IntroductionThe issue of digital piracy has become a topic of immense concern, such that it has attracted the attention of both legislators and academics. As a result there has been a steady growth in academic literature on the topic over the last several years (Higgins, Wilson & Fell, 2005; Higgins, Fell, & Wilson, 2006; Higgins & Wilson, 2006; Hohn, Muftic & Wolf, 2006; Al-Rafee & Cronan, 2006; Hinduja, 2007). Defining digital piracy has been difficult as the term "piracy" may invoke images of those who steal for monetary gain. In reaching a definition, Hill (2007) has defined digital piracy to include "the purchase of counterfeit products at a discount to the price of the copyrighted product, and illegal file sharing of copyright material over peer-to-peer computer networks." (p. 9). This definition removes the financial gain aspect of digital file sharing in its attempts to provide a simpler definition of digital piracy. However, while attempts to define digital file sharing and digital piracy have become more simplified, the topic is still one of immense complexity. Digital file sharing, sometimes referred to as digital piracy and sometimes referred to as peer-to-peer file sharing - occasionally abbreviated as P2P file sharing - continues to intrigue both researchers and practitioners in the fields of criminology, economics and computer science. The reasons for this interest are varied, but it is likely that such increased interest can be tied to the fact that the technology has evolved rapidly creating conflicts between users and traditional intellectual property laws. Additionally, there is the fact that many individuals in the music and film industry have blamed the technology for lagging sales of compact disks (CDs) and digital video disks (DVDS) (Pomerantz, 2005).From a commonsense perspective this issue of financial harm would seem to make sense. If individuals are downloading and copying music and movie files from P2P networks then they are more than likely not paying for these materials. Or are they? There is considerable debate among economic academics about the financial impact P2P file sharing has on the music and film industry. Pomerantz (2005) reported that as much as $21 billion could be lost on DVD sales and $12 billion could be lost on CD sales each year because of P2P file sharing. These estimates of loss are believed to be associated with the fact that at any given time there are approximately 1 billion music and movie files available online (Ouellet, 2007). However, some economic experts have countered this argument claiming that P2P file sharing only minimally, if at all, affects the purchase of DVDs and CDs (Oberholzer & Strumpf, 2005; Rochelander & Le Guel, 2005).The music industry initially responded to file sharing through the use of legal pressure against the software manufacturers who produced file sharing software. However, more recently the music and movie industries have resorted to the use of civil lawsuits against users, focusing more on consumers than on software manufacturers (Rupley, 2004). The viability of these lawsuits has been questioned, as studies have indicated that there has been very little, if any, decrease in the use of P2P file sharing activities as a result of civil litigation against users (Green & Sager, 2004). It is for these reasons that it becomes important to gain a better understanding of what influences a person's decision to engage in digital piracy. Understanding why a person engages in P2P file sharing may allow for the development of better responses to the problem - responses that do not involve costly litigation.Initial research on demographic factors associated with P2P file sharing have found that file sharers were most often male and of lower educational levels (Rochelander & Le Guel, 2005). However, Hinduja (2008) found that less than half of the individuals in his study who engaged in digital piracy were male but that overwhelmingly the individuals were of Caucasian descent. …
[1]
David Matza,et al.
Delinquency and Drift
,
1966
.
[2]
Gresham M. Sykes,et al.
Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency.
,
1957
.
[3]
George E. Higgins,et al.
An Application of Deterrence Theory to Software Piracy
,
2005
.
[4]
C. Hill.
Digital piracy: Causes, consequences, and strategic responses
,
2007
.
[5]
Sameer Hinduja,et al.
Deindividuation and Internet Software Piracy
,
2008,
Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..
[6]
Sameer Hinduja,et al.
Neutralization theory and online software piracy: An empirical analysis
,
2007,
Ethics and Information Technology.
[7]
Maureen Bell,et al.
Online Role-Play: Anonymity, Engagement and Risk
,
2001
.
[8]
Diane Rowland.
Privacy, freedom of expression and cyberSLAPPs: fostering anonymity on the internet?
,
2003
.
[9]
J. Suler.
The Online Disinhibition Effect
,
2004,
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.
[10]
W. W. Minor,et al.
Techniques of Neutralization: a Reconceptualization and Empirical Examination
,
1981
.
[11]
D. Dabney,et al.
Neutralization and deviance in the workplace: Theft of supplies and medicines by hospital nurses
,
1995
.
[12]
Robert Agnew,et al.
Neutralizing the Impact of Crime
,
1985
.
[13]
George E. Higgins,et al.
Low Self-Control, Moral Beliefs, and Social Learning Theory in University Students’ Intentions to Pirate Software
,
2006
.
[14]
R. Hollinger,et al.
neutralizing in the workplace: an empirical analysis of property theft and production deviance
,
1991,
Work Place Sabotage.
[15]
Richard A. Dodder,et al.
Neutralization of drinking behavior
,
1993
.
[16]
James William Coleman,et al.
The criminal elite : the sociology of white collar crime
,
1985
.
[17]
Ken Levi,et al.
Becoming a Hit Man
,
1981
.
[18]
George E. Higgins.
Digital Piracy, Self-Control Theory, and Rational Choice: An Examination of the Role of Value
,
2007
.
[19]
Lisa R. Muftić,et al.
Swashbuckling Students: An Exploratory Study of Internet Piracy
,
2006
.
[20]
Fabrice Rochelandet,et al.
P2P Music Sharing Networks: Why the Legal Fight Against Copiers May Be Inefficient
,
2005
.
[21]
Jean-François Ouellet,et al.
The purchase versus illegal download of music by consumers: the influence of consumer response towards the artist and music
,
2007
.
[22]
T. P. Cronan,et al.
Digital Piracy: Factors that Influence Attitude Toward Behavior
,
2006
.
[23]
Heith Copes,et al.
societal attachments, offending frequency, and techniques of neutralization
,
2003
.
[24]
Carl B. Klockars.
The Professional Fence
,
1975
.
[25]
David Matza.
Delinquency and Drift
,
1966
.
[26]
Martha J. Heltsley,et al.
the good mother: neutralization techniques used by pageant mothers
,
2003
.
[27]
Felix Oberholzer-Gee,et al.
The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis
,
2007,
Journal of Political Economy.
[28]
Sylvia N. Albert,et al.
Intellectual Property Crimes
,
2005
.
[29]
George E. Higgins,et al.
Digital Piracy: Assessing the Contributions of an Integrated Self‐Control Theory and Social Learning Theory Using Structural Equation Modeling
,
2006
.
[30]
W C Brennan,et al.
Abortion and the techniques of neutralization.
,
1974,
Journal of health and social behavior.
[31]
Joseph W. Cormier,et al.
Intellectual Property Crimes
,
2009
.
[32]
R. A. Dodder,et al.
techniques of neutralization used by deer poachers in the western united states: a research note
,
1999
.