Difference between revisions of "Bryce and Rutter (2005)"
m (1 revision imported) |
m (Text replacement - "Software publishing (including video games)" to "Software publishing") |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
|Authentic Link=https://old.ipo.gov.uk/ipresearch-fake-2005.pdf | |Authentic Link=https://old.ipo.gov.uk/ipresearch-fake-2005.pdf | ||
|Link=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130128134220/http://www.nio.gov.uk/fake_nation_-_a_study_into_an_everyday_crime.pdf | |Link=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130128134220/http://www.nio.gov.uk/fake_nation_-_a_study_into_an_everyday_crime.pdf | ||
+ | |Reference=None Cited; | ||
|Plain Text Proposition=* Level of public awareness of counterfeit and pirated goods is high. | |Plain Text Proposition=* Level of public awareness of counterfeit and pirated goods is high. | ||
Line 51: | Line 52: | ||
|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=K42: Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | |Discipline=K42: Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law, O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | ||
+ | |Intervention-Response=None stated. | ||
|Description of Data=The project utilised both qualitative and quantitative methods – over 2,000 people were questioned using a postal and web-based questionnaire. In addition, nine focus groups were held. This enabled the development of a detailed examination of consumer perspectives on IP crime, including counterfeiting and downloading which combines both deep (qualitative) and broad (quantitative) methodologies and associated forms of data. | |Description of Data=The project utilised both qualitative and quantitative methods – over 2,000 people were questioned using a postal and web-based questionnaire. In addition, nine focus groups were held. This enabled the development of a detailed examination of consumer perspectives on IP crime, including counterfeiting and downloading which combines both deep (qualitative) and broad (quantitative) methodologies and associated forms of data. | ||
|Data Year=2005 | |Data Year=2005 | ||
Line 56: | Line 58: | ||
|Method of Collection=Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting), Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences), Case Study | |Method of Collection=Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting), Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences), Case Study | ||
|Method of Analysis=Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Qualitative Coding / Sorting (e.g. of interview data) | |Method of Analysis=Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation), Qualitative Coding / Sorting (e.g. of interview data) | ||
− | |Industry=Film and motion pictures; Sound recording and music publishing; Television programmes; Software publishing | + | |Industry=Film and motion pictures; Sound recording and music publishing; Television programmes; Software publishing; Specialised design; |
− | |Country= | + | |Country=United Kingdom; |
|Cross-country=No | |Cross-country=No | ||
|Comparative=Yes | |Comparative=Yes | ||
+ | |Government or policy=Yes | ||
+ | |Literature review=No | ||
|Funded By=Organised Crime Task Force; British Video Association (BVA); British Phonographic Industry; Business Software Alliance; Entertainment & Leisure Software Publishers Association; Federation Against Copyright Theft; The Patent Office; | |Funded By=Organised Crime Task Force; British Video Association (BVA); British Phonographic Industry; Business Software Alliance; Entertainment & Leisure Software Publishers Association; Federation Against Copyright Theft; The Patent Office; | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 10:08, 3 November 2022
Contents
Source Details
Bryce and Rutter (2005) | |
Title: | Fake Nation? A study into an everyday crime. |
Author(s): | Bryce, J., Rutter, J. |
Year: | 2005 |
Citation: | Bryce, J., & Rutter, J. (2005). Fake Nation? A study into an everyday crime. The Intellectual Property Theft and Organised Crime research project, UK. |
Link(s): | Definitive , Open Access |
Key Related Studies: | |
Discipline: | |
Linked by: |
About the Data | |
Data Description: | The project utilised both qualitative and quantitative methods – over 2,000 people were questioned using a postal and web-based questionnaire. In addition, nine focus groups were held. This enabled the development of a detailed examination of consumer perspectives on IP crime, including counterfeiting and downloading which combines both deep (qualitative) and broad (quantitative) methodologies and associated forms of data. |
Data Type: | Primary data |
Secondary Data Sources: | |
Data Collection Methods: | |
Data Analysis Methods: | |
Industry(ies): | |
Country(ies): | |
Cross Country Study?: | No |
Comparative Study?: | Yes |
Literature review?: | No |
Government or policy study?: | Yes |
Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
Funder(s): |
|
Abstract
This publication details the background, empirical and analytical research undertaken during the Intellectual Property Theft and Organised Crime research project (IPTOC) and provides a robust insight into contemporary consumption of counterfeit/pirated goods and illegal downloading in England and Northern Ireland. The research outlined in this report is premised upon the belief that while significant attention has been placed upon developing technical solutions to prevent the copying of products (eg digital rights managements, holograms, and increased complexity of product design) and analysis of legal and policy issues relating to copyright and intellectual property theft (IPT), there remains a significant lack of research investigating demand side/consumption aspects of the counterfeiting market. The results of the project demonstrate that the consumption of counterfeit, pirated and other fake goods is a common, widespread and normalised practice to those who purchase them and that this presents a significant challenge to the government, affected industries and enforcement agencies. This summary is divided into two parts. The first provides a general summary of the research and key findings of the IPTOC project. The second provides a series of more focused ‘datasheets’ which concentrate on providing an overview of the project results on an industry sector by sector basis.
Main Results of the Study
- Level of public awareness of counterfeit and pirated goods is high.
- Consumption of fake goods is fairly common across the UK.
- Counterfeit goods are available through a variety of locations and networks.
- Cost is a key driver for the purchase of fake goods.
- Purchases are not solely based around economic decisions.
- Fake goods often meet expectations.
- The public are aware that counterfeiting and piracy impacts on the public purse.
- Good appreciation of the consequences that counterfeiting and piracy has for legitimate business.
- Degree of ambivalence about the dangers of some fake goods.
- Messages need to be explained more fully.
- Law enforcement action against the producers of fake products is sending out an effective message.
- Previous campaigns have made an impact.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
None stated.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
Sample size: | 9 |
Level of aggregation: | Focus Groups |
Period of material under study: | 2005 |
Sample size: | 2388 |
Level of aggregation: | Individual |
Period of material under study: | 2005 |