Neutralizing Potential and Self-Reported Digital Piracy

• Author: Robert G. Morris,George E. Higgins
• Date: 01 June 2009
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016808325034
• Published date: 01 June 2009
• Subject Matter: Articles

Neutralizing Potential and

Self-Reported Digital Piracy

A Multitheoretical Exploration Among

College Undergraduates

Robert G. Morris

University of Texas at Dallas

George E. Higgins

University of Louisville, Kentucky

This study explores retrospective (self-reported) and prospective (willingness to engage)

participation in digital piracy via a multitheoretical approach relying on self-control, social

learning, microanomie, and techniques of neutralization. Using more complete measures of

digital piracy than in previous studies (illegal music, software, and movie downloading), data

were collected from undergraduate students from multiple universities (n=585). Modest

support was found for neutralization theory when controlling for other theoretical variables.

Modest support was also established for social learning theory. It is clear that there is an

underexplored cross-theoretical dynamic in explaining self-reported piracy and willingness to

engage in digital piracy. Suggestions for policy and future research are presented and

limitations are accounted for.

Keywords: digital piracy; neutralization; social learning; microanomie; cybercrime

Introduction

The age of the Internet has brought forth unparalleled human development. The social

ecology of the modern world now revolves around information systems and advanced

forms of communication. Although this development has generated prosperity and exposed

individuals to new information and, thus, new channels of development, it has also been the

basis for a variety of new styles of criminal offending and deviant behavior.1

This new “digital” offending has been the focus of research to some extent during the

past few decades, yet only more recent endeavors have accounted for widespread access to

new technology and, in turn, new criminal opportunities. To complicate matters more, the

nature of digital offending has constrained the development of effective legislation to con-

trol harm to developers and artists. Definitional and jurisdictional issues have also impaired

legislation toward digital offending. Also problematic is our limited understanding of the

173

Criminal Justice Review

Volume 34 Number 2

June 2009 173-195

© 2009 Georgia State University

Research Foundation, Inc.

10.1177/0734016808325034

http://cjr.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: Please address correspondence to Robert G. Morris, University of Texas at Dallas, 800 West

Campbell Road, GR 31, Richardson, TX 75080-3021; e-mail: morris@utdallas.edu.

Articles

etiology and continuity of digital piracy. Building on previous studies (Ingram & Hinduja,

2008; Maruna & Copes, 2005), this study extends the body of knowledge by exploring the

role of neutralization theory while accounting for other established theories of crime for

both self-reported and willingness to participate in online digital piracy. Through a better

understanding of how these theoretical components contribute to explaining digital piracy

as a behavior, it is hoped that the findings presented here will both extend criminological

theory and aid in the development of sound policies to combat this growing issue.

Digital Piracy Defined

Digital piracy can be defined as the act of illegally copying digital goods, computer soft-

ware, electronic documents, and digital media (including audio and video files) without the

explicit permission of copyright holders (Gopal, Sanders, Bhattacharjee, Agrawal, &

Wagner, 2004). Citing Straub and Collins (1990), Higgins, Fell, and Wilson (2006) argue

that such behaviors include the sharing of digital media (music, software, video files, etc.)

among willing media holders.2

The costs of online digital music piracy alone, according to the International Federation

of Phonographic Industries (2006), were estimated to be $1.1 billion worldwide in 2006

(more than 20 billion tracks illegally downloaded) and an estimated $33 billion was lost

from software piracy in 2005 (Business Software Alliance, 2005). Beyond losses from soft-

ware and music files, the movie industry is also subject to noteworthy losses from digital

piracy. Research sponsored by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) sug-

gests that U.S. motion picture corporations lost more than $6 billion from movie piracy in

2005, 44% of which is argued to stem from college students in the United States, and global

losses were estimated at more than $18 billion (MPAA, 2007). Although some research

suggests that illegal downloading of media files by younger individuals may actually stim-

ulate future sales in some cases,3it is indisputable that digital piracy is responsible for con-

siderable annual losses in revenue. This equates to fewer jobs, inflated prices, lost tax

revenue, and potentially to losses in creative interests by artists and producers.

Neutralization

Neutralization has been applied to explain many forms of criminal, and noncriminal,

behaviors. For digital crimes, however, the systematic application of neutralizations or jus-

tifications as an explanation of prevalence has been limited (for exceptions see Hinduja,

2007; Ingram & Hinduja, 2008). Research does show, however, that many individuals view

some forms of digital piracy as normative behavior as opposed to criminal or deviant

behavior (Hinduja, 2007; Ingram & Hinduja, 2008; Kievit, 1991; Kini, Ramakrishana, &

Vijayaraman, 2003; Oz, 1990; Paradice, 1990; Peace, Galletta, & Thong, 2003; Rahim,

Seyal, & Rahman, 2001; Ramakrishna, Kini, & Vijayaraman, 2001; Solomon & O’Brien, 1990).

Sykes and Matza (1957) were the first criminologists to develop “techniques of neutral-

ization” specific to criminal offending; yet the scope of their exploration was limited to

juvenile offending. Their theory suggested that criminal behaviors can be justified prior to

commission through any of five techniques, including (a) the denial of responsibility, (b) the

denial of injury, (c) the denial of a victim, (d) a condemnation of condemners, and (e) an

174 Criminal Justice Review