Face the music: Explicit anti-piracy warnings are best deterrent

November 6, 2018, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Face the music: Explicit anti-piracy warnings are best deterrent
A graphic of a computer and download symbol with a prohibitive slash -- coupled with the phrasing "STOP! This is illegal. You may be monitored and fined." -- is the most effective way to stop music piracy, according to a UNLV study. Credit: Joanne Ullman/UNLV

STOP! This is illegal. You may be monitored and fined.

Did that get your attention? Good. Because according to a new UNLV study, this phrasing coupled with a graphic of a computer and download symbol with a prohibitive slash is the most effective way to stop .

The research, borne out of dissertation work by UNLV psychology instructor Joanne Ullman, tested 220 college undergraduates' reactions to more than 70 symbols, action words, and warning phrases.

Among the findings:

  • Signal words conveying the presence of risk (IMPORTANT and STOP) received higher perceived effectiveness ratings than NOTICE.
  • An icon depicting the illegality of uploading copyrighted scored less effective.
  • Regarding warning messages, researchers evaluated them to be sure they could be understood with a literacy level of 5th grade or lower. They initially hypothesized that the threat of fines alone was most likely to scare off illegal downloaders. But they were surprised to find that people are equally leery of being monitored by unknown entities—and pairing the repercussions proved most effective.

"For some individuals, privacy may be just as important as a pecuniary consequence," researchers wrote in their paper, which was published last month during the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting. "Of course, the combination of both would heighten the potential consequence."

Ullman said she doesn't expect her findings will rid the entire world of music piracy. But she hopes to educate the public and to perhaps encourage lawmakers to streamline laws or the music industry to create blanket streaming/download rules that better match consumer habits.

Currently, the Copyright Act allows damages of $750 up to $150,000 per infringement. Moreover, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, internet service providers can disable repeat offenders' web access.

"Technically, there's no music out there that's free," Ullman said, referencing the 2018 Music Modernization Act which for the first time enacts federal laws—that will supersede a vague, contradictory, confusing patchwork of state laws protecting sound recordings—and allow fully-protected music to enter public domain beginning in 2022. She noted that even the "Happy Birthday" song, protected under the vague older laws, didn't enter public domain until 2016 under a judge's ruling; previously, she said, movies and restaurants were among entities that would create their own version or avoid using the song altogether to avoid legal battles surrounding copyright infringement.

Ullman says that, similar to jaywalking, music copyright laws are not regulated across the board and therefore could be subject to selective enforcement. And that could become a problem for the United States, which produces and distributes the most music in the world.

Throughout history, Ullman said, copyright issues have become an issue whenever there's been modernization; for example, laws had to be created to protect works reproduced after the printing press was invented. "There might be a correlation between our economic condition and how strict (the government or music companies) are with intellectual property. Economic recessions may actually lead to more stringent enforcement with respect to copyright laws," she said.

With respect to the effectiveness of music piracy warnings, Ullman said we all have different levels of risk aversions because of our personality or profession.

"I doubt these symbols will get someone to suddenly change their mind and say, 'Piracy is bad', " she said. "But at least being reminded that if you download something illegally you may be monitored or fined, we can think about our behavior and make thoughtful decisions. That's especially important in the online world where we're so task-focused; the pictorial can almost immediately remind you—you don't even have to read anything—and make you say, 'I should think before I act'."

Explore further: YouTube driving global consumption of music

More information: Joanne R. Ullman et al, Perceived Effectiveness of Potential Music Piracy Warnings, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (2018). DOI: 10.1177/1541931218621309

Related Stories

Justices won't hear appeal in music copyright dispute

March 27, 2017

The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from record companies that want to pursue copyright infringement claims against music site Vimeo for hosting unauthorized recordings from the Beatles, Elvis Presley and other classic ...

Innovation trumped by copyright law

September 10, 2012

(Phys.org)—From Napster to iTunes to Pandora, the methods by which the public can obtain and share music have rapidly progressed.

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

NASA instruments image fireball over Bering Sea

March 22, 2019

On Dec. 18, 2018, a large "fireball—the term used for exceptionally bright meteors that are visible over a wide area—exploded about 16 miles (26 kilometers) above the Bering Sea. The explosion unleashed an estimated 173 ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
4 / 5 (1) Nov 06, 2018
laws had to be created to protect works reproduced after the printing press was invented


These laws weren't created to protect the works, but to protect the printers and the publishers.

After its invention, printing was quickly monopolized by the state, because it was used to spread "heretical" information such as political pamphlets and even printing non-sanctioned copied of the Bible that differed from the one the Church was using. Hence, in England, all printing was strictly controlled by the Stationers' Company under a royal mandate.

When the Stationers' Company monopoly was ended in 1710, Copyright was invented to stop competing printing houses from printing the same books. The publishers argued that the authors had these "natural" rights that could be sold or transferred to the publishers, who in turn would refuse to print an author's work unless given the copyright - hence gaining the same advantage as the Stationers' monopoly.

The authors gained nothing.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.