Difference between revisions of "Kantar Media (2015)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
 
Line 47: Line 47:
 
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods
 
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods
 
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods
 
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods
|Industry=Sound recording and music publishing; Television programmes; Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing; Software publishing (including video games); Computer programming; Film and motion pictures;
+
|Industry=Sound recording and music publishing; Television programmes; Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing; Software publishing (including video games); Film and motion pictures;
 
|Country=United Kingdom;
 
|Country=United Kingdom;
 
|Cross-country=No
 
|Cross-country=No

Latest revision as of 20:58, 16 December 2016

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

Kantar Media (2015)
Title: Online Copyright Infringement Tracker Wave 5 (Covering period Mar 15 – May 15). Overview and key findings
Author(s): Kantar
Year: 2015
Citation: Kantar Media (2015). Online Copyright Infringement Tracker Wave 5 (Covering period Mar 15 – May 15). Overview and key findings.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description:
  • The behaviour of 4552 Internet users aged 12+ in the UK has been analyzed; the respondents were surveyed during the period of March to May 2015 and asked about their behaviour during “the past three months”.
  • The research universe for this study was all aged 12+ in the UK. Although some elements of the survey cover those without internet access, so as to provide a nationally representative frame, the core focus of the study (and thus the majority of questions) was the UK online population aged 12+.
  • A mixed online and face-to-face methodology was employed for this project, following the guidelines established in response to the illegal le-sharing pilot study19 in 2010. The original design recommended by Kantar Media was subsequently approved via peer review, albeit with several amendments.
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:
  • 2015
Funder(s):
  • Intellectual Property Office

Abstract

This report details the main findings of the fifth wave of a large-scale consumer tracking study into the extent of online copyright infringement, as well as wider digital behaviours and attitudes, among people aged 12+ in the UK. The study was commissioned and financially supported by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO). It is the fifth in a series of research waves intended to generate benchmarks and time series relevant to the access and use of copyright material online. It also outlines the background to the research and a detailed description of the methodology employed.

Main Results of the Study

  • Sixty-two per cent of UK internet users aged 12+ consumed at least one item of online content (legally or illegally) over the three-month period March-May 2015. Forty-two per cent had downloaded content, and 57% had streamed or accessed content. The streaming activity has grown significantly from previous waves. This is the highest level of streaming or accessing content online we have seen to date.
  • Consumption varied across content types; music (35%) and TV programmes (34%) had the highest levels either downloaded or streamed online in the past three months, followed by films (22%), books (12%), computer software (12%) and video games (12%). The overall consumption level has risen from the previous wave, mainly driven by the growth in the film category.
  • Over half (56%) of those who consumed any type of content during the past three months, paid for at least some of it. This remains stable, with no change in paid and free consumption of content from the past wave (W4).
  • Just over a quarter (27%) of 12+ UK internet users accessed content entirely for free, this proportion has increased slightly from Wave 4 (25%) but not significantly.
  • These increases reflect slightly higher consumption levels during W5 compared to W4, and a stable proportion of 12+ UK internet users consuming a mix of paid and free content (23% in W4 and 24% in W5).
  • In terms of those who accessed individual content types, there was a small but significant decrease in the proportion who watched online TV programmes for free from 93% during W4, to 87% in W5. This is driven by an increase in those who paid for all content from 7% in wave 4 to 15% in wave 5.
  • 18% (equating to approximately 7.8 million) of UK internet users aged 12+ consumed at least one item of online content illegally over the three-month period March-May 2015. And 6% of the 12+ UK internet users have exclusively consumed illegal content. There have been no significant changes in this proportion since W4.
  • Levels of infringement varied significantly by content type; 9% consumed at least some music illegally over the three-month period, while 7% did so for TV programmes and 6% for films. For computer software, video games and ebooks these figures were 2%, 2% and 1%, respectively.
  • If instead of looking at ‘all internet users aged 12+’ we use a base of ‘all internet users who consumed content online over the three-month period’, we found that 31% consumed at least one item illegally. Furthermore, 25% of those who consumed film, and 26% of those who consumed music, did so illegally, while the lowest incidence of illegal consumption was among online book consumers (10%).
  • The proportion of all internet users aged 12+ who consumed content exclusively legally has decreased slightly for this wave from W4 from 40% in W4 to 39% in W5


Policy Implications as Stated By Author

  • The top three factors that infringers said would encourage them to stop included the availability of cheaper legal services (25%), if everything they wanted was available legally (21%), and if it was clearer what is legal and what is not (21%). All factors were mentioned by a higher proportion of those who consumed a mix of legal and illegal content than by those who consumed content exclusively illegally. Only 14% of those who consumed illegal content exclusively stated that nothing would encourage them to stop.
  • Fifteen per cent of infringers indicated that they would be put off ‘if my ISP sent me a letter saying they would suspend my internet access’, falling to 11% for ‘if my ISP sent me a letter informing me my account had been used to infringe’, and 10% for ‘if my ISP sent me a letter saying they would restrict my internet speed’.



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: 4552
Level of aggregation: Internet user
Period of material under study: 2015