Difference between revisions of "Mandel, Fast and Olson (2015)"
From Copyright EVIDENCE
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MainSource | {{MainSource | ||
|Source={{Source | |Source={{Source | ||
| − | |Name of Study=Mandel ( | + | |Name of Study=Mandel, Fast and Olson (2015) |
| − | |Author=Mandel, G. N.; | + | |Author=Mandel, G. N.; Fast, A. A.; Olson, K.; |
| − | |Title= | + | |Title=Intellectual Property Law's Plagiarism Fallacy |
| − | |Year= | + | |Year=2015 |
| − | |Full Citation=Mandel, Gregory N., | + | |Full Citation=Mandel, Gregory N. and Fast, Anne A. and olson, kristina, Intellectual Property Law's Plagiarism Fallacy (May 12, 2015). Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2015-22. |
| − | |Abstract= | + | |Abstract=Intellectual property law is caught in a widespread debate over whether it should serve incentive or natural rights objectives, and what the best means for achieving those ends are. This article reports a series of experiments revealing that these debates are actually orthogonal to how most users and many creators understand intellectual property law. The most common perception of intellectual property among the American public is that intellectual property law is designed to prevent plagiarism. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | The plagiarism fallacy in intellectual property law is not an innocuous misperception. This fallacy likely helps explain pervasive illegal infringing activity on the Internet, common dismissal of copyright warnings, and other previously puzzling behavior. The received wisdom has been that the public is ethically dismissive or indifferent towards intellectual property rights. This research reveals instead that experts have failed to comprehend what the public’s conception of intellectual property law actually is. | |
| − | + | The studies reported here uncover several additional intellectual property law findings, including that: (1) the majority of the American public views intellectual property rights as too broad and too strong, (2) knowledge of intellectual property law does not affect opinions about what the law should be, and (3) there are significant demographic and cultural divides concerning intellectual property rights. The findings as a whole raise central questions concerning the public legitimacy of intellectual property law, and consequently its ability to function as intended. | |
| + | |Authentic Link=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2588658 | ||
| + | |Link=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2588658 | ||
| + | |Reference=Olson and Shaw (2011); Shaw and Olson (2014); Shaw, Li and Olson (2012); | ||
| + | |Plain Text Proposition=This survey presents an original series of experiments that reveal preventing plagiarism to be the leading perceived basis for intellectual property protection in the United States. It formulates a plagiarism fallacy theory through a series of three experiments concerning popular understandings and preferences for intellectual property rights. More specifically, it shows that: | ||
| − | * | + | * There is a dominant focus on moral and ethical concerns with copying, but not legal concerns. |
| − | * | + | * Preventing plagiarism is the most commonly selected objective, surpassing all traditionally identified objectives, including incentive, natural rights, and expressive alternatives. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | * Across a wide variety of subject matters and contexts, people tend to believe that simply providing proper attribution to the originator of a creative work or invention should enable the free copying of their work by others. | |
| − | |Description of Data= | + | |
| − | |Data Year= | + | * Americans have an extremely low level of knowledge about intellectual property law |
| + | |||
| + | * Knowledge of intellectual property law does not affect individual opinions about what the law should be. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * There are demographic and cultural divides concerning intellectual property law based upon peoples’ gender, age, income, and political identity. | ||
| + | |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), | ||
| + | |Discipline=O31: Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | ||
| + | |Intervention-Response=The study recommends research and measures aimed at aligning the public psychology of intellectual property with the reality of intellectual property law - if the widespread disconnect between these two elements continues, the intellectual property system will remain hard pressed to achieve its objectives. | ||
| + | |Description of Data=This survey uses three different datasets of individuals living in USA. Survey respondents were paid in order to complete the questionnaires. | ||
| + | |Data Year=2015 | ||
|Data Type=Primary data | |Data Type=Primary data | ||
|Method of Collection=Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting) | |Method of Collection=Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting) | ||
| − | |Method of Analysis= | + | |Method of Analysis=Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Correlation and Association |
| + | |Industry=Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing; Creative, arts and entertainment; Sound recording and music publishing; | ||
|Country=United States; | |Country=United States; | ||
|Cross-country=No | |Cross-country=No | ||
| Line 36: | Line 44: | ||
}} | }} | ||
|Dataset={{Dataset | |Dataset={{Dataset | ||
| − | |Sample Size= | + | |Sample Size=443 |
| + | |Level of Aggregation=Individual, | ||
| + | |Data Material Year=2015 | ||
| + | }}{{Dataset | ||
| + | |Sample Size=60 | ||
| + | |Level of Aggregation=Individual, | ||
| + | |Data Material Year=2015 | ||
| + | }}{{Dataset | ||
| + | |Sample Size=116 | ||
|Level of Aggregation=Individual, | |Level of Aggregation=Individual, | ||
| − | |Data Material Year= | + | |Data Material Year=2015 |
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 10:23, 4 March 2017
Contents
Source Details
| Mandel, Fast and Olson (2015) | |
| Title: | Intellectual Property Law's Plagiarism Fallacy |
| Author(s): | Mandel, G. N., Fast, A. A., Olson, K. |
| Year: | 2015 |
| Citation: | Mandel, Gregory N. and Fast, Anne A. and olson, kristina, Intellectual Property Law's Plagiarism Fallacy (May 12, 2015). Temple University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2015-22. |
| Link(s): | Definitive , Open Access |
| Key Related Studies: | |
| Discipline: | |
| Linked by: | |
| About the Data | |
| Data Description: | This survey uses three different datasets of individuals living in USA. Survey respondents were paid in order to complete the questionnaires. |
| Data Type: | Primary 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
Intellectual property law is caught in a widespread debate over whether it should serve incentive or natural rights objectives, and what the best means for achieving those ends are. This article reports a series of experiments revealing that these debates are actually orthogonal to how most users and many creators understand intellectual property law. The most common perception of intellectual property among the American public is that intellectual property law is designed to prevent plagiarism.
The plagiarism fallacy in intellectual property law is not an innocuous misperception. This fallacy likely helps explain pervasive illegal infringing activity on the Internet, common dismissal of copyright warnings, and other previously puzzling behavior. The received wisdom has been that the public is ethically dismissive or indifferent towards intellectual property rights. This research reveals instead that experts have failed to comprehend what the public’s conception of intellectual property law actually is.
The studies reported here uncover several additional intellectual property law findings, including that: (1) the majority of the American public views intellectual property rights as too broad and too strong, (2) knowledge of intellectual property law does not affect opinions about what the law should be, and (3) there are significant demographic and cultural divides concerning intellectual property rights. The findings as a whole raise central questions concerning the public legitimacy of intellectual property law, and consequently its ability to function as intended.
Main Results of the Study
This survey presents an original series of experiments that reveal preventing plagiarism to be the leading perceived basis for intellectual property protection in the United States. It formulates a plagiarism fallacy theory through a series of three experiments concerning popular understandings and preferences for intellectual property rights. More specifically, it shows that:
- There is a dominant focus on moral and ethical concerns with copying, but not legal concerns.
- Preventing plagiarism is the most commonly selected objective, surpassing all traditionally identified objectives, including incentive, natural rights, and expressive alternatives.
- Across a wide variety of subject matters and contexts, people tend to believe that simply providing proper attribution to the originator of a creative work or invention should enable the free copying of their work by others.
- Americans have an extremely low level of knowledge about intellectual property law
- Knowledge of intellectual property law does not affect individual opinions about what the law should be.
- There are demographic and cultural divides concerning intellectual property law based upon peoples’ gender, age, income, and political identity.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The study recommends research and measures aimed at aligning the public psychology of intellectual property with the reality of intellectual property law - if the widespread disconnect between these two elements continues, the intellectual property system will remain hard pressed to achieve its objectives.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
| Sample size: | 443 |
| Level of aggregation: | Individual |
| Period of material under study: | 2015 |
| Sample size: | 60 |
| Level of aggregation: | Individual |
| Period of material under study: | 2015 |
| Sample size: | 116 |
| Level of aggregation: | Individual |
| Period of material under study: | 2015 |
