Difference between revisions of "Larsson et al. (2014)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
m (FabiolaAlvarezLorenzo moved page Larsson et a (2014) to Larsson et al. (2014))
(Blanked the page)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MainSource
 
|Source={{Source
 
|Name of Study=Larsson et al. (2014)
 
|Author=Larsson, S.; Svensson, M.; Mezei, P.; De Kaminski, M.;
 
|Title=The Digital Intellectual Property Challenge Revisited: File-sharing and Copyright Development in Hungary
 
|Year=2014
 
|Full Citation=Larsson, S., Svensson, M., Mezei, P., & De Kaminski, M. (2014). The Digital Intellectual Property Challenge Revisited: File-sharing and Copyright Development in Hungary.
 
|Abstract=The challenge that illegal file-­sharing poses to legal criminalisation is addressed in this study. Nonetheless, the pretexts and reasons for the specific character of file-­sharing behaviour and norms in a community likely, to various degrees, correlate with the specifics in the legal regulation relating to a particular jurisdiction. Therefore, we argue for the importance of empirically studying both the legal development and the file-­sharing practices existing in parallel to the legal development within the domain’s specific jurisdiction. This study will elaborate quite extensively on the contemporary development and the status of copyright in Hungary. This is followed by a sample of Hungarian respondents to a survey on file-­sharing, which is then compared with a large set of global respondents in order to determine the specific character of the former sample — if such character is found.
 
|Link=http://ssrn.com/abstract=2530190
 
|Reference=Panas and Ninni (2011); Gracz (2013); Feldman and Nadler (2006);
 
|Plain Text Proposition=Survey explores three questions:
 
1. In terms of demographics, who are the typical Hungarian file-sharers?
 
2. To what extent do Hungarian file-sharers diverge from others?
 
3. What is the character of Hungarian IP regulation in relation to international treaties and trade agreements, enforcement, the role of the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and its contemporary development in general?
 
  
* Hungary stands out in the higher degree of use of other or private BitTorrent trackers which could be due to the weaker online law enforcement and the stronger fight against bootleg copies.
 
* Due to their particular language, Hungarians are more motivated to set up and run their own darknet sites where copyrighted contents, mainly movies and TV-shows, are available in original releases along with translations.
 
* The key motivation for file-sharers in Hungary seems to be the sites’ cost-free nature. If the price is high Hungarians most likely will not switch to subscription services or purchase works in hard copies.
 
* File-sharing, therefore, seems to represent resistance to the pricing models of works rather than any expression of political opinion or ideology. None of these reasons has any relation to the emerging “pirate thinking” of file-sharers in Sweden or Germany
 
|FundamentalIssue=1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare, 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media),
 
|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=A1: General Economics, A11: Role of Economics • Role of Economists • Market for Economists, A14: Sociology of Economics, K00: General, K1: Basic Areas of Law, K11: Property Law, K14: Criminal Law, K4: Legal Procedure; the Legal System; and Illegal Behavior, K41: Litigation Process
 
|Intervention-Response=Companies should lower costs of legal alternatives in order to entice new customers.
 
|Description of Data=568 Hungarian respondents , compared with a large scale, near global population of over 96,000 respondents.
 
|Data Type=Primary data
 
|Method of Collection=Quantitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (quantitative; e.g. sales/income reporting)
 
|Method of Analysis=Quantitative Analysis Methods, Descriptive statistics (counting; means reporting; cross-tabulation)
 
|Industry=Sound recording and music publishing;
 
|Country=Hungary; Global;
 
|Cross-country=Yes
 
|Comparative=Yes
 
|Government or policy=No
 
|Literature review=No
 
|Funded By=Not stated;
 
}}
 
|Dataset={{Dataset
 
|Sample Size=568
 
|Level of Aggregation=Individual,
 
}}{{Dataset
 
|Sample Size=96000
 
|Level of Aggregation=Individual,
 
}}
 
}}
 

Latest revision as of 20:05, 2 March 2017