12
Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1 , Piers Fleming 2 , Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University 2 University of East Anglia 3 Newcastle University

Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing:

An empirical analysis

Steven Watson1, Piers Fleming2, Daniel J. Zizzo3

1Lancaster University2University of East Anglia3Newcastle University

Page 2: Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Risk and behaviour

• Unlawful file sharing is widespread• Legal challenges to reduce impact• Risk vs. benefit as a motivator

Page 3: Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Risk perception

• Additional moderators of risk perception– The “affect heuristic”

• Negative relationship between perceived benefit and perceived risk

– Trust– Anonymity– Media

Page 4: Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Survey

• Large two part survey by market research company– Part one: Risk, Benefit, Trust (industry and

regulators), Anonymity– Part two: Extent of file sharing since part one

• Participants: eBooks (n = 737, M = 47.2 years, SD = 15.4 years), Music (n = 658, M = 47.3 years, SD = 15.36 years)

Page 5: Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Results

Risk Benefit Trust in industry

Trust in regulating

authorities

Anonymity10

15

20

25

30

35eBooks

Music

Scal

e Sc

ore

*

* *

Page 6: Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Risk or benefits

Media Variable OR Lower 95% CI

Upper 95% CI

Wald χ2 (1df)

p

eBooks Risk 1.01 .97 1.05 .19 .666 Benefit 1.07 1.04 1.11 20.43 <.001*Music Risk 1.00 .96 1.04 .002 .965 Benefit 1.15 1.11 1.18 82.31 <.001*

• Outcome variable is self-reported unlawful downloads: None, low (1-3 files) or high (4+ files)

Page 7: Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Affect heuristic

Media Variable Beta s.e. t peBooks Constant 27.41 .61 45.12 <.001 Benefits -.18 .03 -6.63 <.001Music Constant 26.70 .58 46.31 <.001 Benefits -.11 .02 -4.79 <.001

• Outcome variable is perceived risk of unlawful downloading

Page 8: Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Industry trust

Low benefit High benefit20

22

24

26

Perc

eive

d ri

sk

Low benefit High bene-fit

20

22

24

26 Low trust

High trust

Perc

eive

d ri

sk

eBooks Music

• High trust in industry is associated with higher risk• In music, high trust is associated with a stronger

relationship between perceived risk and benefit

Page 9: Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Regulator trust

• High trust in regulators is associated with higher risk• In music, and possibly eBooks, high trust is associated with a

stronger relationship between perceived risk and benefit

Low benefit High benefit2021222324252627

Perc

eive

d ri

sk

Low benefit High benefit2021222324252627

Low trustHigh trust

Perc

eive

d ri

sk

eBooks Music

Page 10: Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Anonymity

• High perceived anonymity is associated with lower risk• High anonymity is associated with a weaker relationship

between perceived risk and benefit

Low benefit High benefit2021222324252627

Perc

eive

d ri

sk

Low benefit High bene-fit

2021222324252627

Low anonymity

High anonymity

Perc

eive

d ri

sk

eBooks Music

Page 11: Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Conclusions

• Affect heuristic present in unlawful file sharing• Trust in punitive entities increased risk

perception• Anonymity decreased risk perception

Page 12: Perceived risks and benefits in unlawful file sharing: An empirical analysis Steven Watson 1, Piers Fleming 2, Daniel J. Zizzo 3 1 Lancaster University

Conclusions

• Risk does not predict behaviour whereas benefit does

• Suggests policy should focus more on encouraging solutions that target benefits:– Encourage legal services that meet demands of

consumers– Undermine the benefits of unlawful services

• Supply• Quality