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 acknowledged

Take home messages Perceived Financial, Moral and Risk factors predict intention, which predicts Unlawful File Sharing (UFS) Perceived Likelihood of punishment does not reduce intention to file share eBooks ≠ digital Music eBook UFS  Anonymity, Financial acceptability and Moral acceptability Music UFS  Dread, Financial acceptability and Moral acceptability

Unlawful File Sharing It 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 industries The creative industries are keen on increasing the legal risk for unlawful file sharers, to what extent does risk moderate intention/ behaviour ?

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

Why do people file share unlawfully?

Legal Risk Legal – observed behaviour – Stricter 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 behaviour – Mixed 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)

Knowledge, Anonymity & Skill Legal 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.

Social and Experiential acceptability Social 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)

Moral acceptability UFS “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)

Financial Acceptability Legal Prices – Increased price decreases sales and increased UFS (Sandulli, 2007 ); no effect (Andersen & Frenz, 2010) Willing to Pay – Greater WTP is associated with a preference for legal media (Hsu & Shiue, 2008)

Item Scales UFS 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).

Item Scales 2-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)

Item Scales 2-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).

5198 participants attempted survey eBooks 1081 Music failed to complete 101 participants withdrew 110 < 6 minutes Books 737 Music attempted T2 (74% response rate) 41 failed to complete 19 participants withdrew 88 removed for demographic inconsistencies between T1 & T2 2 months

Participants have all downloaded a media file in the past year MusiceBooks N Age (16-82)45.0(15.8)46.3(15.6) UFS118/65893/737 Gender346 women396 women Participants recruited by market research company to be representative of UK population.

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 Internet is private Fileshare is immoral Quality is as good as legal Beta > 1

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 Deindividuation Internet is private Fileshare is immoral 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 > 1

Key points eBooks vs Music eBooks – 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?

Conclusions Perceived Financial, Moral and Risk factors predict intention, which predicts Unlawful File Sharing (UFS) Risk is less important than moral and financial considerations eBooks ≠ digital Music – This may be a less mature market – It may be a different type of consumption – The sample may be different

Thanks to: Steven Watson, Daniel Zizzo, Harriet Miller, Eliza Patouris, The CREATe team

Appendix booksintent1 UFS2.283** Knowledge3-.124** Avoid detection4.327**.101** Anonymity5.318**.140**-.069*.220** Moral Acceptability6.505**.164**-.166**-.435**.279** Social Acceptability7.283**.072*-.134**.289**.123**.656** Financial Benefit8.507**.193**-.170**.355**.625**.414** Quality **.145**0.035 Dread ** **-.138**-.516**-.473**-.250**-.164** Risk Likelihood **-.243**-.095**-.334**-.362**-.134**-.154**.416**

musicintent1 UFS2.436** Knowledge3-.162**-.111** Avoid detection4.329**.168** Anonymity5.328**.187** ** Moral Acceptability6.642**.342**-.205**.358**.339** Social Acceptability7.419**.212**-.097**.235**.191**.662** Financial Benefit8.595**.353**-.249**.264**.351**.692**.514** Quality9.172**.093*-.069*.075* **.200**.141** Dread **-.205**.077*-.337**-.175**-.604**-.526**-.359**-.259** Risk Likelihood **-.078*-.089**-.168**-.119**-.301**-.344**-.097**-.156**.400**