Difference between revisions of "Andrés (2006b)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
m (Text replacement - "Software publishing (including video games)" to "Software publishing")
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|Source={{Source
 
|Source={{Source
 
|Name of Study=Andrés (2006)
 
|Name of Study=Andrés (2006)
|Author=Andrés, A.R.
+
|Author=Andrés, A. R.;
 
|Title=Software piracy and income inequality
 
|Title=Software piracy and income inequality
 
|Year=2006
 
|Year=2006
Line 9: Line 9:
 
|Authentic Link=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Andres/publication/24068355_Software_piracy_and_income_inequality/links/00b4952b703cb4c24b000000.pdf
 
|Authentic Link=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Andres/publication/24068355_Software_piracy_and_income_inequality/links/00b4952b703cb4c24b000000.pdf
 
|Link=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Andres/publication/24068355_Software_piracy_and_income_inequality/links/00b4952b703cb4c24b000000.pdf
 
|Link=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Andres/publication/24068355_Software_piracy_and_income_inequality/links/00b4952b703cb4c24b000000.pdf
|Reference=Husted (2000); Gopal and Sanders (1997);
+
|Reference=Husted (2000);Gopal and Sanders (1997);
|Plain Text Proposition=This study shows that income inequality appears to have a negative and significant effect on piracy rates, and hence supporting Husted’s result (2000). The regression results also reveal that the efficiency of the judicial system is an important factor when explaining cross-national variations in piracy rates. No significant association was found between
+
|Plain Text Proposition=This study shows that income inequality appears to have a negative and significant effect on piracy rates, and hence supporting Husted’s result (2000). The regression results also reveal that the efficiency of the judicial system is an important factor when explaining cross-national variations in piracy rates. No significant association was found betweenincome, education and piracy rates. Overall, the results are in line with previous empirical research.
income, education and piracy rates. Overall, the results are in line with previous empirical research.
+
|FundamentalIssue=5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media),1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
|FundamentalIssue=5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media), 1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare,
+
|EvidenceBasedPolicy=D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability),F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)
|EvidenceBasedPolicy=D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability), F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness),
 
 
|Discipline=K42: Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law, L82: Entertainment • Media, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
 
|Discipline=K42: Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law, L82: Entertainment • Media, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
 
|Intervention-Response=The authors find that higher levels of judicial efficiency are associated with lower software piracy rates. Only the law variable seems to impact on piracy rates. The coefficient on rule of law is negative and statistically significant. This finding suggests that the efficiency of the legal system might act a deterrent factor of piracy behaviour, hence supporting previous findings (Holm, 2003).
 
|Intervention-Response=The authors find that higher levels of judicial efficiency are associated with lower software piracy rates. Only the law variable seems to impact on piracy rates. The coefficient on rule of law is negative and statistically significant. This finding suggests that the efficiency of the legal system might act a deterrent factor of piracy behaviour, hence supporting previous findings (Holm, 2003).
 
|Description of Data=This study uses data on income inequality from the World Income Inequality Database (WIID, 2000). It also uses data on software piracy published by the International Planning Research Corporation (IPRC) for the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and Software Information Industry Association (SIIA) (IPRC, 2003).
 
|Description of Data=This study uses data on income inequality from the World Income Inequality Database (WIID, 2000). It also uses data on software piracy published by the International Planning Research Corporation (IPRC) for the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and Software Information Industry Association (SIIA) (IPRC, 2003).
 
|Data Type=Secondary data
 
|Data Type=Secondary data
|Data Source=International Planning Research Corporation; World Income Inequality Database; Business Software Alliance;
+
|Data Source=International Planning Research Corporation;World Income Inequality Database;Business Software Alliance;
 
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting), Quantitative data/text mining
 
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting), Quantitative data/text mining
 
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Cluster analysis, Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Correlation and Association
 
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Cluster analysis, Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Correlation and Association
|Industry=Software publishing (including video games); Creative, arts and entertainment;
+
|Industry=Software publishing;
|Country=Australia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; Denmark; Dominican Republic; Finland; France; Honduras; Hong Kong; Hungary; India; Indonesia; Israel; Italy; Mauritius; Mexico; Netherlands; Norway; Pakistan; Peru; Philippines; Poland; Portugal; Singapore; South Africa; Spain; Sweden; Thailand; Turkey; United Kingdom; Zimbabwe;
+
|Country=Australia;Brazil;Canada;Chile;China;Colombia;Denmark;Dominican Republic;Finland;France;Honduras;Hong Kong;Hungary;India;Indonesia;Israel;Italy;Mauritius;Mexico;Norway;Pakistan;Peru;Philippines;Poland;Portugal;Singapore;South Africa;Spain;Sweden;Thailand;Turkey;Zimbabwe;The Netherlands;United Kingdom
 
|Cross-country=Yes
 
|Cross-country=Yes
 
|Comparative=Yes
 
|Comparative=Yes
Line 28: Line 27:
 
|Literature review=No
 
|Literature review=No
 
}}
 
}}
|Dataset=
 
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 08:15, 3 November 2022

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education Libraries, archives, museums and other cultural activities

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing Video game publishing 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

Andrés (2006)
Title: Software piracy and income inequality
Author(s): Andrés, A. R.
Year: 2006
Citation: Andrés, A. R. (2006). Software piracy and income inequality. Applied Economics Letters, 13(2), 101-105.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: This study uses data on income inequality from the World Income Inequality Database (WIID, 2000). It also uses data on software piracy published by the International Planning Research Corporation (IPRC) for the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and Software Information Industry Association (SIIA) (IPRC, 2003).
Data Type: Secondary 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 paper investigates the extent to which income inequality influences national piracy rates across a sample of 34 countries. Economic inequality seems to have a negative significant effect on national rates of piracy. Consistent with previous studies, we also find that judicial efficiency affects piracy rates. Additionally, research results show that income and education are not important determinants of piracy rates.

Main Results of the Study

This study shows that income inequality appears to have a negative and significant effect on piracy rates, and hence supporting Husted’s result (2000). The regression results also reveal that the efficiency of the judicial system is an important factor when explaining cross-national variations in piracy rates. No significant association was found betweenincome, education and piracy rates. Overall, the results are in line with previous empirical research.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

The authors find that higher levels of judicial efficiency are associated with lower software piracy rates. Only the law variable seems to impact on piracy rates. The coefficient on rule of law is negative and statistically significant. This finding suggests that the efficiency of the legal system might act a deterrent factor of piracy behaviour, hence supporting previous findings (Holm, 2003).

Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Green-tick.png
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)
Green-tick.png
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

{{{Dataset}}}