Presentation from EALE2014

1. „Piracy is not theft!” Is it just students who think so?
Wojciech Hardy, Michał Krawczyk, Anna Kukla-Gryz, Joanna Tyrowicz
EALE `14
Group for Research in APplied Economics

2. 2
Motivation & Introduction
Students – the very popular sample for studies.
Obvious pros: cheap and available `on-spot’.
Possible cons: are they representative of general population?
Notably: students are younger, from more educated background, etc.
Prior research on these issues arrived at various conclusions:
Peterson (2001), Charness et al. (2004), Box-Steffensmeier et al. (2008), Druckman and Kam (2011).

3. 3
Same goes with piracy studies
Students often chosen for studying piracy,
(e.g. studies in China, France, Japan, US)
Specificity:
They are Internet-proficient.
Budgetary constrained.
With lower ethical standards and larger influences from social norms.
Problem we address:
Lack of consensus of generalizability of piracy studies based on student populations.

4. 4
Key elements of design
A study of ethical perception of various modes of content acquisition.
Various views (individual judgment, social norms, various aspects of the deeds).
Comparison between the students and one other, contrasting, group.

5. Judging the characteristics of the deeds
5
Hypothetical stories about Johnny, who committed various, questionable acts to acquire a TV series.






6. Judging the characteristics of the deeds
5
Hypothetical stories about Johnny, who committed various, questionable acts to acquire a TV series.
18 stories based on six dimensions often mentioned in the debate around piracy:
Loss, Physicality, Alternative, Peer, Sharing, Protection




7. Judging the characteristics of the deeds
5
Hypothetical stories about Johnny, who committed various, questionable acts to acquire a TV series.
18 stories based on six dimensions often mentioned in the debate around piracy:
Loss, Physicality, Alternative, Peer, Sharing, Protection
Rating scale: 1 – Totaly unacceptable; 4 – Fully acceptable.
Note that there is no interpretable middle.


8. Judging the characteristics of the deeds
5
Hypothetical stories about Johnny, who committed various, questionable acts to acquire a TV series.
18 stories based on six dimensions often mentioned in the debate around piracy:
Loss, Physicality, Alternative, Peer, Sharing, Protection
Rating scale: 1 – Totaly unacceptable; 4 – Fully acceptable.
Note that there is no interpretable middle.
Additional questions on personal behaviour and demographics.

9. 6
Story examples
A friend of Johnny's forgot to log out from his e-mail box, after using Johnny's computer. While closing the web browser, Johnny spotted that the mail currently displayed on his screen contained a one-use only access code for a payable site with TV series in High Definition. Johnny quickly copied the code, and after returning home used it on a season of a popular TV series.
Not physical; Loss; Peer; No alternative; No sharing; Protection



10. 6
Story examples
A friend of Johnny's forgot to log out from his e-mail box, after using Johnny's computer. While closing the web browser, Johnny spotted that the mail currently displayed on his screen contained a one-use only access code for a payable site with TV series in High Definition. Johnny quickly copied the code, and after returning home used it on a season of a popular TV series.
Not physical; Loss; Peer; No alternative; No sharing; Protection
A new season of a popular, high budget, American TV series is available in kiosks as an add-on for a magazine priced 7.99 PLN. However, Johnny downloaded the series from another source, for free.
Not physical; No loss; Not a peer; Alternative; No sharing; No protection.

11. 7
Various kinds of judgments
Rewards offered as an encouragement.
Treatments:







12. 7
Various kinds of judgments
Rewards offered as an encouragement.
Treatments:
Treatment I: Ethical Judgement (EJ)

Treatment II: Social Norms (SN)

Treatment III: Incentivized Social Norms (ISN)


13. 7
Various kinds of judgments
Rewards offered as an encouragement.
Treatments:
Treatment I: Ethical Judgement (EJ)
De facto: what do YOU think about it.
Treatment II: Social Norms (SN)
De facto: what do you think the WHOLE POPULATION thinks about it.
Treatment III: Incentivized Social Norms (ISN)
De facto: what do you think YOUR GROUP thinks about it.

14. 8
Students Group versus the IPCG
STUDENTS GROUP (SG)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY- CONSCIOUS GROUP (IPCG)
From
The University
Four Facebook pages
Age (min-max)
19-30
18-53
Age (median)
23
28
Male
40%
28%
N
329
127 (94)
Moreover
60% employed.

15. 9
Methodology
Ordered logit regressions:

16. 10
Regressions results

17. Comparison of coefficients
11

18. 12
Conclusions










19. 12
Conclusions
1) The importance of dimensions:
Physicality (Most important)
Loss
Protection
Peer
Sharing
Alternative (Insignificant)



20. 12
Conclusions
1) The importance of dimensions:
Physicality (Most important)
Loss
Protection
Peer
Sharing
Alternative (Insignificant)
2) Story aspects are treated similarly by both groups.


21. 12
Conclusions
1) The importance of dimensions:
Physicality (Most important)
Loss
Protection
Peer
Sharing
Alternative (Insignificant)
2) Story aspects are treated similarly by both groups.
3) Students are not a bad sample.

22. Thank you for your attention! Author: Wojciech Hardy e-mail: whardy@wne.uw.edu.pl
More about our research on:
http://grape.uw.edu.pl/ipiracy
Twitter: @GrapeUW