The OCI report “is conducted annually to ensure that the IPO can monitor the impact of new online platforms on infringement behaviours”. The report tracks behaviours and attitudes among consumers aged over 12 years in the UK regarding online copyright infringement.
Some highlights of the 10th edition of the OCI report are the following:
- The “overall level of infringement for all content categories (excluding digital visual images) was at 23%, which is 2% lower than where it had been for the previous four years”.
- “The amount of legal content consumed in both [streaming TV programmes/series and films] categories also increased while the amount of illegal content either remained the same or decreased”.
- “Despite a decrease in the overall proportion downloading, the volume of [music] tracks downloaded by both legal and illegal methods per respondent increased”.
The overall levels of infringement per categories
The 10th edition of the OCI report offers a high level of granularity. An overview of the overall levels of infringement per category is provided below:
Category
|
The
most common method of accessing the content
|
The
overall level of infringement
|
Music
|
Streaming (37%), followed by downloading
(23%) and purchased physical music (11%)
|
2020: 18%
2019: 20%
|
Film
|
Streaming (42%), followed by downloading
(18%) and purchased physical copies (13%)
|
2020: 20%
2019: 27%
|
TV programmes/ series
|
Streaming (42%), followed by downloading
(16%) and purchased physical copies (4%)
|
2020: 14%
2019: 17%
|
Live sport
|
Streaming (8%)
|
2020: 37%
2019: 34%
|
Video games
|
Downloading (16%), followed by streaming
(11%) and purchased physical copies (9%)
|
2020: 11%
2019: 6%
|
Software
|
Downloading (18%), followed by streaming
(8%) and purchased physical copies (4%)
|
2020: 20
2019: 18%
|
E-books
|
Physical purchasing (26%), followed by
downloading (20%) and streaming/accessing (8%)
|
2020: 17%
2019*
|
Digital magazines
|
Physical purchasing (12%), followed by
downloading (6%) and streaming/accessing (5%)
|
2020: 28%
|
Audiobooks
|
Downloading (8%), followed by streaming
(5%) and purchased physical copies (2%)
|
2020: 14%
2019*
|
In 2019*, the category of e-publishing included inter alia books, magazines, and newspapers. 35% of e-publishing consumers in 2019 claimed to have used at least one illegal source to access e-publications. The category of digital magazines was introduced in the 10th edition of the OCI report.
You can review here more details of the levels of infringement per category (e.g., source type [legal, mix, illegal] per each method of accessing the content).
Comments
The 10th edition of the OCI report sheds light on changes in consumer behaviours during the lockdown in terms of consumption and overall levels of infringement of specific digital content.
Respondents indicated that some activities, such as reading, watching films, playing video games, and listening to music, played a key role in their lives as the content helps them cope with the struggles derived from the lockdown (e.g., stress, boredom, and anxiety).
Compared to the previous year, consumption (i.e., downloading or streaming content online) remained consistent across some categories. However, there was a decline in downloading music and TV programmes/series. Likewise, the streaming of live sport decreased, but there was an increase in streaming films.
Regarding the overall levels of infringement, the categories of live sport, video games and software reported an increase. In contrast, the overall levels of infringement of music, film and TV programmes/series declined.
The report also provides insights into consumer motivations driving online infringement, such as the “cost and wanting to limit spending - particularly within categories where content is split across many different providers with separate subscriptions to pay for each; the availability and broad range of content accessible via illegal sources which often offer people more options than legal methods [and] the ease of access of illegal methods meaning that there are relatively few barriers to use”.
Interesting findings regarding changes in consumer behaviours with respect to online infringement, through communications testing and effective messaging per infringer types, are also offered in the study.
It was found that messages “about the consequences to industries, big corporations or the economy [,] failed to garner much empathy”, whilst focusing on individual stories had more impact on encouraging self-reflection that may lead to behaviour change.
Messages that focused on the stories about the potential harm to individuals in the industry (e.g., artists, creatives, or employers) had an impact on both cautious infringers (i.e., “who worry about infringing the law and the risks of illegal activity”) and savvy infringers (i.e., “who are more tech savvy and knowingly access content illegally without much concern over related dangers or consequences”).
While cautious infringers responded better to a broad range of messages, savvy infringers reacted better to those highlighting risks to their hardware and devices (e.g., digital viruses). Savvy infringers also seemed “sceptical about the true impact of illegal access on industries or of the opinion that industries must change, not consumers”.
The OCI report provides valuable insights into online copyright infringement and consumer behaviours, which will be beneficial when implementing policies, particularly concerning raising awareness in the fight against online piracy.
The full report of the 10th edition of the OCI Tracker (246 pages) is available upon request via research@ipo.gov.uk.
Sources:
Credits:
The second and third images are courtesy of Riana Harvey.
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html