Difference between revisions of "Djekic and Loebbecke (2005)"
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Authentic Link=http://www.mtm.uni-koeln.de/team-loebbecke-publications-conf-proceedings/Conf-085-2005-Software%20Piracy%20Prevention%20through%20Digital%20Rights%20Management%20Systems.pdf | |Authentic Link=http://www.mtm.uni-koeln.de/team-loebbecke-publications-conf-proceedings/Conf-085-2005-Software%20Piracy%20Prevention%20through%20Digital%20Rights%20Management%20Systems.pdf | ||
|Link=http://www.mtm.uni-koeln.de/team-loebbecke-publications-conf-proceedings/Conf-085-2005-Software%20Piracy%20Prevention%20through%20Digital%20Rights%20Management%20Systems.pdf | |Link=http://www.mtm.uni-koeln.de/team-loebbecke-publications-conf-proceedings/Conf-085-2005-Software%20Piracy%20Prevention%20through%20Digital%20Rights%20Management%20Systems.pdf | ||
+ | |Reference=Chiou, Cheng and Huang (2011); Gopal, Bhattacharjee and Sanders (2006); | ||
+ | |Plain Text Proposition=No token based copyright protection system prevented piracy. | ||
+ | |FundamentalIssue=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)?, 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media), | ||
+ | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing), F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness), | ||
+ | |Intervention-Response=Software publishers should continue to distribute via the internet without using physical tokens which are ineffective at preventing piracy. | ||
|Description of Data=219 questionnaires were filled in by respondents | |Description of Data=219 questionnaires were filled in by respondents | ||
|Data Year=2005 | |Data Year=2005 | ||
− | |Data Type=Primary data | + | |Data Type=Primary and Secondary data |
+ | |Data Source=Business Software Alliance; | ||
|Method of Collection=Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting), Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences) | |Method of Collection=Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting), Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences) | ||
|Method of Analysis=Correlation and Association, Textual Content Analysis | |Method of Analysis=Correlation and Association, Textual Content Analysis | ||
− | |Industry=Software publishing (including video games); | + | |Industry=Software publishing (including video games); |
+ | |Country=Germany; | ||
|Cross-country=No | |Cross-country=No | ||
|Comparative=No | |Comparative=No | ||
Line 20: | Line 27: | ||
|Literature review=No | |Literature review=No | ||
}} | }} | ||
− | |Dataset= | + | |Dataset={{Dataset |
+ | |Sample Size=219 | ||
+ | |Level of Aggregation=Individual, | ||
+ | |Data Material Year=2005 | ||
+ | }} | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 18:38, 4 December 2016
Contents
Source Details
Djekic and Loebbecke (2005) | |
Title: | Software piracy prevention through digital rights management systems |
Author(s): | Djekic, P., Loebbecke, C. |
Year: | 2005 |
Citation: | DJEKIC, P. and LOEBBECKE, C. 2005. Software piracy prevention through digital rights management systems. In: MULLER, G. and LIN, K. J. (eds.) CEC 2005: Seventh IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology, Proceedings. Munich, Germany. |
Link(s): | Definitive , Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | 219 questionnaires were filled in by respondents |
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?: | No |
Government or policy study?: | No |
Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
Funder(s): |
Abstract
Software publishers use Digital Rights Management, specifically copy-protection techniques, to prevent unauthorized and illegal copying of their software products. Common forms of prevention are copy-protection techniques based on physical tokens. While physical tokens provide better protection from unauthorized copying than intangible ones, the protected digital content becomes unsuitable for online distribution. This paper investigates the role of copy-protection techniques based on physical and intangible tokens in software piracy prevention. An internationally organized online survey among users of sequencer software, a particular kind of music software, provides the data for the subsequent descriptive analysis and logistic regression. Based on our findings, we present the general implications of our results for a software publisher's anti-piracy and online distribution policy.
Main Results of the Study
No token based copyright protection system prevented piracy.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
Software publishers should continue to distribute via the internet without using physical tokens which are ineffective at preventing piracy.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
Sample size: | 219 |
Level of aggregation: | Individual |
Period of material under study: | 2005 |