Difference between revisions of "Mandel (2013)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
m (1 revision imported)
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
Line 30: Line 30:
 
|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=O31: Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
 
|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.
 
|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 Year=2015

Revision as of 14:02, 22 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

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:
  • 2015
Funder(s):
  • None

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

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)?
Green-tick.png
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Green-tick.png
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)
Green-tick.png
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: 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