Difference between revisions of "Ofcom - Kantar Survey (2013)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
 
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|Source={{Source
 
|Source={{Source
 
|Name of Study=Ofcom - Kantar (2013)a
 
|Name of Study=Ofcom - Kantar (2013)a
|Author=Kantar Media;
+
|Author=Ofcom;
 
|Title=Online Copyright Infringement Tracker Wave 3
 
|Title=Online Copyright Infringement Tracker Wave 3
 
|Year=2013
 
|Year=2013
|Full Citation=Online Copyright Infringement Tracker Wave 3, 2013.
+
|Full Citation=OFCOM, Online Copyright Infringement Tracker Wave 3, 2013.
 
|Abstract=This report details the main findings of the third 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 by Ofcom, undertaken by Kantar Media and made possible by financial support from the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO). It is the third in a series of research waves intended to generate benchmarks and time series relevant to the access and use of copyright material online. This document provides a summary of the results of the most recent wave (W3) of the Online Copyright Infringement (OCI) tracker and includes time series data where changes have been observed. It also outlines the foundations of the research and a detailed description of the methodology employed.
 
|Abstract=This report details the main findings of the third 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 by Ofcom, undertaken by Kantar Media and made possible by financial support from the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO). It is the third in a series of research waves intended to generate benchmarks and time series relevant to the access and use of copyright material online. This document provides a summary of the results of the most recent wave (W3) of the Online Copyright Infringement (OCI) tracker and includes time series data where changes have been observed. It also outlines the foundations of the research and a detailed description of the methodology employed.
 
|Authentic Link=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/telecoms-research/copyright-infringement-tracker-w3
 
|Authentic Link=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/telecoms-research/copyright-infringement-tracker-w3

Latest revision as of 09:54, 22 November 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

Ofcom - Kantar (2013)a
Title: Online Copyright Infringement Tracker Wave 3
Author(s): Ofcom
Year: 2013
Citation: OFCOM, Online Copyright Infringement Tracker Wave 3, 2013.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: 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 file-sharing pilot study in 2010. The original design recommended by Kantar Media was subsequently approved via peer review, albeit with several recommendations.

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?: Yes
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • 2012-2013
Funder(s):
  • Intellectual Property Office

Abstract

This report details the main findings of the third 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 by Ofcom, undertaken by Kantar Media and made possible by financial support from the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO). It is the third in a series of research waves intended to generate benchmarks and time series relevant to the access and use of copyright material online. This document provides a summary of the results of the most recent wave (W3) of the Online Copyright Infringement (OCI) tracker and includes time series data where changes have been observed. It also outlines the foundations of the research and a detailed description of the methodology employed.

Main Results of the Study

Levels of infringement • We estimate that one in six (18%) UK internet users aged 12+ consumed at least one item of online content illegally over the three-month period November 2012 – January 20134. Around a third of these (5%) exclusively consumed illegal content. • Levels of infringement varied significantly by content type; our survey indicated that 10% of internet users aged 12+ consumed at least some music illegally over the three-month period, while 7% did so for films. For TV programmes, video games and computer software these figures were 6%, 2% and 3% respectively, while for e-books it was 1%. • If instead of looking at ‘all internet users aged 12+’ we use as our base ‘all internet users who consumed content online over the three-month period’, we find that 30% consumed at least one item of content online illegally. Furthermore, 33% 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, at 8%.

Reasons for infringing • The most commonly cited reasons for infringing were because it is free (48%), convenient (39%) and quick (36%). • Close to a quarter (24%) of all infringers said they do it because it means they can try before they buy, rising to 28% for those who consumed both legal and illegal content. However, when asked directly, 47% of infringers indicated that they had previously accessed for free some of the digital and physical content they went on to pay for.

What would make infringers stop? • The top three factors that infringers said would encourage them to stop included the availability of cheaper legal services (28%), if it was clearer what is legal and what is not (24%), and if everything they wanted was available legally (22%). 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, with 16% of the latter insisting that nothing would encourage them to stop. • Sixteen per cent of all infringers indicated that they would be put off ‘if my ISP sent me a letter saying they would suspend my internet access’, falling to 12% for both ‘if my ISP sent me a letter informing me my account had been used to infringe’ and ‘if my ISP sent me a letter saying they would restrict my internet speed’.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

A single methodology approach to the project is not sufficient, and a mixed one is more likely to generate accurate and representative results. All the missing elements from the CAWI (Computer Aided Web Interviewing) online sample (i.e. over-65s and non/infrequent internet users) can feasibly be supplemented by a CAPI (Computer Aided Personal Interviewing) face-to-face methodology (with a self- completion element for sensitive areas) interviewing just those groups.



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: 5500
Level of aggregation: Individual
Period of material under study: 2012-2013