Piers Fleming Steven Watson and Daniel Zizzo What is the moderating role of risk Funding from AHRC Grant Number AHK0001791 and from the University of East ID: 565257
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Survey of Potential Determinants of Unla..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Survey of Potential Determinants of Unlawful File Sharing
Piers
Fleming, Steven Watson, and Daniel Zizzo
What is the moderating role of risk?
Funding from AHRC
Grant Number AH/K000179/1, and from
the
University of East
Anglia are gratefully acknowledgedSlide2
Take home messagesPerceived Financial, Moral and Risk factors predict intention, which predicts Unlawful File
Sharing (UFS)Perceived Likelihood of punishment does not reduce intention to file shareeBooks ≠ digital MusiceBook UFS A
nonymity, Financial acceptability and Moral acceptabilityMusic UFS Dread, Financial acceptability and Moral acceptabilitySlide3
Unlawful File SharingIt is estimated that 1 in 3 internet users who consume online content, do so unlawfully (
Ofcom, 2013)This may impact upon the £36.3 billion UK creative industriesThe creative industries are keen on increasing the legal risk for unlawful file sharers, to what extent does risk moderate intention/ behaviour ?Slide4
Scoping Review of Existing Research
54,441 articles: Academic Literature
Keyword Search
122 articles:Companies and Organisations(e.g. OFCOM)
Abstracts Screened -> Text Screened
206 included articles
Empirical, primary data about people’s unlawful file sharing of digital media
2003-2013Slide5
Why do people file share unlawfully?Slide6
Why do people file share unlawfully?Slide7Slide8
Legal RiskLegal – observed behaviourStricter laws between countries or changes in laws/high profile lawsuits: lower UFS (e.g.
Adermon and Liang, 2011, Danaher et al., 2012, Walls, 2008)Legal - intentions/stated behaviourMixed evidence that legal consequences reduce UFS
Severity reduces UFS (Levin, Dato-on & Manolis, 2007); no effect (Morton & Koufteros, 2008)Likelihood reduces UFS (Chiang &
Assane, 2007; Cox, Collins & Drinkwater, 2010 ); no effect (Morton & Koufteros, 2008)Slide9
Knowledge, Anonymity & SkillLegal knowledge
Knowledge decreases UFS (Hietanen & Räsänen, 2009); no effect (Fetscherin, 2009)People are unaware of what is or is not lawful (
Ofcom, 2011)The ability to feel anonymous may affect UFS (Kwong & Lee, 2002; Plowman & Goode, 2009)Technical skill may increase UFS – internet experience increases UFS (e.g.
Phau & Ng, 2010) one mechanism may be the ability to avoid detection.Slide10
Social and Experiential acceptabilitySocial acceptability predicts UFS intention (E.g. D’Astous
, Colbert & Montpetit, 2005)Experiential acceptability - quality of download correlates with intention to stop and likelihood of punishment (La Rose et al., 2005)Slide11
Moral acceptabilityUFS “did not feel like a crime” (BMRB Social Research, 2011) Law and moral acceptability are not the same (
Svensson and Larsson, 2009)Moral acceptability – intention (music)Ethical beliefs predict intention to download (Lysonski &
Durvasula, 2008); no effect (Chen, Shang & Lin, 2008)Slide12
Financial AcceptabilityLegal PricesIncreased price decreases sales and increased UFS (
Sandulli, 2007 ); no effect (Andersen & Frenz, 2010)Willing to PayGreater WTP is associated with a preference for legal media (Hsu & Shiue
, 2008)Slide13
Item ScalesUFS behaviour (T2) categorised as any or on unlawful downloading in the past two months
4-item Intention: “Over the next two months I intend to download e-books unlawfully for my own personal use” (α = .937/.953).3-item Risk Likelihood: “If I were to download e-books unlawfully I think it is likely I would be caught” (α = .722/.675).3-item Dread “I feel worried when I think about the risk of being caught for unlawful downloading” (α = .823/.829).Slide14
Item Scales2-item Perceived Knowledge: “It is pretty easy to tell when downloading an ebook
is unlawful or not” (α = .782/.818).4-item Perceived Online Anonymity: “When you are on the internet you feel free to act in way you normally would not” (α = .667/.668).2-item Ability to Avoid Detection: “I would not know how to reduce chances of being caught unlawfully downloading e-books” (α = .599/.587)Slide15
Item Scales2-item Social Acceptability: “I think if my friends knew I downloaded
ebooks unlawfully my friends would think I was cheap” (α = .834/.849).Single-item Experiential measure: ““Unlawful copies of music are not as good as the legal versions” (reverse-scored)11-item Moral Acceptability: “It is always unethical to download e-books without authorisation” (α = .919/.931).4-item Financial Acceptability: “I think getting books for free is a good reason to download e-books unlawfully” (α = .804/.860).Slide16
Books
737
Music
658
1543 attempted T2 (74% response rate)
41 failed to complete
19 participants withdrew
88 removed for demographic inconsistencies between T1 & T2
2 monthsSlide17
Participants have all downloaded a media file in the past year
Music
eBooksN
658737
Age (16-82)45.0
(15.8)
46.3
(15.6)
UFS
118/658
93/737
Gender
346
women
396 women
Participants recruited by market research company to be representative
of UK population.Slide18
Perceived Knowledge
Ability to Avoid Detection
Online anonymity
Financial Acceptability
Experiential Quality
Moral Acceptability
Social Acceptability
Perceived Legal Risk Likelihood
R
2
= .20
Perceived Dread
R
2
= .46
Music
Intention
R
2
= .47
Behaviour
R
2
= .24
Easy to tell if illegal
Know how to avoid being caught
-.11
-.15
Internet is private
.22
-.23
Fileshare
is immoral
-.28
-.49
-.24
.11
.31
.35
.32
.13
Quality is as good as legal...
-.11
.13
Beta > 1Slide19
Perceived Knowledge
Ability to Avoid Detection
Online anonymity
Financial Acceptability
Experiential Quality
Moral Acceptability
Social Acceptability
eBooks
Easy to tell if illegal
-.10
Know how to avoid being caught
-.14
-.18
Deindividuation
Internet is private
.15
-.23
Fileshare
is immoral
-.24
-.39
-.22
.13
.18
.26
.27
.32
.14
-.11
Quality is as good as legal...
Perceived Legal Risk Likelihood
R
2
= .23
Perceived Dread
R
2
= .37
Intention
R
2
= .31
Behaviour
R
2
= .12
Beta > 1Slide20
Key points eBooks vs MusiceBooks – knowledge more important to risk
eBooks – online anonymity more important (beta .09 for music, intention)Music – money matters for behaviour Music - moral acceptability is more important for dread and intention (and dread via intention)eBook intention is driven relatively more by risk and anonymity whereas Music by financial and moral eBook more calculative, music more feelings-based?Slide21
Conclusions
Perceived Financial, Moral and Risk factors predict intention, which predicts Unlawful File Sharing (UFS)
Risk is less important than moral and financial considerationseBooks ≠ digital MusicThis may be a less mature marketIt may be a different type of consumptionThe sample may be differentSlide22
Thanks to:Steven Watson, Daniel Zizzo, Harriet Miller, Eliza Patouris, The CREATe
teamSlide23
Appendix
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
books
intent
1
UFS
2
.283**
Knowledge
3
-.124**
-0.049
Avoid detection
4
.327**
.101**
-0.019
Anonymity
5
.318**
.140**
-.069*
.220**
Moral Acceptability
6
.505**
.164**
-.166**
-.435**
.279**
Social Acceptability
7
.283**
.072*
-.134**
.289**
.123**
.656**
Financial Benefit
8
.507**
.193**
-.170**
.355**
.355**
.625**
.414**
Quality
9
0.004
-0.062
-0.008
0.05
0.019
.136**
.145**
0.035
Dread
10
-.234**
-0.039
-0.007
-.369**
-.138**
-.516**
-.473**
-.250**
-.164**
Risk Likelihood
11
-0.049
-0.002
-.100**
-.243**
-.095**
-.334**
-.362**
-.134**
-.154**
.416**Slide24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
music
intent
1
UFS
2
.436**
Knowledge
3
-.162**
-.111**
Avoid detection
4
.329**
.168**
-0.003
Anonymity
5
.328**
.187**
-0.06
.189**
Moral Acceptability
6
.642**
.342**
-.205**
.358**
.339**
Social Acceptability
7
.419**
.212**
-.097**
.235**
.191**
.662**
Financial Benefit
8
.595**
.353**
-.249**
.264**
.351**
.692**
.514**
Quality
9
.172**
.093*
-.069*
.075*
0.019
.251**
.200**
.141**
Dread
10
-.429**
-.205**
.077*
-.337**
-.175**
-.604**
-.526**
-.359**
-.259**
Risk Likelihood
11
-.087**
-.078*
-.089**
-.168**
-.119**
-.301**
-.344**
-.097**
-.156**
.400**