Watson, Zizzo and Fleming (2014)

Source Details

Watson, Zizzo and Fleming (2014)
Title:	Determinants and welfare implications of unlawful file sharing: a scoping review.
Author(s):	Watson, S. J., Zizzo, D. J., Fleming, P.
Year:	2014
Citation:	Watson, S., Zizzo, D., & Fleming, P. (2014). Determinants and welfare implications of unlawful file sharing: a scoping review. CREATe Working Paper.
Link(s):	Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:	Ofcom Kantar survey
Discipline:	B41: Economic Methodology D12: Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis L82: Entertainment • Media
Linked by:

About the Data
Data Description:	A scoping review was carried out to investigate and summarize the extent and nature of research (2003-2013) into the welfare implications and determinants of unlawful file sharing. Articles on unlawful file sharing for digital media including music, film, television, videogames, software and books, were methodically searched for within academic databases and a pre-publication repository; non-academic literature was sought from key stakeholders and research centers. 54,441 sources were initially found with a wide search and were narrowed down to 206 articles which examined human behavior, intentions or attitudes.
Data Type:	Primary and Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:	LexisNexis EconLit PsychInfo Communication and Mass Media Clarivate Web of Science
Data Collection Methods:	Quantitative data/text mining Qualitative content/text mining
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):	Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Software publishing Film and motion pictures Television programmes Sound recording and music publishing
Country(ies):	Global
Cross Country Study?:	No
Comparative Study?:	Yes
Literature review?:	Yes
Government or policy study?:	No
Time Period(s) of Collection:	2003-2013
Funder(s):	Research Councils UK

Abstract

We employ an innovative scoping review methodology to consider and assess the existing evidence on the consequences and determinants of unlawful file sharing (UFS) transparently and systematically. We complement this with a simple conceptual framework to model the decision to engage in UFS and to map out the existing evidence. Whether UFS is good or bad for welfare remains unclear. Regarding determinants of UFS, studies that employ observed behavior as a measured outcome remain few, and fewer still for potential moral, experiential and social determinants. More experimental and longitudinal studies assessing causality are needed.

Main Results of the Study

• Unlawful file sharing has an ambiguous impact on welfare.

Policy Implications as Stated By Author

Policy should be based on more detailed evidence related to users’ behaviour.

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)

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)

Datasets

Sample size:	206
Level of aggregation:	Studies
Period of material under study:	2003-2013