Difference between revisions of "Collopy, Bastian, Drye, Koempel, Lewis, Jenner (2014)"
From Copyright EVIDENCE
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Source={{Source | |Source={{Source | ||
|Name of Study=Collopy, Bastian, Drye, Koempel, Lewis and Jenner (2014) | |Name of Study=Collopy, Bastian, Drye, Koempel, Lewis and Jenner (2014) | ||
| − | |Author= | + | |Author=Collopy, D.; Bastian, V.; Drye, T.; Koempel, F.; Lewis, D.; Jenner, P. |
|Title=Measuring Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights | |Title=Measuring Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights | ||
|Year=2014 | |Year=2014 | ||
|Full Citation=Collopy, D., Bastian, V., Drye, T., Koempel, F., Lewis, D., & Jenner, P. (2014). Measuring Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights. | |Full Citation=Collopy, D., Bastian, V., Drye, T., Koempel, F., Lewis, D., & Jenner, P. (2014). Measuring Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights. | ||
| − | |Abstract= | + | |Abstract=This wide-ranging review evidences 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. | ||
| − | The research approaches | + | The research approaches 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, | + | To help bring some structure to this area, the paper proposes 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. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Authentic Link=http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/13916/IP_Measuring_Infringement.pdf;jsessionid=A1B55A8258EA96F5B35B14DEBE1AFE71?sequence=2 | |Authentic Link=http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/13916/IP_Measuring_Infringement.pdf;jsessionid=A1B55A8258EA96F5B35B14DEBE1AFE71?sequence=2 | ||
| + | |Link=http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/13916/IP_Measuring_Infringement.pdf;jsessionid=A1B55A8258EA96F5B35B14DEBE1AFE71?sequence=2 | ||
|Reference=Ofcom. (2012); Bahanovich and Collopy (2009); OECD (2008); CEBR (2000); | |Reference=Ofcom. (2012); Bahanovich and Collopy (2009); OECD (2008); CEBR (2000); | ||
| − | |Plain Text Proposition=- | + | |Plain Text Proposition=- There is a lack of appreciation among those producing research for the high-level principles of measurement and assessment of scale |
| − | + | - There is a lack of transparency in the methodologies and data used to form the basis of claims, thus constituting 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 | - 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 | - 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. | - 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. | ||
|FundamentalIssue=5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media), | |FundamentalIssue=5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media), | ||
|EvidenceBasedPolicy=F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness), | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness), | ||
| − | |Discipline=B4: Economic Methodology, K: Law and Economics | + | |Discipline=B4: Economic Methodology, K: Law and Economics, K42: Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital |
| − | |Intervention-Response=- | + | |Intervention-Response=- The authors 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. |
| − | - | + | - The authors 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. |
| − | - | + | - 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. |
| − | + | |Description of Data=In the literature review, 28 studies regard trade marks and offline copyright infringement, 23 studies concerc online copyright infringement, 6 studies are about patent infringement, and 7 studies regard design rights infringement. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |Description of Data= | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | The researcher has sought 18 trade bodies’ views on IPR Infringement Research | |
| − | |||
| − | + | 10 responses to a questionnaire have submitted by the trade bodies’ | |
| − | + | 7 Research Experts’ Views on Online Measurement of IPR Infringement have been sought | |
|Data Year=Not stated. The study focuses, with a few exceptions, on the literature of the last decade. | |Data Year=Not stated. The study focuses, with a few exceptions, on the literature of the last decade. | ||
|Data Type=Primary and Secondary data | |Data Type=Primary and Secondary data | ||
| + | |Data Source=Literature review; | ||
|Method of Collection=Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting), Unstructured Interview, Structured Interview | |Method of Collection=Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting), Unstructured Interview, Structured Interview | ||
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative content analysis (e.g. text or data mining), Discourse Analysis | |Method of Analysis=Quantitative content analysis (e.g. text or data mining), Discourse Analysis | ||
| Line 108: | Line 44: | ||
|Funded By=IPO; | |Funded By=IPO; | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | |Dataset= | + | |Dataset={{Dataset}} |
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 10:26, 22 March 2016
Contents
Source Details
| Collopy, Bastian, Drye, Koempel, Lewis and Jenner (2014) | |
| Title: | Measuring Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights |
| Author(s): | Collopy, D., Bastian, V., Drye, T., Koempel, F., Lewis, D., Jenner, P. |
| 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 , Open Access,Open Access |
| Key Related Studies: | |
| Discipline: | |
| Linked by: | |
| About the Data | |
| Data Description: | In the literature review, 28 studies regard trade marks and offline copyright infringement, 23 studies concerc online copyright infringement, 6 studies are about patent infringement, and 7 studies regard design rights infringement.
The researcher has sought 18 trade bodies’ views on IPR Infringement Research 10 responses to a questionnaire have submitted by the trade bodies’ 7 Research Experts’ Views on Online Measurement of IPR Infringement have been sought |
| 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: |
|
| Funder(s): |
|
Abstract
This wide-ranging review evidences 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 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, the paper proposes 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.
Main Results of the Study
- There is a lack of appreciation among those producing research for the high-level principles of measurement and assessment of scale - There is a lack of transparency in the methodologies and data used to form the basis of claims, thus constituting 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
- The authors 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. - The authors 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. - 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.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
| Sample size: | |
| Level of aggregation: | |
| Period of material under study: |
