methodology must include a repetitive aspect. It is only by conducting a sequence of on-going evaluations of the statistics that it becomes possible to provide a robust and pragmatic assessment of the three core statistical characteristics of random uncertainty, likely bias and statistical independence. Any resilient statistical process should consist of repetitive, consistent and systematic elements that pragmatically illuminate the degree to which a procedure maintains statistical independence, minimises procedural bias and controls random variation within a credible range"]]



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