Difference between revisions of "Poort et al (2018)"
(Created page with "{{MainSource |Source={{Source |Name of Study=Poort et al (2018) |Author=Joost Poort; João Pedro Quintais; Martin van der Ende; Anastasia Yagafarova; Mathijis Hageraats; |Titl...") |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Source={{Source | |Source={{Source | ||
|Name of Study=Poort et al (2018) | |Name of Study=Poort et al (2018) | ||
| − | |||
|Title=Global Online Piracy Study | |Title=Global Online Piracy Study | ||
|Year=2018 | |Year=2018 | ||
|Full Citation=Poort, J., Quintais, J.P., van der Ende, M., Yagafarova, A., and Haeraats, M. (2018) Global Online Piracy Study. | |Full Citation=Poort, J., Quintais, J.P., van der Ende, M., Yagafarova, A., and Haeraats, M. (2018) Global Online Piracy Study. | ||
|Abstract=“This report deals with the acquisition and consumption of music, films, series, books | |Abstract=“This report deals with the acquisition and consumption of music, films, series, books | ||
| − | and games through the various legal | + | and games through the various legal and illegal channels that exist nowadays, in a set of 13 countries in Europe (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden), the Americas (Brazil, Canada) and Asia (Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand). The illegal channels studied are downloading and streaming from illegal sources (including via dedicated |
| − | and illegal channels that exist nowadays, in a set of 13 countries in Europe (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden), the Americas (Brazil, Canada) and Asia (Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand). The illegal channels studied are downloading and streaming from illegal sources (including via dedicated | + | technical devices), and streamripping. The purposes are (i) to provide factual information about the state of authorised and unauthorised acquisition and consumption of content; (ii) to assess the underlying motives and mechanisms and the link with enforcement measures |
| − | technical devices), and streamripping. | ||
| − | The purposes are (i) to provide factual information about the state of authorised and unauthorised acquisition and consumption of content; (ii) to assess the | ||
| − | underlying motives and mechanisms and the link with enforcement measures | ||
and legal supply; (iii) to assess the effect of online piracy on consumption from | and legal supply; (iii) to assess the effect of online piracy on consumption from | ||
| − | legal sources. At the core of the study is a | + | legal sources. At the core of the study is a consumer survey among nearly 35,000 respondents, including over 7,000 minors, in 13 countries.” |
| − | consumer survey among nearly 35,000 respondents, including over 7,000 minors, in 13 countries.” | ||
|Link=https://www.ivir.nl/projects/global-online-piracy-study/ | |Link=https://www.ivir.nl/projects/global-online-piracy-study/ | ||
| − | |Reference=Rob and Waldfogel (2007); Van der Ende et al (2014) | + | |Reference=Rob and Waldfogel (2007);Van der Ende et al (2014) |
| − | |Plain Text Proposition=At a country level, and overall, illegal consumption is most prevalent in Indonesia, Thailand and Brazil. However, likelihood to illegally consume varies per country, noting that e.g. piracy rates for music are highest in Spain. The authors note that illegal consumption tends to correlate with a lack of purchasing power, with higher per capita income countries having lower piracy rates (noting that piracy rates have decreased in all European countries surveyed with the exception of Germany). | + | |Plain Text Proposition=At a country level, and overall, illegal consumption is most prevalent in Indonesia, Thailand and Brazil. However, likelihood to illegally consume varies per country, noting that e.g. piracy rates for music are highest in Spain. The authors note that illegal consumption tends to correlate with a lack of purchasing power, with higher per capita income countries having lower piracy rates (noting that piracy rates have decreased in all European countries surveyed with the exception of Germany).<br><br>In terms of displaced sales caused by piracy, and whilst the study finds evidence of displacement, the authors also caution the high degrees of uncertainty accompanying this finding. Instead, more meaningful evidence is apparent per sector. For example: <br><br>• <i>Music</i> - Illegal transactions appear to displace legal downloads, but have a negligible impact on legal streaming. As in previous studies (van der Ende et al (2014)), the study finds that illegal downloads are complimentary to attendance at e.g. live concerts and music festivals, demonstrating a positive effect.<br><br>• <i>Film/TV-series</i> - Illegal transactions displace legal streaming, with no significant effect on legal downloads or physical purchases. Unlike with music, illegal transactions do not compliment attendance at cinemas, suggesting a negative effect. Furthermore, in the case of “blockbuster” films, an approximate displacement rate of 4.1% is evident (e.g. for every legal view, 4.1% is displaced by an illegal view). This may vary substantially per country, noting a low of 0.3% in Japan and high of 10.3% in Thailand.<br><br>• Statistically significant displacement is evident for both books and games, though the authors caution that both markets are subject to market segmentation which may impact results (e.g. readers who have not switched to digital books, or gamers who prefer console games over simpler online games). |
| − | + | |FundamentalIssue=5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media) | |
| − | In terms of displaced sales caused by piracy, and whilst the study finds evidence of displacement, the authors also caution the high degrees of uncertainty accompanying this finding. Instead, more meaningful evidence is apparent per sector. For example: | + | |EvidenceBasedPolicy=F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness),E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) |
| − | |||
| − | • <i>Music</i> - Illegal transactions appear to displace legal downloads, but have a negligible impact on legal streaming. As in previous studies (van der Ende et al (2014)), the study finds that illegal downloads are complimentary to attendance at e.g. live concerts and music festivals, demonstrating a positive effect. | ||
| − | |||
| − | • <i>Film/TV-series</i> - Illegal transactions displace legal streaming, with no significant effect on legal downloads or physical purchases. Unlike with music, illegal transactions do not compliment attendance at cinemas, suggesting a negative effect. Furthermore, in the case of “blockbuster” films, an approximate displacement rate of 4.1% is evident (e.g. for every legal view, 4.1% is displaced by an illegal view). This may vary substantially per country, noting a low of 0.3% in Japan and high of 10.3% in Thailand. | ||
| − | |||
| − | • Statistically significant displacement is evident for both books and games, though the authors caution that both markets are subject to market segmentation which may impact results (e.g. readers who have not switched to digital books, or gamers who prefer console games over simpler online games). | ||
| − | |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), E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) | ||
|Discipline=O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | |Discipline=O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | ||
| − | |Intervention-Response=Whilst the authors do not make any explicit policy recommendations, two points are worth noting: | + | |Intervention-Response=Whilst the authors do not make any explicit policy recommendations, two points are worth noting:<br><br>• The study suggests that displacement effects may be mitigated by other complimentary positive effects; whilst music recording revenues are displaced, this is recouped through live music revenues, which are comparable in most countries surveyed. <br><br>• As higher income per capita countries appear to have higher legal consumption rates (with the opposite being true of lower income countries), the authors suggest that purchasing power is a fundamental determinant of legal/illegal purchasing decisions. As overall illegal consumption has decreased in nearly all European countries surveyed, the authors caution that this is not likely due to increased enforcement mechanisms (which the authors conclude are largely ineffective), and instead because purchasing power is stronger here. As such, introducing further enforcement mechanisms is likely to be ineffective. |
| − | |||
| − | • The study suggests that displacement effects may be mitigated by other complimentary positive effects; whilst music recording revenues are displaced, this is recouped through live music revenues, which are comparable in most countries surveyed. | ||
| − | |||
| − | • As higher income per capita countries appear to have higher legal consumption rates (with the opposite being true of lower income countries), the authors suggest that purchasing power is a fundamental determinant of legal/illegal purchasing decisions. As overall illegal consumption has decreased in nearly all European countries surveyed, the authors caution that this is not likely due to increased enforcement mechanisms (which the authors conclude are largely ineffective), and instead because purchasing power is stronger here. As such, introducing further enforcement mechanisms is likely to be ineffective. | ||
|Description of Data=The study comprises a survey with almost 35,000 respondents (approx 2,640-2,750 per country), 7,000 of which were minors. Respondents were sourced from 13 countries, using multiple sourcing methods through Survey Sampling international. | |Description of Data=The study comprises a survey with almost 35,000 respondents (approx 2,640-2,750 per country), 7,000 of which were minors. Respondents were sourced from 13 countries, using multiple sourcing methods through Survey Sampling international. | ||
|Data Type=Primary data | |Data Type=Primary data | ||
| Line 39: | Line 22: | ||
|Method of Analysis=Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Correlation and Association, Regression Analysis | |Method of Analysis=Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Correlation and Association, Regression Analysis | ||
|Industry=Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing; Software publishing (including video games); Film and motion pictures; Television programmes; Sound recording and music publishing; | |Industry=Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing; Software publishing (including video games); Film and motion pictures; Television programmes; Sound recording and music publishing; | ||
| − | |Country=France; Germany; The Netherlands; Poland; Spain; Sweden; UK; Brazil; Canada; Hong Kong; Indonesia; Japan; Thailand | + | |Country=France;Germany;The Netherlands;Poland;Spain;Sweden;UK;Brazil;Canada;Hong Kong;Indonesia;Japan;Thailand |
|Cross-country=Yes | |Cross-country=Yes | ||
|Comparative=Yes | |Comparative=Yes | ||
| Line 46: | Line 29: | ||
|Funded By=Google; | |Funded By=Google; | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 14:23, 5 November 2019
Contents
Source Details
| Poort et al (2018) | |
| Title: | Global Online Piracy Study |
| Author(s): | |
| Year: | 2018 |
| Citation: | Poort, J., Quintais, J.P., van der Ende, M., Yagafarova, A., and Haeraats, M. (2018) Global Online Piracy Study. |
| Link(s): | Open Access |
| Key Related Studies: | |
| Discipline: | |
| Linked by: | Quintais and Poort (2019) |
| About the Data | |
| Data Description: | The study comprises a survey with almost 35,000 respondents (approx 2,640-2,750 per country), 7,000 of which were minors. Respondents were sourced from 13 countries, using multiple sourcing methods through Survey Sampling international. |
| 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): |
|
Abstract
“This report deals with the acquisition and consumption of music, films, series, books and games through the various legal and illegal channels that exist nowadays, in a set of 13 countries in Europe (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden), the Americas (Brazil, Canada) and Asia (Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand). The illegal channels studied are downloading and streaming from illegal sources (including via dedicated technical devices), and streamripping. The purposes are (i) to provide factual information about the state of authorised and unauthorised acquisition and consumption of content; (ii) to assess the underlying motives and mechanisms and the link with enforcement measures and legal supply; (iii) to assess the effect of online piracy on consumption from legal sources. At the core of the study is a consumer survey among nearly 35,000 respondents, including over 7,000 minors, in 13 countries.”
Main Results of the Study
At a country level, and overall, illegal consumption is most prevalent in Indonesia, Thailand and Brazil. However, likelihood to illegally consume varies per country, noting that e.g. piracy rates for music are highest in Spain. The authors note that illegal consumption tends to correlate with a lack of purchasing power, with higher per capita income countries having lower piracy rates (noting that piracy rates have decreased in all European countries surveyed with the exception of Germany).
In terms of displaced sales caused by piracy, and whilst the study finds evidence of displacement, the authors also caution the high degrees of uncertainty accompanying this finding. Instead, more meaningful evidence is apparent per sector. For example:
• Music - Illegal transactions appear to displace legal downloads, but have a negligible impact on legal streaming. As in previous studies (van der Ende et al (2014)), the study finds that illegal downloads are complimentary to attendance at e.g. live concerts and music festivals, demonstrating a positive effect.
• Film/TV-series - Illegal transactions displace legal streaming, with no significant effect on legal downloads or physical purchases. Unlike with music, illegal transactions do not compliment attendance at cinemas, suggesting a negative effect. Furthermore, in the case of “blockbuster” films, an approximate displacement rate of 4.1% is evident (e.g. for every legal view, 4.1% is displaced by an illegal view). This may vary substantially per country, noting a low of 0.3% in Japan and high of 10.3% in Thailand.
• Statistically significant displacement is evident for both books and games, though the authors caution that both markets are subject to market segmentation which may impact results (e.g. readers who have not switched to digital books, or gamers who prefer console games over simpler online games).
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
Whilst the authors do not make any explicit policy recommendations, two points are worth noting:
• The study suggests that displacement effects may be mitigated by other complimentary positive effects; whilst music recording revenues are displaced, this is recouped through live music revenues, which are comparable in most countries surveyed.
• As higher income per capita countries appear to have higher legal consumption rates (with the opposite being true of lower income countries), the authors suggest that purchasing power is a fundamental determinant of legal/illegal purchasing decisions. As overall illegal consumption has decreased in nearly all European countries surveyed, the authors caution that this is not likely due to increased enforcement mechanisms (which the authors conclude are largely ineffective), and instead because purchasing power is stronger here. As such, introducing further enforcement mechanisms is likely to be ineffective.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
{{{Dataset}}}
