Search

Increasing the perception of legal risk via publicized litigation and lobbying for copyright law enforcement has had limited success in reducing unlawful content sharing by the public. We consider the extent to which engaging in file sharing online is motivated by the perceived benefits of this activity as opposed to perceived legal risks. Moreover, we explore moderators of the relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefits; namely trust in industry and legal regulators, and perceived online anonymity. We examine these questions via a large two-part survey of consumers of music (n = 658) and eBooks (n = 737). We find that perceptions of benefit, but not of legal risk, predict stated file sharing behavior. An affect heuristic is employed: as perceived benefit increases, perceived risk falls. This relationship is increased under high regulator and industry trust (which actually increases perceived risk in this study) and low anonymity (which also increases perceived risk). We propose that, given the limited impact of perceived legal risk upon unlawful downloading, it would be better for the media industries to target enhancing the perceived benefit and availability of lawful alternatives.

Unlawful digital media sharing is common and believed to be extremely damaging to business. Understanding unlawful file sharers' motivations offers the opportunity to develop business models and behavioral interventions to maximize consumers' and businesses’ benefit. This paper uses a systematic review of unlawful file sharing research, and the Theory of Planned Behavior, to motivate a large-scale panel study in which initial determinants were used to predict subsequent behavior. A meta-analysis found Attitudes, Subjective Norms and Perceived Behavioral Control were all associated with unlawful file sharing. Media type and demographic differences in the importance of Perceived Behavioral Control were found and attributed to more accurate evaluation of familiar activities, i.e., greater experience increases the influence of Perceived Behavioral Control but age does not. The panel study confirmed that greater past experience was associated with Perceived Behavioral Control and Intention. We conclude that past experience increases the efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior and specifically Perceived Behavioral control in predicting behavior, contrary to some widely held beliefs about the role of experience. The role of experience is therefore crucial to understanding people's choices. Practically, improving social approval, positive evaluation and access to lawful media should reduce unlawful behavior.

Unlawful digital media sharing is common and believed to be extremely damaging to business. Understanding unlawful file sharers' motivations offers the opportunity to develop business models and behavioral interventions to maximize consumers' and businesses’ benefit. This paper uses a systematic review of unlawful file sharing research, and the Theory of Planned Behavior, to motivate a large-scale panel study in which initial determinants were used to predict subsequent behavior. A meta-analysis found Attitudes, Subjective Norms and Perceived Behavioral Control were all associated with unlawful file sharing. Media type and demographic differences in the importance of Perceived Behavioral Control were found and attributed to more accurate evaluation of familiar activities, i.e., greater experience increases the influence of Perceived Behavioral Control but age does not. The panel study confirmed that greater past experience was associated with Perceived Behavioral Control and Intention. We conclude that past experience increases the efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior and specifically Perceived Behavioral control in predicting behavior, contrary to some widely held beliefs about the role of experience. The role of experience is therefore crucial to understanding people's choices. Practically, improving social approval, positive evaluation and access to lawful media should reduce unlawful behavior.

To reduce the widespread unlawful downloading of copyrighted media, industry has responded via litigation against individual file sharers and by lobbying governments to strengthen intellectual property laws. Such approaches have had limited success in reducing unlawful content sharing. We explore how much perceptions of legal risk impact upon stated unlawful behaviour as well as how relevant factors such as the perceived benefits of unlawful file sharing, trust in industry and legal regulators, and perceived anonymity online impact upon this perceived risk. We examine these questions via a large two-part survey of consumers of music (n = 658) and eBooks (n = 737). We find perceptions of legal risk fail to predict stated file sharing behaviour, while the perceived benefit of unlawfully downloaded files does predict behaviour. The relationship between perceived risk and behaviour is partially mitigated by perceived benefits. We also show that trust in industry and regulators enhance perceptions of risk, while perceptions of anonymity lower perceptions of risk. High trust and high anonymity impact on the effect of perceived benefit on risk perception. These findings have practical implications in terms of the likely success of different behavioural interventions and theoretical implications into how perceptions of risk are processed.

We employ a scoping review methodology to consider and assess the existing evidence on the determinants of unlawful file sharing (UFS) transparently and systematically. Based on the evidence, we build a simple conceptual framework to model the psychological decision to engage in UFS, purchase legally or do nothing. We identify social, moral, experiential, technical, legal and financial utility sources of the decision to purchase or to file share. They interact in complex ways. We consider the strength of evidence within these areas and note patterns of results. There is good evidence for influences on UFS within each of the identified determinants, particularly for self-reported measures, with more behavioral research needed. There are also indications that the reasons for UFS differ across media; more studies exploring media other than music are required.

We employ a scoping review methodology to consider and assess the existing evidence on the determinants of unlawful file sharing (UFS) transparently and systematically. Based on the evidence, we build a simple conceptual framework to model the psychological decision to engage in UFS, purchase legally or do nothing. We identify social, moral, experiential, technical, legal and financial utility sources of the decision to purchase or to file share. They interact in complex ways. We consider the strength of evidence within these areas and note patterns of results. There is good evidence for influences on UFS within each of the identified determinants, particularly for self-reported measures, with more behavioral research needed. There are also indications that the reasons for UFS differ across media; more studies exploring media other than music are required.

A launch event for a scoping review of a decade of file sharing research was held by the CREATe group on 11 April 2014. Panellists were invited from stakeholder groups including industry, civil rights and technological intermediaries. The review addressed five key determinants of unlawful file sharing which were repeatedly found in the 206 reviewed studies: legal and financial, technical, experiential, social and moral. It also covered issues of social welfare and the costs and benefits to producers and consumers. The unequal coverage of different media sectors and research types, and the insufficient actual causal behavioural data, were highlighted. A subsequent discussion covered technological change, harm and issues of production. There is need for more and better evidence to support policy.

Enhanced memorability for first-sentence information was used as a probe to examine the mental representations underpinning the processing of spatial descriptions, with a focus on analogue, mental model representations versus propositional representations. In Experiment 1 rotating the visual layout of a spatial description slowed its recognition, a result that is strongly indicative of an analogue representation. In contrast, the surface details of spatial descriptions were recalled after 2 weeks, with advantages for information that was repeated or mentioned in first sentences. Although suggestive of propositional representations, these latter findings are not decisive. In Experiment 2, however, the determinacy of spatial relations influenced the recognition of their descriptions (indicative of analogue representations), but first-sentence information aided only the recall of the original text and not the spatial layout (indicative of propositional representations). Overall, these results are consistent with the existence of separate and non-integrated analogue and propositional representations of spatial information that trade computational efficiency for task appropriateness.