Difference between revisions of "Larsson et al. (2014)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
Line 32: Line 32:
 
|Government or policy=No
 
|Government or policy=No
 
|Literature review=No
 
|Literature review=No
 +
|Funded By=Not stated;
 
}}
 
}}
 
|Dataset={{Dataset
 
|Dataset={{Dataset

Revision as of 09:28, 23 August 2015

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

Larsson et al. (2014)
Title: The Digital Intellectual Property Challenge Revisited: File-sharing and Copyright Development in Hungary
Author(s): Larsson, S., Svensson, M., Mezei, P., De Kaminski, M.
Year: 2014
Citation: Larsson, S., Svensson, M., Mezei, P., & De Kaminski, M. (2014). The Digital Intellectual Property Challenge Revisited: File-sharing and Copyright Development in Hungary.
Link(s): Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: 568 Hungarian respondents , compared with a large scale, near global population of over 96,000 respondents.
Data Type: Primary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: Yes
Comparative Study?: Yes
Literature review?: No
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
Funder(s):
  • Not stated

Abstract

The challenge that illegal file-sharing poses to legal criminalisation is addressed in this study. Nonetheless, the pretexts and reasons for the specific character of file-sharing behaviour and norms in a community likely, to various degrees, correlate with the specifics in the legal regulation relating to a particular jurisdiction. Therefore, we argue for the importance of empirically studying both the legal development and the file-sharing practices existing in parallel to the legal development within the domain’s specific jurisdiction. This study will elaborate quite extensively on the contemporary development and the status of copyright in Hungary. This is followed by a sample of Hungarian respondents to a survey on file-sharing, which is then compared with a large set of global respondents in order to determine the specific character of the former sample — if such character is found.

Main Results of the Study

Survey explores three questions: 1. In terms of demographics, who are the typical Hungarian file-sharers? 2. To what extent do Hungarian file-sharers diverge from others? 3. What is the character of Hungarian IP regulation in relation to international treaties and trade agreements, enforcement, the role of the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and its contemporary development in general?

  • Hungary stands out in the higher degree of use of other or private BitTorrent trackers which could be due to the weaker online law enforcement and the stronger fight against bootleg copies.
  • Due to their particular language, Hungarians are more motivated to set up and run their own darknet sites where copyrighted contents, mainly movies and TV-shows, are available in original releases along with translations.
  • The key motivation for file-sharers in Hungary seems to be the sites’ cost-free nature. If the price is high Hungarians most likely will not switch to subscription services or purchase works in hard copies.
  • File-sharing, therefore, seems to represent resistance to the pricing models of works rather than any expression of political opinion or ideology. None of these reasons has any relation to the emerging “pirate thinking” of file-sharers in Sweden or Germany

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

Companies should lower costs of legal alternatives in order to entice new customers.

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)
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)

Datasets

Sample size: 568
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study:


Sample size: 96000
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: