Online piracy, anonymity and social change

Abstract

This article analyses current trends in the use of anonymity services among younger Swedes (15-25 years old) and focuses on individuals engaging in illegal file sharing in order to better understand the rationale behind both file sharing as well as online anonymity, especially in relation to enforcement of copyright. By comparing the findings of a survey conducted on three occasions (early 2009, late 2009 and early 2012), we measure the fluctuations in the use of anonymity services among approximately 1000 15-25-year-olds in Sweden, compare them with file sharing frequencies and, to some extent, trends within legal enforcement. The article also suggests that the key to understanding any relationship between copyright enforcement and fluctuations in online anonymity can be found in the law's relationship to social norms in terms of legitimacy by showing a correlation between file sharing frequency and the use of anonymity services. The findings indicate that larger proportions of frequent file sharers (downloaders) also use anonymity services more often than those who file share less. However, in comparison to the earlier surveys, the strongest increase in the use of anonymity services is found in the groups where file sharing is less frequent, suggesting that reasons for actively making oneself less traceable online other than avoiding copyright enforcement have emerged since the initial two surveys in 2009. Further, the overall increase (from 8.6 per cent to 14.9 per cent) in using anonymity services found for the whole group of respondents suggests both that high file sharing frequency is a driver for less traceability, as well as a larger trend for online anonymity relating to factors other than mere file sharing of copyright infringing content -for example, increased governmental identification, data retention and surveillance in the online environment. The results are analysed in Merton's terminology as file sharers and protocol architects adapting in terms of both innovation and rebellion in the sense that institutional means for achieving specific

Law, norms, piracy and online anonymity

“…The present study is to some extent comparable to Swedish studies on the use of anonymity services (Larsson and Svensson, 2010; see also about repeat study reported in Larsson et al, 2012) and social norms of copyright before and after the implementation of IPRED. There are, however, at least two major differences between the study represented by this article and the aforementioned studies relevant to the implementation of IPRED in Sweden, as well as the follow-up: first, the IPRED studies were conducted at two different points in time, with a follow-up, giving the opportunity to see changes in levels over time, which is an opportunity this study does not offer.…”

Copy Me Happy: The Metaphoric Expansion of Copyright in a Digital Society

“…Whatever conclusions are drawn about this particular case of copies in copyright, the figures in the example above reveal that copying of audio and video media (legal or otherwise) is in many ways socially acceptable behaviour in contemporary society [as concluded in a number of studies, 1,18,40,41,55,56]. The question then arises as to the democratic value of disseminating such media.…”

“…If so, at what price? A number of studies reveal that measures are taken by file sharers to be less traceable online [2,3,4,23,41,42] especially as a response to harsher copyright enforcement [40,41]. Is it even possible to secure compliance with such regulation when social norms are so different?…”

Parallel Norms: File‐Sharing and Contemporary Copyright Development in Australia

“…Consequently, Lysonski and Durvasula () point out that lawsuits seem neither to slow down the rate of unauthorised file sharing, nor solve the issue. Moreover, others have noticed that the use of tools that make file‐sharers harder to trace in an online context are more common amongst high‐frequency sharers (Larsson et al ., ) and the overall use of such tools are increasing (Larsson et al ., ), indicating that the enforcement of legislation is increasingly difficult.…”