A .5 $3..
V . e

ma . .. .333 , .V . V .. ‘ , . VV . . .V . , A, Pm mm,
, V V _. . V _ V V ..:.....3..,

22.31::

Li H
_
V 2.

. .wfa

. 35....
wwwiwrnn‘, a???
a u. .... J _ an.
. .q 2. :nflmwwmmm."
u... Elva“. a .
5%... s 52 a“.

, 3..
....v 3.3%.
“kw“.
.
4.,V
Liammmmwuu

at N . . . ..

l: V o .. .
E?
. 4 .r .«W. r. .9.

. .v:
«a s «:3

x . . . V V . a... . . .t
i. 0...... in, . . . , . ‘ . V , .m ”25.. .
.t’ C :1 «a ‘ _ . . ‘ .
5. aw
. . .A
7.717

. .2. ......
., .. $44.». .
. J... “(3.3.
~
by 3. N
‘ 1...! e,
v

 

E

‘:r....! V
.15 z. . ‘ .I
3. \ pl”. ‘

1%.? 55029....” a

7‘. Jury 1‘ .

Lt : B :1\
3 {5:

..
:zxrtv . .
t vltrau

. ‘m. 3. a. V...
(33:14. i:
V ~
V , £3:
. 17.; it

s A u 3.32.

J “ram.
7

n .35. .

1;! :¢

v...

«V’sgzéfigfig L...

 

 

‘. I

THESIS
(t)

am-

.17’(‘ m

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Broadband Connectivity and Software Piracy
in a University Setting

presented by

Sameer Hinduj a

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M . S - degree in LLimimLsIustice

Major professor

 

Date__EaJl 2000

0-7 639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LEBRARY '
Michigan State
University

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE | DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

rm%5%

finfl‘,

at

i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 chlFiC/‘DaoDuepGS-DJS

--— r“

BROADBAND CONNECTIVITY AND SOFTWARE PIRACY
IN A UNIVERSITY SETTING

By

Sameer Hinduja

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Criminal Justice

2000

transf
appli
factor
instrt
ratio:
AJVCV
UtilizL

“'38 5h

expat;

 

CDRf
“futr;

OHSEIL

 

ABSTRACT

BROADBAND CONNECTIVITY AND SOFTWARE PIRACY
IN A UNIVERSITY SETTING

By

Sameer Hinduja

Software piracy has become a significant problem for businesses and educational
institutions, and as computer crime continues to proliferate in our information age, its
causes and roots merit academic inquiry. This paper attempts to determine whether, and
to what degree, high-speed Internet access in a university residential setting facilitates the
transferring and distribution of unauthorized software packages. Additionally, it seeks to
apply neutralization theory to software piracy to obtain a greater understanding of the
factors that influence the commission of this hi gh-tech crime. The study utilized a survey
instrument in its methodology, which gleaned valuable information on the motives,
rationalizations, and behaviors of software pirates. Independent Samples T-Tests,
ANOVA, Correlations, Two-Way ANOVA, and Ordinary Least Squares Regression were
utilized to empirically evaluate relationships between variables. A significant relationship
was found in that high-speed access is positively related to increased online piracy. Past
experience with traditional piracy through the creation and duplication of programs on
CDROMs was also found to be a significant predictor of Internet pirating. Finally,
neutralization theory was found to be an applicable framework in which to view the
deviance. The results of the study are used to suggest policy aimed at combating the

onset and perpetuation of unethical and illegal computing activity among students.

 

TOm

 

 

To my parents and sister, this work is dedicated.

iii

 

 

and C
tours
“Dr‘s
Iii-QC It

impor

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my committee members, Mahesh Nalla, Christina DeJong,
and Christopher Maxwell, who offered valuable guidance and feedback throughout the
course of this project. They were always happy to discuss the progress of the research
work and bring to my attention inconsistencies that necessitated addressing. I would also
like to thank my family and friends for their support and encouragement. Most

importantly, I’m grateful to God for the peace that He grants.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Premise ................................................................................................................................ 1
Scope and Objective of the Research .................................................................................. 3
Value and Contribution of the Research ............................................................................. 6
NEUTRALIZATION THEORY ......................................................................................... 8
Denial of Responsibility ...................................................................................................... 9
Denial of Injury ................................................................................................................. 10
Denial of Victim ............................................................................................................... 13
Condemnation of the Condemners .................................................................................... 15
Appeal to Higher Loyalties ............................................................................................... 17
Metaphor of the Ledger ..................................................................................................... 18
Claim of Norrnalcy ............................................................................................................ 18
Denial of Negative Intent .................................................................................................. 19
Claim of Relative Acceptability ........................................................................................ 21
THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF SOFTWARE PIRACY ...................................... 24
Transmission Methods ...................................................................................................... 26

Bulletin Boards ......................................................................................................... 26

World Wide Web Sites ............................................................................................. 27

Email ......................................................................................................................... 27

[RC ............................................................................................................................ 28

Newsgroups ............................................................................................................... 28

Personal Messaging Programs (ICQ, AOL IM, NetMeeting, PAL) ......................... 29

FTP ............................................................................................................................ 29
Copy Protection Schemes ................................................................................................. 30
Copyright Law .................................................................................................................. 31
PRIOR RESEARCH ......................................................................................................... 33
Previous Studies of Software Piracy ................................................................................. 33
Previous Studies of Neutralization Theory ....................................................................... 35
PRESENT STUDY ........................................................................................................... 42
Hypothesis 1 ...................................................................................................................... 42
Hypothesis 2 ...................................................................................................................... 45
Hypothesis 3 ...................................................................................................................... 45
Hypothesis 4 ...................................................................................................................... 46
Population ......................................................................................................................... 47
Instrument ......................................................................................................................... 49

Principal Issues of the Study ............................................................................................. 53

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 59
Pretest ................................................................................................................................ 6O
STATISTICAL ANALYSES ............................................................................................ 62
Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................................... 62
Bivariate Statistics ............................................................................................................ 69
Multivariate Statistics ....................................................................................................... 77
LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................. 86
POLICY IMPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 92
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 106
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................. 110
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 126
APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................. 132
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 134

vi

 

Tab
Tab;
Tab}
Tabl

Tabii

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Dependent Variables to Measure Overall Online Pirating Behavior ............... 44
Table 2. Demographics of Software Pirates ................................................................... 63
Table 3. Independent Samples T-Tests of Opportunity and Piracy Variables ............... 70
Table 4. Correlations of Theory and Piracy Variables ................................................... 72
Table 5. ANOVA for Profiency of Internet Use ............................................................ 75
Table 6. AN OVA for Variety of Internet Use ................................................................ 76
Table 7. Two-Way ANOVA for Physical and Online Piracy ........................................ 78
Table 8. Model I: OLS Regression with Demographic Variables ................................. 79

Table 9. Model H: OLS Regression with Opportunity/Physical Piracy Variables ......... 80

Table 10. Model III: OLS Regression with Neutralization Variables .............................. 83

vii

INTRODUCTION

Premise

Computers have become an increasingly integral part of our lives in the past two
decades, playing a significant role in both the industrial and economic functions of
society. The exponential growth in information technology (IT), while introducing
unheralded improvements in productivity, commerce, communication, entertainment, and
the dissemination of information, has precipitated new forms of antisocial, unethical, and
illegal behavior. As more and more users have become familiar with computing, the
scope and prevalence of the problem has grown. Computer fraud, child pornography,
hacking, and software piracy have all achieved notoriety and prominence due to
technological advances. These categories fall under a broader heading of a deviance
currently receiving deeper examination and unprecedented focus and interest from state,
national, and international entities, as well as the general public. This phenomenon is
computer crime, defined as “any illegal act fostered or facilitated by a computer, whether
the computer is an object of a crime, an instrument used to commit a crime, or a
repository of evidence related to a crime” (Computer crime, 2000).

The Internet has also taken on unprecedented importance since the mid-19905. It
includes email, chat servers, file servers, and web servers that provide vast amounts of
information and opportunities for interactive communication to millions of people
through the use of a computer. This “Information Superhighway” is a nascent, rapidly
diffusing technology that promises to become the economic underpinning for all

successful countries in the new global economy. Concomitant with the benefits of

computers and the Internet, however, have arrived new possibilities for criminogenic
behavior unique to the “virtual” environment in which it occurs. Software piracy is one
such non-traditional crime birthed by digital innovation, and is defined as the
unauthorized use or illegal copying of a software product without explicit permission
from the copyright holder (Global Software Piracy Report, 1997; Gopal & Sanders,
1998). As the focus of the current study, some of its unique characteristics bear
mentioning. For one, when piracy occurs over the Internet (or through an online medium
rather than through the duplication of physical media), it is extremely difficult to detect.
This is due in part to the power of computers to process and disseminate electronic
information rapidly, and the fact that many people have access to the Internet at
universities, businesses, libraries, and homes (International Review, 1994). Over the
Internet, duplication of intellectual property is extremely simple, and software files online
can be copied from a remote hard drive to a local hard drive or piece of removable media
by a simple “drag and drop” mouse maneuver that takes mere seconds. Furthermore,
there is no loss in quality or degeneration of features or fiinctionality through the
reproduction of programs.

On an individual level, data communications often take place at high speeds
without personal contact, leaving very little time for users to consider the implications of
their actions online. Undeniably, Internet social exchanges are less emotional and
relational than interaction in a tangible setting, and this feature has the effect of distancing
people from the behaviors committed and reducing inhibitions about participating in
immoral activities. Cumulatively, these factors allow individuals to circumvent the

purchasing of programs from retail markets, and permit them to use illegally downloaded

software without cost or obligation - software which might have cost millions of dollars
to research, develop, write, package, and distribute (Ellis, 1986).

Regardless of the cost of production, however, software piracy is the theft of an
intellectual product that belongs to someone else, for which s/he has a genuine and
unequivocal right to be compensated. Online piracy occurs not only at the expense of
software engineers, programmers, and the IT industry, but also represents a further
manifestation of society’s ever—widening severance with convention. Unarguably,
deviants have adapted and incorporated supreme technological advances that have
enacted an overall positive change, such as the Internet, to accomplish the commission of
crime.

Scope and Obiective of the Research

Some statistics might prove useful in sketching a rudimentary picture of the scope
of software piracy. The worldwide market for software in 1997 was $122 billion, with
the United States (U .S.) holding 70% of this market (Global Software Piracy Report,
1997). In 1998, 38% of business applications loaded onto computer workstations were
illegally copied (Global Software Piracy Report, 1998). A hefty $11 billion dollars in
software revenues were lost worldwide in 1998, with piracy in the US. making up 25%
of that figure — a $2.9 billion dollar loss to the software industry. In the US. alone,
software piracy cost 109,000 jobs in 1998, as well as $4.5 billion in wages and nearly
$991 million in tax revenue (Colorado, 2000). It suffices to say that the gargantuan sums
of money involved alone should warrant closer and immediate scrutiny by criminal
justice practitioners, researchers, educators, and society as a whole. Another factor is that

the venue for the retail distribution of software is moving from traditional “brick and

mortar” establishments to online storefronts (with estimates of 66% of software being
distributed online by 2005) as the Internet aids companies in their goal to reach a wider
customer base and promote their products with lower overhead (Clausing, 2000). This,
coupled with the continual increase in Internet users, augurs a steady rise in the trend of
piracy.

It is important to stipulate that stealing over an Internet connection is no different
than stealing from a traditional retail outlet. Piracy incurs significant damage on the IT
industry not only by depriving corporations of billions of dollars in financial returns, but
also by eliminating jobs and by stifling innovative enterprise, new research, and product
development - fundamental elements for a continued burgeoning of our information-
based society. Another relevant issue is endemic to the study population of this paper
(further described below) - if college students are not sanctioned for unlawful computing
behavior, it is presumed that the behavior will continue when they leave the relatively
sheltered milieu of higher education. and venture out into the working world. Piracy also
undermines the integrity of the educational institution in which it takes place. Perhaps
software theft will inevitably precipitate additional forms of illicit computer and network
usage, such as the sale of bootlegged copyright material, hacking, Internet stalking, and
even dabbling in child pornography. While it may seem that downloading a few
unlicensed programs from the Internet to one’s dorm room computer cannot be equated
to, and is not indicative of, an inclination towards seedier criminal behavior, the existence
(or lack) of a correlation remains to be determined and warrants analysis in future

longitudinal studies.

 

p

Iosterc"
residcr
busine
pri mar
sketch
populal
satisfac
Moreox

steer th:

 

This exploratory work focuses on a particular type of computer crime seemingly
fostered by broadband connectivity granted to students who reside in university
residential facilities. Software piracy has been the subject of previous studies in the
business ethics and management information systems fields, but these inquiries have been
primarily descriptive in nature. Prior research has provided us with an undeveloped
sketch of the prevalence of this particular form of deviance among specific study
populations such as business and computer science students, but has failed to
satisfactorily determine possible sociological or situational causes of the crime.
Moreover, previous exploration has not applied a criminological perspective to guide and
steer the investigation.

The primary goal of the current study is to determine whether software piracy
among college students is engendered through the availability and inherent rapidity of
high-speed link to the Internet. This determinant has not previously been addressed, but
is deserving of investigation as network pipelines and consequently online data transfer
speeds are continually upgraded and augmented to meet the usage requirements of a
growing population of wired individuals. Moreover, by soliciting demographic
information from the respondents, the findings of previous research that intended to
extract a profile of the “typical” software pirate can be corroborated, refuted, or modified.
Piracy through traditional means — the duplication of programs from CD to CD, computer
to CD, or CD to computer is also analyzed as a predictor of Internet piracy. Finally, this
work attempts to ascertain whether and to what extent students use techniques of
neutralization to free themselves from the binds of a normative value system in order to

effectuate the unauthorized duplication and dissemination of software. I hope that after

determining the extant level of this crime on a college campus, and by identifying the a
priori rationalizing processes that occur behind the scenes, competent policy initiatives
can be constructed and developed to reduce, if not completely eliminate, the amount of
illegal software that is being transferred and distributed through the university’s high-
speed Internet connection.

Value gid Contribution of the Rm

This study makes several useful contributions to the areas of criminal justice and
computer crime research. For one, the examination applies a criminological theory to
software piracy. It extends the research of criminal justice into an area little studied, and
works to fill the void of inquiry into deviance resulting from technological advances (in
this case, the Internet). Further, the work strives to engender useful policy solutions that
universities can implement in order to curb high-tech crime on campuses, an issue that
has failed until now to merit examination. Finally, a latent objective is to spark additional
interest in, and subsequent research of, all aspects of high-tech crime.

To a notable extent, piracy by students can prove detrimental to the university in
many ways. For instance, litigation can arise as software manufacturers seek to thwart
the theft of their commercial product. Aside fi'om financial considerations, the negative
publicity that can arise from this situation is often more detrimental than a monetary loss
(Rahim, Seyal, & Rahman, 1999). Additionally, to make up for lost revenue, an increase
in software prices by corporations is likely to result from the unauthorized duplication of
program files. Lastly, a failure to satisfactorily address pirating behavior and generate in
students an internal insistence on ethical computing behavior may be misperceived as a

condoning or even a silent endorsement of the activity. This particular discordant value

may then be reinforced and incorporated outside of an academic environment upon
graduation, and may even possibly contribute to a substantive rend in the moral fabric of
society. University students are targeted for analysis and subsequent policy application
because school is where honorable ethical values must be instilled and strengthened,
before the individual enters the working world where it will be more difficult to inculcate
moral principles. These factors collectively underscore the importance of studying
software piracy on college campuses in order to effect the development of initiatives to

curtail its salience.

NEUTRALIZATION THEORY

Sociologists have found that individuals can engage in behavior they know is
wrong by disavowing their deviance and presenting themselves as normal (Young, 1988).
One framework of this process pertains to neutralization theory. In 1957, Gresham Sykes
and David Matza introduced this perspective on social control, which attempted to
explain how some juveniles appease and transgress the moral obligation to be bound by
the law. To validate their activities of misconduct, individuals learn techniques that they
can use as qualifications to extricate themselves from personal responsibility even before
the act is committed. This allows them to rhetorically neutralize whatever misgivings
they might originally have had about participating in the miscreance (Sykes & Matza,
195 7). Then, through these justifications the imperatives of the dominant normative
society are dismissed (although not diametrically opposed) for the time being in order to
facilitate the commission of the crime. “Social controls that serve to check or inhibit
deviant motivational patterns are rendered inoperative”, allowing the delinquent the
freedom to violate conventions while avoiding negatively labeling oneself as a criminal
(Sykes & Matza, 1957:667).

To neutralize internal and external demands for conformity, five types of
justification are explicated by Sykes and Matza (1957): denial of responsibility (“it is not
my fault”), denial of injury (“no harm will result from my actions”), denial of victim
(“nobody got hurt”), condemnation of the condemners (“how dare they judge me,
considering how corrupt and hypocritical they themselves are”), and appeal to higher
loyalties (“there is a greater and higher cause”). While an emphasis will be placed on

these five techniques that Sykes and Matza promulgated, it bears mentioning that other

 

schc
inch
you"
doin.

inten

ICSpOnj
006’s 0
Student:
bECauSe

reasOriir

 

 

scholars have specified and studied four additional a priori rationalizations. These
include metaphor of the ledger (“if you weigh all of my good deeds against my bad deeds,
you’ll see I’m a decent person”) (Klockars, 1974), claim of normality (“look, everyone is
doing it, so how could it be wrong”) (Henry, 1990), denial of negative intent (“I had no
intention of causing any harm”) (Henry, 1990), and claim of relative acceptability (“at
least I am not a murderer or rapist; people engage in much worse activity than this”)
(Henry, 1990). These final four techniques will be discussed to a lesser degree to
demonstrate that they are also applicable to software piracy. All nine are stigma-reducing
strategies used to normalize lawbreaking behavior in the face of disapproval and
condemnation by others.
Denial of Responsibility

The technique of neutralization advanced by Sykes and Matza called denial of
responsibility involves a perception that deviant behavior is a result of forces beyond
one’s control. Citing the oft-invoked stipulation of being a “poor college student”,
students can convince themselves that pirating applications and games occurs only
because they cannot afford to purchase the product legitimately. According to this
reasoning, if it were financially possible to buy the software (often perceived as overly
and unfairly priced by manufacturers), there would be no need to download it illegally.

Furthermore, denial of responsibility occurs when students claim that the
widespread availability of the software on World Wide Web and File Transfer Protocol
(FTP) sites encourages them to take advantage of the situation. Many contend that if
others didn’t make “warez” (pirated software) so easily accessible, they would resort to

buying the products to meet their needs. Interestingly, many pirates do not use every

product they download; they merely compulsively collect each title they can get their
hands on, perhaps in order to brag of their vast collection to online friends, or to be able
to offer a large selection to another individual to choose from who has a piece of software
they desire. The value of these programs, then, is the prestige of ownership, and can be
likened to collecting baseball cards just for the sake of possessing them (Pogue, 1998).

In the realm of commerce and industry, there is a prevailing conflict between
optimizing benefits for the sustenance and growth of the company and giving the
consumer the most utility and worth with their output (Buckley, Wiese, & Harvey, 1998).
Accordingly, many pirates often hold that most individuals and businesses in the software
industry are egocentric, greedy, and self-serving, and are trying to make or save a “quick
buck” any way they can in order to get ahead, to the detriment of the interests of
consumers. In order to thumb their noses at the rapacity of these companies, some pirates
believe it is acceptable to resort to underhanded practices, such as avoiding payment for
software by pirating it, and assisting others to obtain it non grata as a further “slap in the
face”. Thus, by resorting to an adolescent battle of one-upsmanship with the program
manufacturers, pirates can disaffirrn the harmful nature of their actions. This misguided
reasoning thus conduces to the perpetuation of the crime.

Denial of him

In making their decision of whether to engage in the misbehavior, offenders may
focus on the recipient of the harm and the degree that another person or entity is
debilitated by their actions. In the case of software pirates, they may feel that software
companies reap a sizable profit on all of their products, and that a few bootlegged copies

will not put even a tiny dent in their presumably impenetrable fiscal armor. If no tangible

10

and observable harm occurs, then, it is easier to cast aside any reservations and commit
the act. Furthermore, software companies may be perceived as having so much capital
that they “will never miss” the relatively few dollars of which pirates deprive them, or
that they “can afford it”. This is an attempt to redefine software piracy in a more
acceptable light.

The belief that “no one is getting hurt” is a dominant but misguided belief in the
warez scene. Denial of injury fi'ees the delinquent from the moral bind of law so that they
are then more likely, willing, and able to commit the act of deviance. Additionally, it
may be argued that no tangible harm is occurring since the producers of the product are
not technically victims of theft. That is, because only a copy of the product is being
pilfered, both parties are left with essentially the exact same possession. Software is
nonexclusive and is not consumed by its use, and can be in many places at once without
depriving another individual of the opportunity to utilize it. Nevertheless, it bears
mentioning that the End User License Agreement (EULA) displayed during the
installation of practically all pieces of software is a legal contract outlining restrictions by
which the user agrees not to duplicate the program. This agreement continues to state
that the purchaser has only obtained a license to use the program, and not the right of
ownership or the freedom to do with it as s/he pleases (such as distributing it to friends or
making it available on a server for public download). Additionally, the agreenrent
prohibits users from electronically transferring the software from one computer to another
over a network connection (e. g., the Internet), and from decompiling or reverse
engineering the program for the purposes of developing illegal patches to “crack” the

software protection scheme and render it ineffective.

ll

It might also be proposed that these lucrative software businesses work into their
yearly budget an amount solely allocated to overhead costs related to theft and
“softlifiing” (Thou, 1984) as a cost of Operation. Thus, it might be assumed that funds to
cover “shrinkage” are already in place and ready to be used. If the losses are expected,
they do not take the company by surprise and presumably cannot be a detriment to their
enterprise. This skewed rationalization precludes the idea that harm or injury will occur.

Further, many pirates who break copy protection measures convince themselves
that those companies and corporations whose software protection scheme is not a
veritable security vault actually deserve to have their vulnerabilities uncovered and
exploited. The behavior then not only serves to demonstrate the inefficacy of their
security measures to prevent “cracking”, but also perceivably encourages companies to
implement tighter protection features in the future. However, that justification is
analogous to saying that because a person does not have an alarm system in his or her
house, burglars are entitled to break in and have their way with the possessions and
furnishings, and in fact are doing homeowners a favor by exposing a weakness in their
line of defense.

Furthermore, as law enforcement agencies have only recently begun to crack
down specifically on piracy and computer crime in general, there has never existed a real
and viable threat of apprehension and prosecution for online miscreance. As recently as
August 1999, the Department of Justice won its first pirating conviction under the No
Electronic Theft Act (further explicated below), where the distribution of unauthorized
files - even in the absence of monetary compensation or profit motive - was deemed

illegal (RIAA, 2000). In this case, a 22-year old University of Oregon student pled guilty

12

 

to the distribution of pirated software, music, and movies using the school’s high-speed
network connection (Patrizio, 1999).

Perhaps due to the combination of a lack of technical savvy or interest, and the
presence of a traditional mentality of focusing only on corporeal manifestations of
lawbreaking through crime control and order maintenance, practices to dissuade potential
offenders on the Internet have been severely lacking. This has compromised the ability of
police to adequately respond to the increasingly prevalent phenomenom of computer
crime. Assumedly, if law enforcement is perceived as unresponsive or apathetic to
detecting and sanctioning offenders, students will be unable to internalize the ethical
value of refraining from downloading or distributing illegal software, and might be more
susceptible to using neutralization techniques to justify their behavior. To a notable
extent, the most visible arm of government is behind in regulating and containing Internet
crime, and is now attempting valiantly to catch up. However, this lack of enforcement
facilitates a lack of awareness of consequences among potential and current pirates,
allowing them to deny that any injury takes place.

Denial of Victim

Denial of the victim is another defense mechanism that can be invoked before the
commission of a crime. The “softlifters” feel that no one is being physically hurt through
the dissemination of unlicensed full-version software, and convince themselves that their
actions are perfectly legitimate, even though they are engaging in theft. Sykes and Matza
state:

Insofar as the victim is physically absent, unknown, or a

vague abstraction (as is often the case in delinquent acts

13

 

committed against property), the awareness of the victim’s
existence is weakened. Intemalized norms and
anticipations of the reactions of others must somehow be
activated, if they are to serve as guides for the behavior;
and it is possible that a diminished awareness of the victim
plays an important part in determining whether or not this
process is set in motion. (1957:668)

In software piracy, the victim is not only a corporation rather than an individual,
but is also a distant and remote entity seemingly oblivious of any harmful acts against
them. In cyberspace, a truly “virtual” plane of existence, these companies have no
bearing on the life of a “netizen” (Internet user), and are merely unsuspecting victims
from whom to exploit and profit. Therefore, the “Robin Hood Syndrome” occurs when
the wrongdoer differentiates between harm done to an individual and harm done to a
company or business entity, freeing him or her to more readily discount any misgivings
(Harrington, 1996; Solomon & O’Brien, 1990).

Further, although the offender admits partaking in a proscribed deed, s/he argues
that retributive harm is deserved by the victimized party because of previous injustices
that have been inflicted on others. Thus, similar to the syndrome described above, the
offender becomes “a modern day Robin Hood dealing out deserved ‘justice’ to
‘evildoers’” (Pfuhl & Henry, 1993:66). Pirates may feel they are exacting some sort of
measure against profit-hungry corporations whose sole aim is to cheat consumers out of
their hard-eamed money by charging exorbitant prices for their products. Perhaps

through piracy the scales are perceived to move closer toward equilibrium. Also, the

14

fiscal harm enacted on corporations through software piracy is not easily observed by the
offender, and often fails to elicit any sentiment of compunction or sorrow. As a
consequence, any reservation toward taking advantage of them can be dismissed to
facilitate the crime.

Condemnation of the Condemners

The fourth technique of neutralization is condemnation of the condemners. This
is where the authority figures in an individual’s life, such as parents, teachers,
government, and society as a whole, are viewed as corrupt and hypocritical, and therefore
not worthy of respect nor submission to their prescribed value system. It challenges and
questions the moral superiority of those who make the rules, thus precluding any controls
the normative culture seeks to impose. Thus, the attention is shifted away from the
person’s aberrant behavior, and toward the presumed aberrant tendencies and weaknesses
of thosewhom s/he is expected to esteem and revere, including those assigned the task of
enforcing the prescriptive rules of the community. An attempt is made to
reconceptualize the righteousness of those “pointing the finger” and dismiss their
conventional morality as a farce, so that any censure received is irrelevant and even
hypocritical (Young, 1988).

Also, the success of software corporations is sometimes viewed by pirates as due
to luck, fortunate circumstances, or monopolistic practices. As such, the attribution of
“blood, sweat, and tears” - albeit less dramatic in the business arena - to the growth and
achievement of a company is not easily palatable, and is extremely difficult to envision

and grasp. This might be due to the lack of “real-world” experiences among college

15

students and perhaps even a somewhat myopic view of, and an uncultivated deference
for, hard work.

Finally, software pirates constantly complain that information should be free, and
that the free-flowing exchange of information and programs is what stimulates progress
and prevents other programmers from “reinventing the wheel”. By not having to repeat
the work that others have done, developers and coders can improve on previous software
and thus promote grth and unrestrained development. In fact, much of the Internet
itself was built on free software; for instance, the sendmail program which drives email
correspondence was written and distributed freely, as was all of the initial World Wide
Web and USENET software (Hudson, 1995). Increasingly, free operating systems such
as Linux (http://www.linux.org) and free office productivity software packages such as
StarOffice (http://www.sun.com/staroffice) are being written and distributed non grata for
the purposes of promoting the uninhibited flow of ideas and information.

As another example, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) is dedicated to
eliminating restrictions on the copying, redistribution, understanding, and modification of
computer programs. This organization argues that users should have the freedom to:

...run the program for any purpose; study how the program
works, and adapt it to [their] needs; redistribute copies so
[they] can help [their] neighbor; improve the program, and
release [their] improvements to the public, so that the
whole community benefits. (What is Free Software, 1999)
However, an inherent fallacy exists in that argument. Software developers should

be able to use their talent to earn a decent living, and their commodity should be valued

16

and worthy of compensation. The capitalistic, entrepreneurial society of the US.
supports and encourages this in order to promote innovation, and so that programmers
and others will continue to be inspired (at least financially) to create quality output.
Appeal to Higher Loyalties

The fifth and final technique of neutralization proffered by Sykes and Matza is the
appeal to higher loyalties. If the pirate is a member of a warez group or gang, they may
feel they are abnegating their own interests in favor of the welfare of the larger body. The
goals and demands of that cohesive unit consequently take precedent over the constraints
and directives of the normative culture. Moreover, the fiiendship and communal needs
that are met through these groups foster an alliance to the objective of distributing
unauthorized program files, even if this runs patently counter to what the law prescribes.
Further, the loyalty engendered to fellow group members and the fellowship afforded by
the online kinship, despite its virtual setting and unconventional method of social
interaction (such as through typing words on a keyboard), is often enough to lessen the
effectiveness of conforming imperatives. Peer pressure greatly influences pirating
behavior as it is difficult to deny requests from online friends, and compliance to requests
strengthens the individual’s allegiance to the group’s modus operandi.

The need to succeed in school and to please the family may serve as another
justification to render a student morally unaccountable for his or her actions. Parents
generally encourage their children to go to college, not only because of the benefit of
gainful employment and better pay for those with a degree, but also because earning a
college education is commendable and worthy of regard. Also, parents are exceptionally

proud when a child has “made something of” himself or herself by attaining this

17

culturally valued goal, and conceivably some amount of pressure is put on the child to
succeed in this way. Pirating useful software may make individuals more able to achieve
their scholastic goals, such as doing well on projects and papers and achieving high
grades. This, as a corollary, will ideally facilitate the acquisition of a solid, respectable
job in the professional arena following graduation, or acceptance into a reputable
graduate program. Software piracy then, in the minds of students, is well worth their
time, effort, and the risk if it can aid in accomplishing these significant and life-changing
aspirations. By using the unauthorized software as the means to attain culturally valued
ends, any imputation of a deviant identity by others can be countervailed.
Metaphor of the Ledger

Many criminals rationalize qualms they experience about engaging in a particular
proscribed behavior through the metaphor of the ledger. The negative effects of the act in
question are mitigated by the aggregation of all the positive effects of past behavior,
which are considered to be good. By comparing one’s overall good works and
constructive traits with the particular instance of the dysfunctional behavior, the current
act of simply duplicating a program file can easily be excused and deemed as
inconsequential in the “grand scheme of things”.
Claim of Normalcy

In the virtual society birthed and shaped by the Internet, one can be exposed to the
occurrence of much deviance by simply visiting the appropriate web pages and IRC chat
rooms. One method in chat rooms to induce piracy is to issue a few textual commands to
a remote user, which initiates an automated transfer of the desired piece of software onto

the client computer. Another method is to merely request a particular product in the chat

18

channel to ascertain if anyone has it on their computer and is willing to send it to you, or
provide an account on a server for you to login to and download the program file(s). The
proliferation of software piracy an individual witnesses on the Internet demonstrates to
him or her that this activity is widely accepted and common practice among a good
proportion of netizens. Accordingly, this serves to reduce the perception that piracy is a
crime, and subsequently tears down any walls of inhibition that have been erected to keep
the individual from committing illegal acts. If so many Internet users are engaging in this
conduct, it is surmised, how can it be illegal? This question, and the ensuant lack of a
suitable answer, unbridles the individual from any ethical harnesses, freeing him or her to
participate in communally accepted behavior.
m1 of Negative Intent

The negative consequences of an act can be denied when offenders are able to
dismiss or brush it aside as a joke, accident, or otherwise unintended repercussion. With
regard to unlawful software duplication, the contention held is that pirates merely want to
see if the program does what it is intended to do before they pay exorbitant amounts of
money to purchase it. The fact that there is no criminal motive to steal from the program
manufacturers or deprive them of duly merited compensation serves to release them from
moral culpability. Assumedly, by evaluating the product beforehand and determining if
it meets their needs, software bootleggers can avoid being “ripped off” by manufacturers
who put out a less than satisfactory or stable program, or one that does not otherwise live
up to its billing. Additionally, the argument being heard with increasing frequency is as

follows: if a company charges excessive sums of money for “buggy crashware” that

19

 

cannot do what it is supposed to do with reasonable reliability, who is stealing from
whom?

Many pirates hold that software corporations are not deprived or cheated out of
any capital due to warez because those individuals who use expropriated software were
never likely to even consider buying the costly legitimate product in the first place.
Further, it is proposed that since pirated software lacks the guaranteed functionality of the
legitimate version, as well as user manuals, documentation, technical support, warranties,
and upgrades, most average computer users would not bother with it, and that the small
minority who do participate in its distribution and use should be left alone. Moreover,
with warez the installation procedure is usually quite complex and involves searching for
and locating the software on a file archive site, uncompressing files, reassembling them,
manually choosing an installation directory, inoculating against viruses which might have
been inadvertently included, applying patches, etc. Pirates believe that those who go
through the trouble of wading through this somewhat complicated procedure should be
left to their own devices. It is even held that warez facilitates a test and experimentation
period that increases the notoriety, recognition, and level of popular usage. The reasoning
is that pirates can “play around with” the application or game and see if it lives up to its
billing, and then recommend it to family, friends, and acquaintances to purchase legally.
Thus, by word of mouth, many more customers of the product are created than would
have been possible had it not been initially (albeit illegally) downloaded and tried out.
Finally, through piracy it is also conjectured that society will become more competitive as
the technology from software is more evenly distributed among users, regardless of

income level or access restrictions based on employment (Wong, Kong, & Ngai, 1990).

20

Another method of denying any negative intent often involves the stated
guidelines accompanying the dissemination of unauthorized programs. That is, pirates
who distribute the software renounce any responsibility of what others do with the
unauthorized program and provide it with a caveat: “for ‘educational’ or ‘evaluation’
purposes only”. This disclaimer allows the pirate to preempt any moral inhibitions and
View his or her actions as perhaps tiptoeing the line between a legitimate and criminal act,
but never truly crossing over into the realm of actual condemnable behavior.

Claim of Relative Acceptability

Offenders sometimes attempt to demonstrate the relatively insipid nature of their
actions by comparing them to other, more deplorable deeds, thereby denying their
purported unacceptability to the normative culture. Software pirates are easily able to
engage in this technique of neutralization through the isolation and distance afforded to
them by the Internet. Online misbehavior is not as readily considered a crime as are real-
world violent and property offenses, and this fact precludes any reservations the potential
pirate might be experiencing. Also, by subscribing to tenets of moral relativism, pirates
can argue that there are no objective moral values, especially in a virtual online setting.
In this view, since there are no clear-cut definitions of right and wrong in the real world,
how can there possibly exist any semblance of those dichotomous entities in a faceless,
nameless society? Pirates can thus engage in the unlicensed copying of programs by
citing a lack of existing objective standards.

Neutralization is similar to the constructs derived from Cressey’s (1953) analysis
of embezzlement. In his seminal work, it was found that embezzlers use verbalizations to

redefine the behavior as acceptable to their conscience, often by convincing themselves

21

that they are merely “borrowing the money”. Thus, by stifling any inhibitions or
reservations, the individuals are released to commit the crime. Despite the blatant
illegitimacy of the act, these rationalizations occur not only after the crime is committed,
but also during the behavior to render it permissible and the act unworthy of a “criminal”
label. As Cressey(l970:111) states, “I am convinced that the words and phrases the
potential embezzler uses in conversations with himself are actually the most important
elements in the process that gets him into trouble”.

While the similarities of this underpinning to Sykes and Matza’s neutralization
techniques are worthy of mention, Cressey’s paradigm is not used to guide the current
research for the following reasons. First, Cressey’s study population was a group of
middle-aged white-collar workers, already entrenched in the business scene for many
years. This group differs significantly from the impressionable (albeit to varying degrees)
college youths of the current study who are seeking to discern their true identity, abilities,
and skills while attempting to carve out a niche for themselves before leaving the
sheltered academic environment to support themselves. Presumably, embezzlers have
had more extensive life experiences from which to draw upon and are generally more
grounded in their ethical standards and morals, making them less susceptible to
rationalizations than university students are. Sykes and Matza’s theory was originally
based on studies of juvenile delinquency, and it is perceived as more applicable to a study
population of college students. Additionally, the linguistic legerdemain observed in
Cressey’s work, which was used to characterize the offense in unobjectionable terms,
resulted primarily from personal financial problems. Furthermore, embezzlement

stemmed from perceiving one’s occupation as a means or a tool with which to “get back

22

 

in the black” through the use of accessible funds. While software piracy and
embezzlement share characteristics of white-collar criminality and can both be considered
more sophisticated or advanced in their creation and operation than traditional crimes, the
differences that exist are substantial and preclude the applicability of the theory derived

from Cressey’s research to the present inquiry.

23

THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF SOFTWARE PIRACY

In previous studies, software piracy was operationalized to include the sharing and
duplication of floppy program disks and the misappropriation of application licenses for
networks (Cheng, Sims, & Teegen, 1997; Im & Van Epps, 1992b; Rahim, Seyal, &
Rahman, 1999; Reid, Thompson, & Logsdon, 1992; Simpson, Banerjee, & Simpson,
1994; Wong, Kong, & Ngai, 1990). In the past five years, however, additional forms of
piracy have emerged as the media on which programs and games are primarily stored and
sold has switched - fi'om floppy disks, which are each capable of holding 1.44 megabytes
(mb) of information, to CDROMs, which can each hold 650 mb of data. These higher
density discs allow for easier installations of complex and powerful applications and
games, as well as more advanced computing in general. When CDROMs first arrived on
the market, they were extremely costly to copy, and one needed specialized duplication
hardware not easily accessible through retail channels. However, as the IT industry
boomed and the cost of personal computers dropped, CD-recording devices, or “burners”
(as they are informally called), have become available for as little as $100, making it quite
simple for end users to duplicate commercially created CDROMs, as well as generate
their own compilation CDs consisting of various application and game files. Other types
of software piracy include purchasing a single license for use of a program and installing
it on multiple workstations, and the loading of new hard drives with unauthorized
software applications by computer dealers as an incentive for customers to purchase their
system (SPA Anti-Piracy Division's Copyright Protection Campaign, 1998).

Another key emergence has been the advent of high-speed connections to the

Internet at affordable prices for universities, corporations, small businesses, and other

24

entities through the leasing of dedicated fiber optic or copper lines from a local or in-
house telecommunications company. Furthermore, cable-modems and digital subscriber
lines are currently being marketed to home computer users, offering a dedicated high-
speed link to the lntemet at a very reasonable price. While these technological advances
have conduced to a revolutionary paperless form of communication and a burgeoning of
productivity for society as a whole, they have made easier the unlawful transferring of
illegal files. The exponential growth of the Internet, while becoming an essential fixture
in the lives of so many individuals, has also served to increase the occurrence of piracy.
According to a recent study by the Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of
Society, 55% of individuals in the United States have Internet access either at home or at
work, and that percentage continues to increase (Study, 2000). Many are being exposed
to the seedier comers of the Information Superhighway, where pirates make warez
available through easily navigated web sites offering “point-and-click one-stop-shopping
to even the most novice of users” (lntemet Software Piracy, 1998). A final impetus for
the proliferation of piracy stems from the essential mechanics of the act — the transfer and
distribution of software from a remote to host computer without personal communication,
negotiation, or transaction, and with practically zero risk of detection.

Software products can be classified into two groups: public domain software
(shareware, freeware, and demonstration software) and commercially produced software.
Shareware products allow individuals to copy and distribute the evaluation software, but
demand payment of a registration fee from those who sample the software and deem it
suitable for use after a specified “trial” period (Classification of Software, 1999).

Freeware products allow individuals to copy, distribute, modify, reverse-engineer, and

25

develop derivative works as long as they are not sold for commercial profit and remain
designated as freeware (Classification of Software, 1999). Commercially produced
software is what most computer users are familiar with, where a license to use the
program is purchased from corporations and retail stores prior to installation of
the application or game. Both shareware, freeware, and commercially produced software
are protected by copyright law aside from the stipulations specified above.

The form of software piracy analyzed by this work in a university-level setting
includes the act of transferring:

1. Unauthorized “full-version” software

2. Serial numbers for shareware software

3. “Keygens” (Software Key Generators) -- also for shareware/demo software

4. “Cracks” (programs to modify code in shareware, and unlock 'full version'

capability)

These files are available on various web and archive sites, and accessing and executing
them constitute software piracy.
Transmission Methods

For the purposes of this study, I will focus on the distribution of pirated software
over a network or lntemet connection. Software piracy online occurs through a variety of
channels:

Bulletin Boards

Bulletin Boards were the first environment in which software programs were
exchanged, and were the predecessor to the Internet as we know it today. A software

program run on a host’s computer would allow multiple users to dial into that computer

26

via the telephone network and connect to the remote system. Then, file transfers could
take place, and requests for particular applications and games could be posted and filled
by other users, allowing for the unauthorized sharing of software.

World Wide Web Sites

There is a growing presence of web servers that contain publicly downloadable
full-version software files, although due to the more static and traceable nature of the
World Wide Web, sites allowing access to these programs exist for the most part as pages
of clickable links to other online computers where the files are stored. To clarify, many
pirates offer software on remote computers through hypertext links on web pages
advertising their wares. By clicking on the hyperlink, the web surfer can initiate a
download of unlicensed software onto their computer in the privacy of their home or
office, and obtain new and expensive programs without paying a cent. “Cracks”,
frequently housed on web servers and file archives, are small executable files used to
break or bypass the requirement of a serial number, key code, or another piracy protection
mechanism of certain applications, or to modify a computer’s registry to recognize the
software application as legitimate and licensed. Extensive lists of unauthorized license
keys and registration or serial numbers for a multitude of applications can also be found
on certain web sites.

Email

Email has afforded global netizens the ability to keep in touch and correspond
with each other almost instantaneously and without cost (apart from one’s subscription
fees to an lntemet Service Provider). However, advances in email messaging have

allowed for pictures, audio, web page files, and even software files, cracks, and

27

unauthorized keygens to be sent through various networks as an attachment by encoding
them as multi-purpose mail extensions (MIME).

IRC

IRC stands for lntemet Relay Chat, and provides instantaneous communication
and participation in a discussion environment, or “channel”. Apart from textual
messaging, users can send software, cracks, and keygens to each other through Direct
Client to Client (DCC) transfers. The immediacy of IRC also facilitates dissemination of
addresses and login and password combinations for sites where the hottest software is
currently available for download. This is a great benefit to pirates because sites have a
tendency to “go down”, or deny remote access after a certain amount of time in order to
avoid detection, overuse of bandwidth and computing resources, and “leeching” (constant
downloading by those who do not contribute to the site). Additionally, IRC is a hotbed
for the trading of software packages so that users can more easily obtain the particular
program they seek after supplying another individual with another requested program.
Incidentally, the first ever infiltration of a piracy ring on IRC took place in November
1999 as the Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the US. Marshals office filed lawsuits
against 25 individuals from a channel called “warez4cable” who were distributing
illegally copied programs with their high-speed lntemet connections (Software Watchdog
Attacks Cyberpiracy, 1999).

Newsgroups

USENET newsgroups are the bulletin boards of the lntemet, where participants
can email messages and have them posted in a particular topical group containing related

information posted by other users. These messages are then broadcast to, and replicated

28

on, interconnected systems all over the lntemet, allowing for others to download, view,
and respond to the messages. As with regular email, file attachments of pirated program
files, cracks, and registration codes can be included and posted, allowing for easy
accessibility by other users who view messages in that particular newsgroup.

Personal Messaging Programs (ICQ, AOL IM, NetMeeting, PAL)

These programs are widely used to establish a community where netizens can
determine when fiiends who share common interests are online at the same time. Client-
to-client communications can then ensue through sending and receiving instant messages
of text across the lntemet, which then appear on each participant’s desktop screen.
Connections for file transfer can also be established between individuals, which can
facilitate copyright infringement with the sharing of pirated programs, cracks, or
unauthorized license keys.

FTP

File Transfer Protocol is a standard allowing computers on a network to share
information, data, and program files easily and efficiently. Computer users can set up
FTP daemons, which are applications allowing others to log into one’s computer and
access directories and files. These are usually restricted by a login and password
combination, or a particular lntemet Protocol address or mask, so that only certain users
can obtain entry. FTP sites are nothing more than computers connected to the lntemet
configured to allow remote file exchanges, and can house enormous archives of software
programs, limited only by the amount of hard drive space available to the owner of the
system. Moreover, administrators of these file archives often seal off access privileges

very soon after a large number of users try to download software from them. FTP is used

29

heavily by online warez groups to release and distribute programs from site to site,
starting with the upper echelon of software pirates down through the tiers of participants
in the piracy scene.
Copy Protection Schemes

Software vendors have used various means to thwart attempts at unauthorized
duplication of their products, such as making laser-bum holes in floppy disks, writing
data in between disk sectors, varying the format of the data recorded, instituting access
locks which verify that the software is being used on the authorized machine during the
proper license period, remote server verification where the software contacts another
computer across the Internet and verifies the license, and by developing software that will
not run without special hardware hooked up to the computer, such as a parallel port key
(Irn & Koen, 1990; Irn & Van Epps, 1992b; Ellis, 1986; Smith, 1997; Swinyard, Rinne, &
Kau, 1990; Malhotra, 1994b). In the late 19803 and early 19905, to prevent piracy of
computer games on floppy disks, the software manufacturers would require the user to
type in a random word or code from the user manual before allowing the game to be
played (Irn & Van Epps, 1992b). This, of course, could be countered by making a
photocopy of the manual when games were swapped between individuals, but it did cause
an inconvenience to many, especially kids and teenagers who traded disks frequently and
who did not have easy access to a copy machine.

Recently, computer game manufacturers have devised strategies to thwart
duplication of official CDROMs. For instance, some games check to see if the actual,
official CD occupies the CDROM drive so that individuals cannot copy the program files

to their hard drive, or use a pirated version. This scheme, however, can be easily

30

countered by making an exact (bit for bit) disk image of the official CDROM, which will
be recognized in the drive and accepted by the game upon load. Also, a skilled coder can
develop a patch to apply to the game executable file so that it will no longer seek out the
drive to verify that it houses the official CD. Another method, yet to be thwarted,
involves a central server-based authentication system based on the CD key provided in
the purchased game package. When a user attempts to play a networked game over the
lntemet, the program sends the CD key to a database on the company’s server and
crosschecks its validity to ensure that no other individuals have attempted to use that
particular key. Upon verifying the legitimacy of the license, the user is granted
permission to play the game online.
Copyright Law

Copying software without appropriate authorization is a violation of the Copyright
Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 106), as amended by the Computer Software Act of 1980,
which grants exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and modify programs to the authors
of the package (Im & Koen, 1990; Im & Van Epps, 1992a; Peace, 1997). The law
protects these rights for a lifetime plus 50 years for individuals and plus 75 years for
corporations. The copyright owner can reproduce, distribute, and create derivative works
of the software, and have the exclusive right to authorize others to do so (The Copyright
Act and Fair Use, 1999). Three exceptions occur — the first allowing for the program to
be copied onto the purchaser’s hard drive for use (allowing faster access time and
convenience than running the program from the floppy disk or CD), and the second
allowing for a copy to be made for archival purposes (Ellis, 1986). The third exception,

the doctrine of “fair use”, allows a user to duplicate the program or copyrighted work for

31

 

educational or research purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, or
scholarship, as long as the program is not used for profit and its potential value is not
negatively affected (Ellis, 1986; Irn & Koen, 1990; Im & Van Epps, 19923).

Aside from intellectual property protection, under Title 17 of the United States
Code, commonly referred to as the “shrink-wrap law,” once the purchaser breaks the seal
of a software package, s/he has, in effect, accepted the terms of the license and must abide
by its directives (Peace, 1995; Im & Koen, 1990; Software Piracy and US. Law, 1998).
Much like the Computer Software Act, these terms state that the software has only been
licensed for use, and that ownership has not been transferred; that the product must only
be used on one computer system; that duplication, distribution, and modification is
expressly forbidden; and that any warranty protection is thereby disclaimed (Irn & Van
Epps, 1992a; Irn & Koen, 1990). Copyright infringement may include liability for
damages incurred by the copyright owner and/or statutory damages resulting in fines up
to $100,000 for every instance of piracy (Peace, 1995; Malhotra, 1994a). If the
infringement was performed for pecuniary gain, the fines can increase to up to $250,000
and up to five years in prison (Peace, 1995). The aforementioned No Electronic Theft
(NET) Act, signed into law in December 1997, allows for criminal punishments in
addition to civil penalties to be doled out to perpetrators of illegal software duplication
and dissemination, despite the absence of a profit motive (Software Piracy and US. Law,
1998; Warez, 1998). In December 1999, the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright
Damages Improvement Act were approved, increasing the penalty for intellectual
property theft such as software piracy from $100,000 to $150,000 per infringement (Press

Release, 1999).

32

PRIOR RESEARCH

Previous Studies of Software Piracy

A few organizational theories have been posited to explain software piracy, and an
even smaller number of criminological theories have been applied to this form of high-
tech deviance. Some researchers have attempted to interpret piracy by distinguishing a
profile of individuals who would most likely pirate software, focusing on such
characteristics as age, socioeconomic class, level of education, level of computer
experience, and gender (Peace, 1997; Rahim, Seyal, & Rahman, 1999; Sims, Cheng, &
Teegen, 1996). Some studies have shown that software pirates generally are more male
than female, younger than older, more comfortable and experienced with computers than
novices, and more likely to own a personal computer than not (Wood & Glass, 1995;
Solomon & O’Brien, 1990; Sims, Cheng, & Teegen, 1996; Rahim, Seyal, & Rahman,
1999). Others, however, have found that individual variables do not impact the proclivity
to pirate (Harrington, 1989; Sacco & Zureik, 1990; Wong, Kong, & Ngai, 1990). Thus,
mixed results have been found on the significance of these independent variables,
rendering them useless from which to generalize. Parental income, geographical location
of the institution, type of educational institution, faculty remarks, and copyright laws are
all additional independent variables whose relevance has been measured. No inquiry has
addressed how the independent variable of high-speed accessibility affects this particular
crime.

Duplication of software programs for private use was not seen as unethical by the
sample populations from other research work (Leventhal, Instone, & Chilson, 1992;

Wong, 1995). As long as the copied software was not used for profit, money was not

33

involved, and stealing had not taken place, it was not perceived as wrong to duplicate the
program for personal purposes. Other scholars have sought to address the issue by
focusing on individual beliefs from the perspective of an ethical decision (Gopal &
Sanders, 1998;1m & Van Epps, 1991; Kievit, 1991; Wong, 1995). That is, researchers
endeavored to discover whether the decision to participate in piracy was related to the
individual's awareness of the community's norms of legally and morally acceptable
conduct.

Glass and Wood (1996) applied equity theory to determine the role that situational
variables play in facilitating the illegal copying of software between two individuals.
According to this perspective, "individuals determine the equity or fairness of their
relationships or exchanges with others by assessing the ratio of what they receive from
the exchange (outcomes) to what they bring into the exchange (inputs)" (Glass & Wood,
1996:1191). Equity theory suggests that the benefits one expects to receive from
providing a legitimate piece of software to another to duplicate is related to what the other
individual can provide. If the lender of the software feels that the exchange will produce
equitable benefits to both parties involved, it is more than likely s/he will make the
transaction. This however only addressed software piracy occurring in a tangible setting,
through the borrowing of physical media such as floppy disks and CDROMs.

Christensen and Eining (1991) studied the effects of independent variables such as
computer attitudes, material consequences, peer norms, socio-legal attitudes, and
affective factors on pirating behavior, and found that individual perceptions concerning
computers and the benefits of piracy were related to the possession of illegal software by

business students. In a follow-up study, the same authors developed a model utilizing the

34

theory of reasoned action, deterrence theory, and equity theory, and found that
perceptions of authority figures’ approval or disapproval affect piracy, while prices of
programs do not significantly affect piracy (Christensen & Eining, 1991). In similar
studies, however, software prices were shown to be positively related to pirating activity
(Cheng, Sims, & Teegen, 1997; Harrington, 1989).

A study by Cohen and Comwell (1989) found that many college students find
software theft and other forms of IT unethical behaviors acceptable, and even condone
them as normative behavior. Furthermore, they discovered that students believe
professors and administrators also pirate software, which is related to the justification of
condemnation of the condemners. In fact, most inquiries have found a prevailing social
consensus with regard to the acceptability of intellectual property theft among university
students, likely due to peer norms and the lack of a threat of disciplinary repercussions
(Cohen & Comwell, 1989; 02, 1990; Rahim, Seyal, & Rahman, 1999; Solomon &
O’Brien, 1990; Reid, Thompson, & Logsdon, 1992; Wood & Glass, 1995).
PreviouLSmdies of Neutralization Theory

Mixed results of empirical studies on neutralization theory have failed to clarify
its scientific adequacy in explaining delinquency. Furthermore, many suffer from
methodological problems such as operational definitions (Thurman, 1984). Two such
problems are the tendency to confuse neutralization with a lack of commitment to
prevailing societal norms, and the use of data better suited to study rationalizations that
mitigate misgivings ex post facto, rather than moral excuses invoked prior to commission
(Minor, 1981; Austin, 197 7). Another issue relates to some studies failing to take into

account the pertinent causal order between neutralization and delinquency (Thurman,

35

1984). There seems to be as much evidence to believe that delinquency affects
neutralization as there is that neutralization affects delinquency, and the plethora of cross-
sectional studies performed are unable to ascertain the direction of this relationship
(Agnew, 1994). A brief review of empirical studies on neutralization theory is
warranted.

In 1966, Richard Allen Ball developed and used a well-formulated index to
measure neutralization, and found that delinquents in an age group of 15-18 were more
apt to neutralize deviant behavior than were their nonoffending peers. Incidentally, this
scale has been employed and adapted frequently by other scholars in appraising the merit
and appropriateness of neutralization in various situations. However, this notion was
challenged a few years later through research showing that a sample of sixth-grade
schoolchildren legitimized deviant behavior as much as a sample of “tough” boys from an
urban area of moderately high crime and delinquency and a sample of institutionalized
male juveniles (Ball & Lilly, 1971). In another study, a cross-cultural analysis was
performed through Rogers and Buffalo’s (1974) work which seemed to indicate that
Blacks and Whites both neutralize in a similar manner, although a slightly higher
incidence was found among Blacks. An interesting observation posited was that general
social situations and conditions of injustice provide Blacks with a genuine source of
neutralization; for example, a condemner’s racist behavior might supply a basis for the
neutralization or rejection of some of the condemner’s dictums (Rogers & Buffalo,
1974:325).

An attempt to explore the relationship between the type of crime and the type of

excuses used among Florida prison inmates was performed by Minor (1980). The

36

findings were counterintuitive; it was expected that murderers and assaulters would favor
denial of responsibility or denial of victim, while burglars would favor denial of injury,
but no statistically significant differences between the type of excuse acceptance
employed and the type of criminal were found (Minor, 1980). A year later, Minor (1981)
sought to reconceptualize neutralization theory through an empirical analysis of data
retrieved through a questionnaire given to a sample of criminal justice college students.
Neutralization was speculated to more accurately fit into a framework congruous to
subcultural explanations of criminality, since not everyone needs to morally justify his or
her deviant behavior before its commission (Minor, 1981:311). Finally, it was suggested
that neutralization is only one factor among many others that affect an individual’s
continuing or discontinuing commitment to the dominant social order (Minor, 1981).

Neutralization was found to be conceptually and empirically different from moral
commitment in Thurrnan’s (1984) analysis of a random sample of adults. Neutralization
affected the level of involvement in deviance among those who had lower moral
commitment, possibly suggesting a subcultural explanation supporting Minor’s (1981)
assertion. Those with marginal levels of moral commitment were more likely to use
neutralization to accommodate any feelings of guilt and to deflect any internal and
external demands for conformity. Those who had a high degree of internalized norms of
compliance were rendered unsusceptible to techniques of neutralization depraving their
adherence to upright standards of behavior (Thurman, 1984).

Hindelgang (1974) questioned the notion that both offenders and nonoffenders are
equally adherent to conventional norms, and proffered that most delinquents who

participate in deviant behavior endorse, or are at least apathetic to, the act committed.

37

Hindelgang’s main contention is that techniques of neutralization are unnecessary
because of the accommodating value system of some individuals, which permits
involvement in certain antisocial conducts (Hindelgang, 1974). Contrary to
Hindelgang’s findings, Agnew (1994) found that only a small portion of respondents
condone acts of violence and adhere to a delinquent value system in the first longitudinal
study of this theory based on a national sample. Many respondents of Agnew’s sample
did justify impending deviance through neutralization, which lends support for the
temporal order championed by Sykes and Matza that the latter serves to engender the
former. It was also found that neutralization has the greatest effect on those who
associate with delinquent peers and who have at least a moderate commitment to virtuous
societal standards (Agnew, 1994).

Agnew and Peters (1986) found that adoption and use of the techniques occur
only when individuals are in situations where the act can be rationalized away as
situationally acceptable. It is not enough to be predisposed toward the commission of
deviance through exculpatory mechanisms; it is also essential to perceive that the context
in which one is immersed is suitable to that act. By differentiating between these two
dimensions, a deeper comprehension of the applicability of the theory to various
situations is effected, as well as a better understanding of when neutralization will lead to
deviance (Agnew & Peters, 1986).

The contention posited in a 1994 study found that the use of neutralization
techniques depends on the possibility of ignoring or numbing oneself to the notion of
harm befalling another. The degree to which a deviant act induces personal (rather than

property) damage and damage to a familiar (rather than unknown or impersonal) victim

38

were found to be positively related to the permissiveness of delinquents, while the extent
of the damage was found to be unrelated (Landsheer et al., 1994). Ergo, it was
demonstrated that personal reasoning in conjunction with societal influences affects
permissiveness of deviant acts. Moreover, since commission of harm is affected by
familiarity with the victim, it may be inferred that the symbiotic relationship between
employer and employee might preclude property offenses against the business entity.
However, this logic was countered in Hollinger’s (1991) survey of employees of
businesses, corporations, hospitals, and manufacturing firms in an effort to determine the
degree of neutralizing that exists in conjunction with property and production deviance in
the workplace. Neutralization was found to be significantly related to the unethical and
illegal actions of employees, regardless of familiarity with the victim (the employer), as
the highest levels of theft and counterproductivity were reported by those who invoked
“denial of injury” and “denial of victim” (Hollinger, 1991).
A summary of the above arguments is asserted by Agnew, who states that

delinquency is influenced by neutralizing techniques among those who:

...(1) believe they are in situations in which the

neutralizations are applicable, (2) have some commitment

to conventional beliefs (i.e., disapprove of delinquency, (3)

encounter opportunities for delinquency (i.e., situations in

which the likelihood of reinforcement for delinquency is

high and the likelihood of punishment is low), and (4) have,

in the words of Minor (1981 :301), a “strong need or desire

to commit the offense”. (1994:562)

39

Neutralization techniques have also been shown in a few qualitative studies to be
used as justifications for various deviant behaviors. Specifically, the justifications are
used by pregnant women seeking an abortion, by international pedophile organizations
with the publication of child pornography, and by female adult entertainers to disclaim
personal responsibility for topless dancing. For instance, denial of responsibility is used
by pregnant women to project blame onto factors such as the lack of birth control
information, the difficulties of life, and the cost and sacrifice involved in raising
unwanted children. Denial of victim is used to refute the legitimacy of the fetus by
describing it in terms of non-human matter, such as a piece of tissue, birth material, or
protoplasm (Brennan, 1974). Denial of injury takes place by child pornography
publishers when they redefine pedophilia in positive terms by describing the moral,
psychological, and even spiritual benefits that children obtain through early sexual
experimentation, and by delineating the harms children experience when they are forced
to repress sexual tendencies towards adults. Moreover, condemnation of the condemners
occurs when these perverse organizations reconceptualize the blamers as individuals or
entities who engage in similar exploitative acts for fun, profit, power, recognition, and to
spread their own misguided and immoral agenda (Young, 1988). Harm is invalidated by
topless dancers by suggesting that rapes, sexual assaults, and other offenses might occur
with greater frequency if the patrons of adult establishments were forced to act out their
fantasies outside of a protected setting (Thompson & Harred, 1992). Appeal to higher
loyalties is employed by topless dancers who contend that their behavior is necessary to
benefit others — perhaps to pay for schooling or to raise a child (Thompson & Harred,

1992). These rhetorical defense mechanisms serve to disavow any imputation of a

40

deviant identity onto the abortionees, pedophiles, and adult entertainers, and render any
intrinsic scruples or extrinsic finger-pointing ineffective and easily dismissable.

Neutralization theory has been correlated with various aspects of socially
unacceptable and stigmatized behavior since its initial application to juvenile delinquency
forty years ago. Individuals use neutralizing techniques to achieve a release or a “moral
vacation” from the constraints of the ethical code of society, freeing them to engage in
disapproved and criminogenic activities. Neutralization has not been used to apply a
theoretical perspective to the distribution of expropriated software among netizens, nor
any other computer crimes. The theoretical framework’s relevance to software piracy is
extrapolated from the exhaustive review of previous research in the disciplines of
Criminal Justice, Sociology, Business Administration, Computer Science, and
Management Information Systems. The current research attempts to contribute to the
existing body of information related to this high-tech crime, and specifically to work to
fill the void in criminal justice studies related to online deviance by discussing the

applicability of neutralization theory.

41

PRESENT STUDY

The present study seeks to determine whether the availability of hi gh-speed access
to the lntemet conduces to, and increases the prevalence of, software piracy. My
contention is that neutralization theory, as initially proposed by Sykes and Matza (1957),
can be applied to pirating behavior as students temporarily deny the true nature and
consequences of their actions to facilitate participation in pirating activity. This
conjecture stems from extensive formal and informal research in academic journals, IT
publications, the World Wide Web, the USENET newsgroups, lntemet mailing lists, and
lurking (observing but not participating) in lntemet Relay Chat channels to obtain a
practical viewpoint from those who participate. With the respondents’ self-reported
involvement in pirating behavior, as well as their tendency to situationally justify the act,
I hope to attain a comprehension of how broadband connectivity, the techniques of
neutralization, and participation in software piracy interact.
Hypothesis 1

The presence and availability of Ethernet, DSL, or cable-modem connectivity, and
the high-speed lntemet access afforded by those technologies, is strongly correlated to,
and facilitates, software piracy among students who reside in university dormitories. This
assumption is based on the fact that uploading and downloading of even sizeable files can
be accomplished rather quickly over a broadband connection, while the transfer and
distribution of similar files over a dialup link to the lntemet is exponentially slower.
Additionally, the existence of this rapid connection to the lntemet in the privacy of one’s
bedroom (which is arguably the primary use of a dorm room), accessible at all hours of

the day without interruption or delay, should further effectuate pirating activity.

42

Hypothesis 1 will be tested first with an independent samples T-test, second with
a bivariate correlation matrix, and third with an OLS regression analysis, controlling for
neutralization variables as well as for demographic characteristics. Therefore, the first
hypothesis will be validated or rejected by determing if those with hi gh-speed
connections pirate more than those who do not have such capabilities. The independent
variable is whether the individual used Ethernet, cable-modem, or DSL connectivity to
access the Internet. Dummy coded, this variable will be used in an independent samples
T-test against nine dependent items.

Seven of those eight dependent variables measured some singular aspect of piracy,
and included “How frequently do you upload/download pirated software to/ from others
(on average)”;; “Number of mediums used to pirate software”; “Degree of Hardcore
Pirate”; “How often in the last month have you pirated software?”; “How often in the last
year have you pirated software?”; “The majority (50%) of software on my computer is
legitimately licensed”; and “At least one piece of software on my computer is not
legitimately licensed”. In order to reduce the number of dependent variables for
subsequent analyses, I factor analyzed the seven items and found that only five loaded
high on one factor following varimax rotation (See Table 1). These remaining five items,
jointly considered a solid and appropriate measure of “Overall Online Pirating Behavior”,
were also reliable (or = .76). With a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one, this
newly created continuous item was used as the ninth dependent variable in the T-test and
as a singular dominant outcome measure for all ensuing hypotheses and statistical

examinations.

43

on. H a =~8>O _

8. advance: EoEEEwB 8: mm
88980 b: 8 oEmeEwoa o8 ammo— Z:

N. _.- :388: 38.85%»: m_
82888 b: so Eaaaom .8 3.53 biog: 2:...

 

5. on. 888538 @288 so» 96: so» “ma— 2: E coco Bow:
3. mm. :mocchom @888 so» 023 588 “mm— ofi E 8:0 26::
MK. Eu BEE 28882 no 8&an
mm. mm. EmBaOm 888 8 tom: 88:88 .8 89:52
me. no. :Aowfigm :3 80:8 Soc}: Emaag
388 88338388: so» ow 38288.“ >53:
3889880 833...; 281.889 $5684
:85 .8.— mufiuacx— 883.— 885— .8881 833...;

 

832—0: wig—E «EEO __a.8>O 08232 9—. 83523 82:88: .— 28a.

.44

Hypothesis 2

University students who engage in software piracy do so in part by utilizing one or
more of the techniques of neutralization to resolve or suppress any dissonance stemming
from the incompatibility between a predominantly ethical value system and the potential
unethical behavior. By analyzing a situation, and focusing on particular features which
make the current instance an excusable exception to the usual moral response, the
potential offender can be loosed from social and conceptual bindings to the normative
ethos. Construction of exemptive verbalizations can then occur, which influence the
perception of piracy and consequently increase the likelihood of pirating.

Thus, in the second hypothesis I sought to determine if neutralization theory is a
fitting framework in which to view software piracy, and whether the usage of a priori
rationalizations based on situational variables is positively correlated with participation in
the crime. Data analysis will occur through a bivariate correlation matrix and from an
OLS regression examination, controlling for high-speed access and previous experience
with piracy through unlawful CD duplication. The predictor variable utilized was one
factor score representing all nine tenets of neutralization (expounded upon below). The
dependent item employed was Overall Online Pirating Behavior, the continuous variable
produced by the factor analysis discussed in the first hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3

It is predicted that the most salient techniques of neutralization will be Denial of
Victim, Claim of Norrnalcy, and Appeal to Higher Loyalties. These assumptions are
made based on: the geographical distance and impersonal relationship between the

offender and victim allowing damage done to the victim to be easily discounted; the

45

observed preponderance of illegal computing behavior online, permitting many to find
solidarity in numbers and more readily engage in a commonly practiced activity; and the
contention that students are a population particularly prone to participation in
questionable activities in order to further their goals. To summarize, the third and final
hypothesis will allow me to determine which techniques of neutralization are most
frequently used to facilitate piracy. My specific conjecture will be validated using data
generated from the tests of Hypothesis 2, and a determination of which neutralization
precepts are most applicable will then be made.
Hypothesis 4

My belief is that those who have pirated software using traditional methods (i.e.,
the duplication of floppy disks and CDs) are more likely to engage in the same act of
copyright infringement using the lntemet as a facilitating medium. This assumption is
based on the fact that individuals will already be predisposed to the crime, and will be
familiar with the rewards that come from obtaining a desired application or game for fiee.
Also, the circle of peers who participate in piracy through physical media are likely to
have displaced their proclivities online to provide for easier distribution of programs
through file transfers, rather than having to duplicate a CD onto a blank disc and give it to
someone, either in person or through postal mail service. Another beneficial by-product
is that the scope of warez trading can be greatly widened as global connectivity furnishes
a large user base and an even larger assortment of program titles to exchange. I suspect
that those who are familiar with (and use) CD burners are more likely to pirate software
online, as many individuals with high-speed access download massive amounts of warez

and then archive each and every program to CD. This is done either to amass a large

46

collection to provide to others in the future, or in case the individual wants or needs to
use an application or game at another time or on another computer. Finally, my
prediction is that those individuals who have somehow obtained a pirated copy of
software on CD and have created a bootlegged CD of software on their own are
exponentially more likely to engage in lntemet piracy.

The dependent variable utilized in this particular relationship was Overall Online
Pirating Behavior. Two independent factors were employed: “1 have
bought/received/borrowed a copy of at least one software package on CDR” and “I have
bumed/recorded at least one software package onto CDR”. This fourth hypothesis will be
supported or refuted based on a two-way analysis of variance test to ascertain each
predictor’s influence on pirating, as well as if there exists any multiplicative interaction
effect between them. Also, an OLS regression analysis will be conducted and will
include the techniques of neutralization, the usage of high-speed lntemet connectivity,
and demographic variables as controls to remove their determining power on Overall
Online Pirating Behavior.

Population

The subject population includes university students who live on campus in dorm
rooms and predominantly use Ethernet, cable-modem, or DSL connectivity to access the
lntemet, those in an off-campus apartment or house equipped with high-speed access, and
those who primarily use a dialup modem to access the lntemet - regardless of living
situation or locale. University students residing on site are a study p0pulation susceptible
to involvement in unethical computing behavior, as many who live in dormitories are

provided with high-speed Ethernet access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Ethernet is a

47

local area network (LAN) technology that allows for the transmission of information data
between computers at speeds of 10 and 100 million bits per second (mbps). Presently, the
most widely used form of Ethernet technology is the 10 mbps twisted-pair variety, which
is currently utilized by Michigan State University. External connectivity (the link from
the wide area network across campus to the external lntemet) is currently provided at 155
mbps, and that capacity is expected to increase in coming months.

More and more individuals are acquiring other forms of speedy lntemet
services, such as DSL, which stands for “digital subscriber line”. This technology
facilitates hi gh-speed online connectivity by pushing more data across the copper wiring
that houses and business offices already have in place for their telecommunication needs.
Asymmetric DSL (ADSL) is the most popular form of DSL technology, and is known for
its different download (usually ranging from 1.5-9 mbps) and upload (ranging from 64
kilobits per second to 1.5 mbps) speeds. Individuals obtain this service from their local
telephone company, and can expect to pay $30-40 a month for the access.

Another service, the most prevalent form of hi gh—speed home lntemet access,
involves the use of cable-modems. These devices use the existing cable TV network
connection installed in houses to provide a high-speed, dedicated online presence to
subscribers. They differ from Ethernet and DSL lines because they are broadcast-based,
as all connections share the same bandwidth resources. Thus, during periods when many
individuals are online at the same time in an area serviced by a particular cable-modem
provider, transfer speeds are markedly reduced as bandwidth is distributed among many
by a local router. Speeds can range up to 10 mbps under pristine conditions, but the

average download speed on a cable-modem is around 768 kbps, with upload speeds

48

capped at 128 kbps. In contrast, DSL lines are connected directly to the central telephone
office, so no intentional sharing of bandwidth takes place. Cable-modem connections are
provided by the local cable company in one’s area, and currently cost approximately $40
a month.

Having a fast link to the lntemet in the privacy of one’s house, apartment, or dorm
room, coupled with the necessity to use sofiware for research, papers, correspondence,
and projects for coursework or other purposes, lends itself to a significant increase in
computer and Internet usage. This increase consequently results in the amplified
likelihood of encountering the occurrence of illegal activity on the lntemet (such as
software piracy), and the chance that an individual will become socialized or somewhat
conditioned to condone and ultimately participate in it. Further, researchers have pointed
out that colleges and universities are breeding grounds for software piracy, many times
due to the lack of vigorous rule enforcement governing computer ethics by academic
officials, as well as higher levels of curiosity and questionable behavior among students
(as compared to lower education or the “working world”). This is evidenced by research
findings on the subject of cheating and plagiarism (Agnew & Peters, 1986; Buckley,
Wiese, & Harvey, 1998; Crown & Spiller, 1998), as well as on software piracy (Cheng,
Sims, & Teegen, 1997; Sims, Cheng, & Teegen, 1996; Irn & Van Epps, 1991; Irn & Van
Epps, 1992b; Eining & Christensen, 1991; Temple, 2000; Wong, Kong, & Ngai, 1990,
1990)

Instrument
An anonymous and voluntary questionnaire, included in Appendix A, has been

designed to gather the data required to analyze the relationships in this study. In order to

49

preclude generalizability issues stemming from the need to infer characteristics and trends
from questions eliciting responses about excuses and justifications in general, the
instrument was developed to specifically measure software pirating attitudes and beliefs.
Additionally, I hope these ad hoc questions will not be subject to varying responses on
account of the structure of the questions themselves, but will retrieve a wide range of
responses based on differing thought processes and sentiments among students.
Questions were asked in as neutral a manner as possible to facilitate open, candid
communication from the participants, as well as to avoid the predisposition of responses
and any subsequent bias. Software piracy is a controversial topic, and self-reporting
instruments usually suffer from underreporting of the deviant activity. Therefore, the
survey begins with an introduction defining its purpose; that is, to measure how the
lntemet has become an integral part of students’ lives (addressed via prosocial questions),
and to determine students’ attitudes and perceptions towards ethical and unethical
behavior (addressed primarily via situational neutralization items). The introduction then
makes the respondents aware that participation is completely voluntary, and that they are
free to not answer any question. Furthermore, anonymity is promised, as the data
received in scantron format is not linkable to any person, and no identifying information
(such as one’s name or student identification number) is to be written on the
questionnaire or scantron form. I hope that the inclusion of these guidelines in the
introduction, as well as the verbal instructions given at the onset of the survey
administration, will encourage a greater number of truthful and objective responses, and

aid in garnering an internally consistent cross-section for measuring the prevalence of

software piracy.

50

The questionnaire begins with prosocial questions seeking to discern general
sentiments towards the lntemet and lntemet usage. Items were answerable by choosing a
response among a Likert scale of Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Undecided, Agree, and
Strongly Agree. This section included questions such as, “I am concerned about security,
privacy, and confidentiality on the Internet” and “Individuals should be able to assume
different identities, personas, and roles while using the lntemet if they so choose”. Next,
a myriad of items are presented to determine if the respondent uses high-speed, dedicated
Internet access, the respondent’s purposes for using the lntemet, and the amount of time
spent engaging in various lntemet—related tasks or activities.

Then follows a section intended to ascertain the respondent’s level of immersion
in pirating activities through esoteric questions generally only answerable by those who
frequently participate in the crime. Additionally, a more accurate picture of the
transmission methods used to distribute full-version commercial software is assayed
through multiple inquiries concerning the various tools and forums which allow for the
uploading and downloading of unauthorized programs. A short section to determine
frequency and possible past cessation of piracy is also provided.

The core of the survey follows, consisting of a set of 50 questions seeking to
measure the applicability of neutralization theory to software piracy, and to acquire an
understanding of the underlying motivations and rationales of pirates. Each item
presented a possible situational justification or environmental circumstances which the
respondent might employ to render piracy an acceptable, or otherwise legitimate,
behavior. A respondent could select an answer from the aforementioned Likert scale to

indicate the degree to which the given situation would neutralize any reservations or

51

constraints and allow them to participate in the uploading or downloading of commercial
full-version software. Thus, after operationalizing the original techniques into questions
specifically designed to correspond to software piracy, the use of neutralization can
hopefully be appraised as a determining factor in the degree of participation. It is posited
that this set of possible neutralizations is exhaustive, and encompasses the entire range of
exculpatory devices that might be employed to facilitate piracy.

The next section seeks to engender possible policy solutions to the crime by
inquiring about the time of day the respondent engages in file transfers and whether s/he
has pirated in the past with only a dialup connection to the Internet and without dedicated
hi gh-speed access. To further explore the motives and cognitive processes of pirates,
other questions are posed, including whether any feeling of guilt or apprehension stems
from participation in piracy and whether the individual is aware of, and concerned about,
the possibility of litigation and criminal charges. The instrument culminates with
questions seeking demographic information, such as age, sex, race, socioeconomic status,
year of study, and choice of major. These are additional variables that may prove helpful
in crystallizing a profile of those individuals who are most likely to pirate. Subsequently,
the findings can later be compared to previous studies that developed a profile of those
most likely to pirate through conventional means, such as through the copying of physical
media fiom a fiiend or family member, or by installing software licensed for use by one
individual on multiple computer systems. Other piracy variables elicited from the

questionnaire and not expressely covered in this paper will be analyzed in a forthcoming

work.

52

As a whole, the inventory is structured in nature, and does not allow for a great
deal of freedom or deviation in responses. My hope is that a thorough understanding of
the factors that play a role in participation in software piracy can be attained through this
comprehensive instrument. Further, I believe an awareness of the behavioral dynamics
and personal characteristics of those who engage in piracy will lend itself to the
conception of policy initiatives to preclude or combat justifications used to commit the
crime.

Principal Issues of the Study
Four primary issues are analyzed:
1. What is the demographic makeup, level of Internet expertise and usage, and
proportion of those individuals who engage in software piracy?

The demographic makeup of those who participate in piracy can be analyzed and
used to determine whether a certain age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, year of study,
choice of major, or level of expertise with computers and the lntemet makes a difference
in the collective profile of individuals that take part in this crime. This can be used to
support or refute previous studies in this area that intended to educe a profile of the
typical software pirate, particularly since these previous studies have not examined the
student body as a whole but have taken convenience samples of students in introductory
Business, Management Information Systems, and Computer Science classes (Buckley,
Wiese, & Harvey, 1998; Rahim, Seyal, & Rahman, 1999; Kievit, 1991;1m & Van Epps,
1991; Sims, Cheng, & Teegen, 1996).

The level of expertise with the lntemet will be measured with a list of 11

constructs, ranging in degree of difficulty from changing the “startup” or “home” page on

53

one’s web browser, to listening to a radio broadcast online, to configuring the incoming
and outgoing servers in one’s email program and creating a web page. Having done 0-2
of the 11 items will constitute minimal Internet experience, while having done 9-11 out of
the 11 items will indicate advanced or heavy lntemet experience. Variety of lntemet use -
the range of activities the respondent performs on the lntemet — was measured with a list
of 13 items including research for school work, online auctions, and web page design.
Again, the larger the count of items the respondent has participated in, the greater the
scope of his/her usage of the lntemet. The items in these questions are available for
perusal in Appendix A.

2. To what extent do university students engage in software piracy because of their

high-speed access to the lntemet?

The relationship, if one exists, between broadband connectivity and pirating
activities can be demonstrated through the analysis of the computing behaviors of those
so equipped. One of the primary independent variables throughout the study is whether
the individual uses Ethernet, DSL, or cable-modem online access. Further comparative
information is sought through inquiries about past and present Internet activities. By
asking questions about individuals’ prior lntemet use at home (through analog modem) as
well as current lntemet use at school (through the LAN), I should be able to garner a
reliable measure of the level of change between pre-Ethemet and post-Ethemet
environments. If the ramifications of this difference due to type of online access are
substantial, it can be inferred that the availability and presence of a speedy link is one
factor that conduces to this particular computer crime. This construct will be measured

with questions including the following: (a) I use Ethernet, cable-modem, or DSL

54

connectivity in my dorm room, apartment, or house; (b) for which file transferring
purposes do you use the Intemet?; (0) how many hours/day do you spend on the Internet
transferring files?; ((1) have you ever uploaded/downloaded pirated software files to/ from
someone?; (e) before your Ethernet access, did you download pirated software?; and (e)
does Ethernet access in your dorm room make it easier to download pirated software from
the lntemet than a standard telephone/modem connection would?

3. How deep are students’ immersion in the software piracy scene?

The level of involvement in pirating activity can be ascertained through
statements inquiring about knowledge of particular concepts prevalent in the piracy scene,
as well as through probing questions intended to determine empirically the amount of
time spent online participating in the distribution or transfer of unauthorized program
files. The time availed by students for pirating activities can then be compared to the
time period of general lntemet usage for innocuous practices such as email, school
research, shopping, and games, to determine the degree to which online access is utilized
to partake in activities for which it was not designed nor intended. With regard to. the
amount of time students actively spend online, light lntemet usage is coded as 0-2 hours;
moderate usage as 3-4 hours; and heavy usage as 6 or more hours. The frequency of the
behavior is coded as 1-5 times per month for a small degree of piracy, 16-30 times per
month for a moderate amount, and 31 or more hours per month for heavy illegal activity.

The time of day when piracy most frequently occurs will also be obtained through
two questions, which will aid in the forumulation of possible policy solutions governing
bandwidth allocation. Finally, a construct of Degree of Hardcore Pirate was developed to

measure how deeply immersed was the respondent in the pirating scene. This variable

55

was constructed using an additive scale comprised of eight items including: “1 know what
warez is”; “I know what an .nfo file is”; “I know what 0-day means”; “I have set up an
FTP server on my computer system in order to allow others to log in and
upload/download pirated software to/from me”; “the majority of my file transferring takes
place at night (11pm to 7am)”; “I leave my computer on for extended periods of time
(i.e., overnight) to transfer files”; “I have a personal account on one or more FTP sites”;
and “I can find almost any piece of commercial software I might need on the lntemet,
either through friends or searching/browsing through file archives”. Since these
questions were all dichotomous, an additive model resulted in a range fi'om 0 (for no
knowledge of, and no participation in, the pirating scene) to 8 (representing complete
awareness of, and participation in, the pirating scene). As previously stated, this item is
one of the facets of the Overall Online Pirating Behavior variable.
4. What is the rationale behind engaging in software piracy?

Approximately 75 items were developed during multiple brainstorming sessions
to represent the nine concepts of neutralization proposed by Sykes and Matza (195 7),
Klockars (1974), and Henry (1990). Each question in this section is intended to gauge the
tendency of college students to neutralize pirating behavior based on specific situations or
conditions. Each subset of questions targets one of the nine previously specified
neutralizations, and the set as a whole is deemed to be an exhaustive measure of
neutralizations which might countervail dominant and conventional norms as checks on
behavior. During construction, the wording and phrasing of the questions, and the

perspicuousness, originality, and relevance to each specific technique were taken into

56

consideration. Equivocal, pointed, and inapplicable questions were weeded out, and fifty
final measures of the propensity to neutralize were added to the instrument.

As previously mentioned, responses to these particular items are based on a
Likert-scale of Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Undecided, Agree, and Strongly Agree. The
first two, indicating reservation about rationalizing criminal behavior, were coded as 1
and 2 respectively. The middle choice of Undecided was coded as 3, and represents an
equivocal response to the situation presented. One might argue that a response of
“Undecided” is more indicative of the possibility an individual may dabble in proscriptive
behavior, rather than refrain completely from any action which challenges his or her
moral conceptions. However, as it falls between the contradicting choices of Disagree
and Agree, I contend that it is a middle value on the continuum, and should be coded as
such. The last two responses were coded as 4 and 5, as they indicate a lack of allegiance
to a normative value system and a susceptibility to absolving justifications. The
respondent is asked to select an answer based on whethers/he would feel guilty about
engaging in software piracy, taking into account the specified stipulation. The alpha
levels for each subset of neutralization theory questions are provided in Appendix B. In
the instrument, the heading of “Would you be more likely to pirate softwarez” prefaced all
of the situational questions. Also, the heading was repeated throughout in order to
increase internal validity, as well as to remind the respondent of the underlying keynote of
the questionnaire.

The intention of these neutralization items is to garner insight into the particular
motives, rationalizations, and justifications that are used to mediate moral commitment.

An idea of how students approve behaviors antithetical to social norms based on

57

situational or environmental characteristics will also ideally be attained. How do students
define pirating behavior as acceptable under certain circumstances? Which
circumstances have the greatest influencing power in shaping behavior? The answers to
these questions will seemingly be provided through the substantive interpretation of the
ethical environment among college students.

In sum, by asking qualitative and quantitative questions about individual Internet
usage, the survey instrument attempts to accumulate a thorough understanding of what
factors play a role in participation in software piracy. The development of a behavioral
model for piracy, taking into account societal, cultural, economic, and environmental
influences, will ideally lend itself to the conception of educational, administrative, and
legal campaigns and strategies to effectuate change in computing behavior and

consequently reduce the damage caused by unauthorized software copying.

58

METHODOLOGY

In order to construct a sampling frame, a catalogue of the various colleges and
academic units at the university was first procured, along with a breakdown of every
major housed under them. In each college, one or two majors were randomly chosen. A
roster of the classes surveyed is specified in Appendix C. After narrowing down the list
to specific majors, searches were run through the university’s online database of current
courses being offered in an attempt to select particular classes potentially conducive to
surveying. Initially, four courses were selected: two lower-level undergraduate courses
generally occupied by freshmen and sophomores, and two upper-level undergraduate
courses, generally available only to juniors and seniors because of prerequisite
limitations. Thus, a conscious effort was put forth to obtain a sample representative of
the entire student population, inclusive of fieshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors.

Additionally, some classes selected were core classes which the university
requires all students to take, such as Psychology, while others were endemic to each
specific discipline (such as forestry and kinesiology) and would likely not be taken by
students not majoring in the particular field. When this listing was finalized, the
instructor or professor of each class was contacted to see if s/he would be receptive to
granting thirty minutes of the period to facilitate administration of the questionnaire.
Seventy classes were initially selected; however, only thirty professors responded
positively. Some were unable to accommodate the request, primarily due to the fact that
summer courses are inherently tightly packed, as an entire semester’s worth of material
must be covered in just over a month. In these classes, no time could be detracted from

instruction and teaching to allow students to participate in a survey. Conversely, other

59

professors were able to oblige the research request, and seemingly understood the
potential contribution the study might have. When the actual data collection took place, a
short verbal introduction of myself and the project was given to the students in each class
prior to distribution of the questionnaires and accompanying scantrons. Again, while
specified on the survey itself, it was also verbally emphasized that the anonymity of
individuals and the confidentiality of data would be maintained. This was done in order
to reduce bias usually concomitant with the self-reporting of deviant behavior, and to
encourage a greater number of forthright responses.

Surveys were then conducted in twenty-five classes between May and June 2000.
A sample size of 507 was derived prior to data cleaning, resulting from an average of 20
students in each class. Upon listwise removal of cases with missing variables, the final
sample size totaled 433 cases. Univariate analysis involving the exploration of variables,
crosstabs, and descriptives was then performed. Bivariate analysis consisted of
determining the correlations between the independent and dependent variables through
the use of independent sample t-tests and one-way analysis of variance. Multivariate
analyses took the form of OLS regression to determine relationships while controlling for
certain demographic and historic pirating variables. These tests are further described
below.
BEIGE

A draft questionnaire was developed from the pool of items and was distributed to
five students and professors at Michigan State University for comments and suggestions.
Minor modifications were made based on the responses received to prevent

inconsistencies from invalidating the research before its commencement. F urtherrnore,

60

feedback was solicited concerning the clarity of each survey item, as well as the tendency
of the questions to elicit untruthful responses that might misrepresent the degree of piracy
that occurs or the amount of neutralizing that takes place. Suggestions were accordingly

incorporated to increase the reliability and validity of the instrument.

61

STATISTICAL ANALYSES
Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics allow researchers to summarize data in an easily
interpretable format, and to identify basic and important measures of distribution. Thus,
they will be provided here to paint a broad picture of the respondents’ demographics,
their use of the lntemet and computers, their medium of connectivity, and their
knowledge and awareness of software pirating activities online. Furthermore, a
comprehensive examination of the sample’s perceptions of, and conceptions about,
ethical (and, by extension, unethical) behavior on the lntemet will be depicted based on
these univariate tests. The percentages and numbers provided below are inclusive of a
sample population of 507, prior to the removal of missing cases.

Traditionally, demographic information is given first. Continuing with that
convention, it was found that the majority of respondents were white (71.8%), female
(53.1%), 21 years of age or older (70.6%), and either majoring in Business (23.5%) or a
discipline of the Social Sciences (34.3%) (see Table 2). Annual income of the parents of
respondents was expressed to be $50,000 or more by 69.4% of respondents. Despite the
reasonably comfortable economic status of most families, though, three-fourths (74%) of
the students who participated in the study worked at least 10 hours a week. Of those
respondents who were employed, use of a computer at their jobs was evenly distributed

among “minimal”, “moderate”, and “heavy” in intensity.

62

Table 2. Demographics of Software Pirates

 

 

Demographic Total Sample Piracy Measures
Statistics Percentage 1(0/9 2 3 4 5 6
Gender
Male 46.5 42.1 1.58 1.60 1.77 1.26 1.45
Female 53.1 26.8 1.38 1.15 0.98 1.12 1.22
Race
White 71.8 32.5 1.40 1.24 1.31 1.16 1.28
Asian 10.3 46.2 1.66 1.89 1.57 1.13 1.30
Other 17.9 32.2 1.57 1.43 1.31 1.29 1.43
Employment (hrs)
40 14.4 38.4 1.47 1.47 1.49 1.23 1.27
30 17.4 23.9 1.47 1.05 1.32 1.08 1.16
20 28.8 39.6 1.53 1.41 1.40 1.27 1.44
10 13.4 29.4 1.42 1.25 1.05 1.17 1.26
0 26.0 34.1 1.44 1.51 1.39 1.17 1.38
Age
17-20 28.5 34.6 1.42 1.55 1.28 1.32
21-older 71.5 33.5 1.48 1.26 1.36 1.30
Educational Level
Freshman 1.8 50.0 1.83 2.83 3.00 1.33 2.00
Sophomore 4.7 29.2 1.62 1.95 1.10 1.29 1.57
Junior 30.6 32.3 1.42 1.20 1.42 1.16 1.23
Senior 59.8 35.1 1.45 1.34 1.27 1.17 1.31
Graduate 3.2 25.0 1.64 1.18 1.55 1.36 1.45
Discipline
Soc. Science 34.3 29.3 1.47 1.20 1.18 1.09 1.22
Business 23.5 36.4 1.37 1.21 1.08 1.14 1.25
Other 42.2 36.2 1.51 1.54 1.61 1.27 1.42

 

Piracy Statistics are measured with the following survey questions:

1. “I have uploaded/downloaded at least one piece of pirated software to/from

someone.”

. “How frequently do you pirate per week?”
. “Number of mediums used to pirate software”

. “How often in the last month have you pirated software?”

2
3
4. “Degree of Hardcore Pirate”
5
6

. “How often in the last year have you pirated software?”

63

Most individuals indicated that the lntemet was not “indispensable” to them - a
surprising finding to me, as I assumed that the wealth of informational resources online
would render it absolutely essential for any college student. Another interesting
observation gleaned from the data was that only 31.4% of respondents reporting using the
lntemet to meet their social needs. With the continually burgeoning popularity of instant
messaging programs such as America Online Instant Messenger and ICQ (with 59 and 71
million users respectively, according to their official web pages in July, 2000), it was
thought that the percentage would have been higher. With respect to ideas about the new
public and social issues that have been birthed by the growth of the lntemet, a number of
important conclusions can be made. Interestingly, most students (68.6%) are not
concerned with security, privacy, and confidentiality issues online. This was found
despite the media frenzy that seems to habitually ensue upon every hacking attempt on a
major web site, every discovery of new technology that collects information about visitor
demographics or web surfing practices, and every instance of disclosed credit card or
personal information from e-commerce web site databases. Almost half (43.4%),
however, were cognizant of, and concerned about, copyright infiingement online, and did
not believe that information, graphics, and files posted to the lntemet are free rein for
anyone to use (60.4%).

In general, the student sample has been using the lntemet more as each year goes
by, has been an lntemet surfer for over three years, and has worked with computers for
seven or more years. One of the survey questions presented a list of common lntemet
activities, ranging from research for school work to stock trading to the collection of

personal-, hobby- or interest-related information, and asked each respondent to count up

64

how many s/he has done. Most (41%) have used the lntemet for 6-8, or approximately
half, of the items. To indicate proficiency of lntemet use, another list was proffered,
delineating a list of items of varying difficulty levels. Some of these included changing
the ‘startup or ‘home’ page in one’s web browser and setting up the incoming and
outgoing server preferences in one’s email client. The findings for this question were not
normally distributed like the prior example, but were weighted towards the lesser ranges,
as 57.4% had done four or less actions and only 20.7% had done seven or more actions.

It is suspected that if a larger number of computer science and engineering students were
included in this sample (only 8.9%, or 45 of the 507 individuals in this study), many more
would have done most, if not all, of the items on the list. Almost three-fourths (74.1%)
of those queried spend between zero and ten hours on the lntemet each week. Time spent
in various online activities was further dissected, and it was revealed that most students
spend less than one hour a day chatting or instant messaging, less than one hour browsing
the World Wide Web or the USENET discussion groups, and less than one hour
transferring files (of any type).

As the specific topic of this paper is software piracy, it was imperative to obtain
statistics related to that particular behavior. When inquired about their perception of the
frequency of piracy on the Internet, most (30.4%) gave the middle response of
“Occasionally prevalent”, with the rest of the answers evenly distributed around the
mean. As expected, more individuals (58.2%) do not know how to obtain pirated
software over the lntemet, compared to those who do. The size of that percentage is
cause for concern, especially when coupled with the fact that one-third (33%) have

unlawfully transferred at least one copyrighted application or game online. While 84.4%

65

spend less than one hour per day transferring files, 41% reported that they transfer pirated
software one to five times per week. In the last month and last year, the vast majority
(89.2% and 82.6% respectively) have transferred software between zero and five times.
Remarkably, in a question that speaks volumes about perceptions of ethical computing
behavior, 48.4% revealed that they would not feel guilty about pirating software. One-
fourth of the respondents (25.4%) chose “Undecided”, and it is presumed that these
individuals might be most likely to use the techniques of neutralization to influence their
behavior in one direction or the other, based on certain situational characteristics.

Reinforcing the lack of an inculcation of computing ethics is the finding that
63.3% of those who distribute pirate software do not regard it as improper or intrinsically
wrong. This determination is somewhat disquieting, particularly when considering the
legion of news reports on the increasingly panoptic controversy surrounding the online
distribution of intellectual property in the form of digital music files. Other findings along
the same lines, and indicative of the power of sanctions to dissuade or deter pirating
behavior, were that the majority (52.7%) of students who pirate software do not believe
they will ever be disciplined for their copyright infringing activities. Moreover, the threat
of legal repercussions and fines are, according to the responses, irrelevant at best and
laughable at worst, with 72.4% unconcerned about the law’s mandates. Moreover, the
research ascertained that one in five (19.8%) of those who have pirated software had
more illegitimate than legitimate software on their computer, and that half (49.9%) had at
least one application or game on their computer that was not properly licensed.

It is also suggested that the more mediums an individual uses for pirating

activities, the greater his or her knowledge of, and immersion in, the criminality.

66

Mediums for transferring software included a web browser, to/from the USENET
newsgroups, using an instant messaging program, using a chat program, logging into an
FTP server to upload/download to/from others, and setting up an FTP server to allow
others to do the same. Nearly half (44.3%) had done at least one of the above, while
20.1% had used 3-4 mediums to illegally obtain or distribute software. Not surprisingly,
the most popular medium to unlawfully obtain copyrighted applications or games on the
lntemet was through a web browser. Interestingly, the distribution of Degree of Hardcore
Pirate demonstrated that 56.2% scored 1 or higher. That is, the majority of respondents
have participated in at least one activity considered an indicator of immersion in the
software piracy scene.

Past studies have focused exclusively on copyright infringement through the
exchange of software piracy on physical removable media, such as floppy disks. With the
increase in availability and decrease in cost of CD Recorders or “burners”, I sought to
discover whether the sample population had participated in piracy through this process.
An sizable 55.6% of respondents had bought, received, or borrowed a copy of at least one
software package on a recordable CD, with 31% indicating that they themselves had
made such a CD copy using a burner. While this illustrates the growing ubiquity of CD
Recorders in personal computers, it also provides evidence that college students are
contributing to the widespread theft of intellectual property through traditional
duplication of software discs (or disks). This corroborates the research of previous
scholars, who had analyzed piracy through disk copying in a university setting.

The impetus for this thesis was the supposition that high-speed online access

might be facilitating intellectual property theft in general, and specifically software

67

piracy, on campuses around the nation. No research until the present had attempted to
discover how broadband connections affect the frequency and prevalence of piracy.
While extensive analyses between specific variables will be conducted later, it is
important to point out that the univariate statistics garnered from the current study lend
support for this hypothesized causal relationship. More than one-third (37.2%) of
students queried were equipped with Ethernet, DSL, or cable-modem access to the
lntemet; this figure most likely would have been higher if the questionnaire had been
administered during the fall or spring semester, when the number of students who occupy
campus resident balls is greatly increased in number.

In addition, approximately one-fourth (21%) of those who pirate software also did
so prior to obtaining a broadband connection, and a ahnost one-third (30.3%) stated that
without the fast, dedicated link to the lntemet, they would still transfer copyrighted works
over a dialup modem. In fact, one-fifth (22.3%) revealed that their pirating habits would
remain as frequent regardless of their connection speed. It is evident that while it would
take longer with a slower pipeline - perhaps hours or days to obtain an application or
game of respectable size — this group of students would gladly wait in order to achieve the
same end result — the acquiring of a desired piece of software at no cost.

One-fourth (23.7%) of students surveyed have transferred pirated software prior to
starting college. Moreover, 34.9% have uploaded or downloaded illegal programs since
obtaining connectivity in their current living situation. An overwhelming two-thirds
(67.2%) of respondents expressed the sentiment that high-speed lntemet access makes it
easier to pirate software than a standard dialup connection would. This demonstrates that

having a faster connection to send and receive data invariably contributes, at least in the

68

mind of students, to the commission of piracy. These findings legitimate an overall
cognizance by students of software piracy on the lntemet.

Bivariate Statistics

Bivariate statistics are used to measure the presence and strength of a relationship
between two variables. The first analysis conducted involved independent sample T-tests
to determine if the pirating activity of those who had high-speed lntemet access differed
from those who did not. The sample means are higher for every piracy variable for those
who have high-speed Internet access, indicating that respondents so equipped pirate
software with greater incidence and frequency than those who are not. Further, the
findings derived from this analysis show support for the contention regarding the
relationship between the means of the independent and dependent variables in the
population. Assuming unequal variances, the t-statistic for “At least one program/game
on my computer is not legitimately licensed”, “How frequently do you pirate per week”,
“Degree of Hardcore Pirate”, “I have transferred at least one piece of pirated software
to/from someone”, “Number of mediums used to pirate software”, and Overall Online
Pirating Behavior all were significant at the .05 level. These items are further specified in
Table 3, and support the first hypothesis. Significant negative relationships exist for six
piracy variables, as the calculated t value fell outside the prescribed critical value of -1 .96

and five of six alphas fell below .01 , with the sixth alpha level less than .05.

69

.9258 82 ad a: a 2888 a 8:288 .-
€258 :52 3o 2: a 28:85 a 889:8 -

 

 

*rwvd- o _. em. v _.- 8888mm 838$ 0880 =8o>O
.1. 58- 6. am; mm. 895.88 888 9 com: 8888 .8 898:2
fond- w _.- ow. mm. 0:888 88-:9 0.83:8 @888 .8 808 0:0 88.— 8 888888 98: _
1.3M- Er 2..— m 2 288 8888 .8 Band
13M- mm.- on; D”.— 383 .88 888 so» 2: 38888.8 30m
*moN- o _.- S. 3. .888: 3888582 8: 8 88888 >8 :0 08mw\88wo8 0:0 88. ~<
on. T 8.- K. E. 808821888382 8 88888 >8 :0 885.88 .8 @863 tam-888 2E-
vo. T w _.- mvg mm; ~8de8 8888 so» 028 88% 88 2: 8 :88 >83
3.. cor om; v 2 «8838.8 8288 .8» 08: 5:08 88 05 8 :88 Box
855:8 88 SR:
8 :82 882 83:85» 82:8an

 

838:3 885 88 mmouu< 8:88— NQIV voomm-awE .9» 5?: 5:8: numb-H. 838nm 80—8248:— .n 933—.

70

A correlation matrix was next created with the predictor and dependent variables
to discover which items were related, and how strong of a relationship existed between
those items. As evidenced by Table 4, “I have bumed/recorded at least one software
package onto CDR” - a measure of traditional pirating activities - is significantly
correlated to overall Internet piracy (F38). The coefficient of determination for that
predictor is (.3 8)2, or .14. As a Proportionate Reduction of Error statistic, it can be
concluded that 14% of the variation in overall Internet piracy can be explained by, or

attributed to, previous experience with the creation of pirated CDROMs.

71

duo—5-3 :32 Ed 05 E ancfima fl SEE—om wag—€302 =Eo>0 .3:
g cozmmzmssoz

sséum mafia 0515.335 .on

fiasco: boas—Emo— 8: fl 889:8 b: so oEmeEwEQ one «32 Z A”:
43982 >_o§EEwo_ mm ~8an8 >6 :0 299:8 mo A+o\aomv 3:072: 2F .95
.8888 Eats 885:8 BEE go 803 0:0 «82 a Brogan: 02E _ ADV
moEmtm> >343 BEBE

Mao Eco owe—own 255mg 25 68— 3 3283353 023 _ .AUV

MOD :0 owe—own 8553“,. 0:0 e82 an («o 38 m coagoflcoZoooficmson 28: _ .Amv
moBatm> GEOMQU woamozasgflcoE Quiz—A swaps: >085 “mm

38% BEBE woummfiwfi om: _ A45

ozmfi> 35:88

 

 

 

 

325-3 .92 3o 05 a 68%? g 5:22.00 ..
.8253 :52 ad 2: a 2.82%: a SEES ...

 

 

l2: .m
.Inom. co; .0
* _ —. **mN. oo._ .m
.15.- *o_.- **w_. oo._ .m
**m~. .Inov. “ta—m. no. GOA .D
we. mm. a. mo. CV. 00; .U
*o_. ..:.&N. from”. CC. **wm. «*3. co; .m
loo. .‘wfi *ofi. mo. **w_. ELL. *2. co; .<
.3 .0 m .m .D .U .m .<

 

 

 

835:3 5.23 ES "—33.53ng 6893‘ 63 m .— 5 .Su 5...“: 5:22.80 3:255 .v 03:.

72

Overall neutralizing was positively related to “l have transferred at least one piece
of pirated software to/from someone” ,“At least one program/ game on my computer is not
legitimately licensed”, “I have bought/received/borrowed a copy of at least one software
package on CDR”, “The majority of software on my computer is legitimately licensed,
“and “Overall Online Pirating Behavior”, demonstrating that the incidence and onset of
piracy among those who employ the nine techniques of neutralization is greater than
those who are not prone to justifying their behavior. These findings lend support for the
second hypothesis.

Interestingly, neutralizing was not related to “I have bumed/recorded at least one
software package onto CDR”, a variable that measures deeper involvement in the pirating
scene. Perhaps as individuals become further entrenched in software piracy and reach the
stage where they are duplicating and distributing pirated CDs that they have created, they
no longer feel the need to rationalize their actions. It is possible that neutralization is only
necessary at the onset of participation in this specific crime, and once the behavior
increases in fi'equency and scope, it becomes more readily acceptable. Future research
will seek to determine the causal time order of neutralization on piracy.

Use of broadband lntemet access was also included in the model and compared to
the variables that measured piracy. As depicted in the matrix, high-speed connectivity
was significantly related at the .01 level to illegally transferring at least one piece of
pirated software and with the measure of “Overall Online Pirating Behavior”. This
provides some evidence that Ethernet, cable-modem, or DSL lntemet users are more
likely have participated in piracy, perhaps because of the easy accessibility and rapidity of

a dedicated file transferring pipeline.

73

Unarguably, these correlations remain relatively weak, perhaps because of the
amount of variation that must be explained. In fact, the trend throughout the bivariate
correlation results is that in general, the independent and dependent variables are
significantly related to each other; however, not much differentiation can be made.
Overall, the third hypothesis - which predicted three distinct tenets of neutralization to be
most applicable to pirating behavior - was unable to be tested in this analysis.

One-way analysis of variance (AN OVA) was also conducted to see how
categorical variables might be inserted into the picture as influencers of pirating behavior.
Proficiency in Internet-related activities, such as participating in an online auction or
creating a web page, is expected to be positively related to pirating behavior. Succinctly
put, it is supposed that the more capable and skilled an individual is in the performance of
online actions, the more likely the possibility that s/he pirates software.

AN OVA tests to see if the population means are equal by determining the
significance of the difference of the sample means. Those who engaged in six or less
items of the variable measuring lntemet use proficiency rated negatively on pirating
behavior (see Table 5). As anticipated, those who had performed seven or more items
were most likely to rate highly on overall pirating behavior. The significance for F is
.000, and falls markedly below the standard .05 alpha level. Therefore, at least one
category of the independent variable in the population significantly influences pirating

behavior.

74

Table 5. ANOVA of Proficiency of Internet Use and Overall Online Pirating

 

Proficiency of Internet Use Mean F

0-2 items -.35 26.578“
3-4 items -. 12

5-6 items -.06

7-8 items .28

9-10 items 1.32

 

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The Bonferroni Post Hoc test determines which of the five predictor categories
differ significantly from the others in their power to influence the dependent variable in
the population. The alpha level for comparisons of the category of 9-10 items with the
other categories was .000, indicating that a higher degree of lntemet proficiency, as
measured by this scalar variable, is likely to differentiate those in that category from the
others. Eta squared (n2) measures how much total variation can be attributed to the
variation that occurs between groups, and was obtained by dividing the Between Groups
Sum of Squares (89.955) by the Within Groups Sum of Squares (346.045). n2 was found
to be .2559. That is, 25.6% of variation in the population for overall online piracy can be
explained by proficiency in Internet use. As an assessment of strength, it is indicative of
a moderate relationship between the predictor variable and pirating activities.

A survey item to measure variety of lntemet use was utilized in order to ascertain
the relationship between broader employment of online resources and overall pirating
behavior. The sample means allow me to conclude that those with a higher degree of
variety in their online activities pirate more, as measured by the dependent variable.

Furthermore, the significance of F (.000) indicates that at least one category mean is

75

different from the others in the population (see Table 6). The Post Hoc comparison test
found that the alpha values for the category of 12-13 items was significantly different
from 0-2 items ((1:01), 3-5 items (a=.00), and 6—8 items (a=.00), signalling that those
who used the lntemet in a wider context were significantly different in their pirating than
those whose online use was more specific. However, 12-13 items was not differentiated
from 9-11 items (0t=.094). Thus, it seems a demarcation can be made between 0—8 items
and 9-13 items, and with the former grouping categorized as low variety of lntemet use,
and the latter as high variety. To reiterate, those who use the Internet for a broad range of
purposes are substantively different in their pirating behavior than those who only utilize
the lntemet for a few specialized functions. A relatively small 12.8% of variation in the

dependent variable is explained by this predictor.

Table 6. ANOVA of Variety of Internet Use and Overall Online Pirating

 

 

Variety of Internet Use Mean F

0-2 items .10 13.666"
3-4 items -.28

5-6 items -.08

7-8 items .42

9-10 items 1 .02

 

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Other one-way AN OVA tests revealed that freshmen differed from the other years
of studies in pirating behavior; this statistic, however, cannot be considered internally
consistent as only four freshmen were surveyed. A question intended to determine
general adherence to a normative value system — “Generally speaking, I would feel guilty

for pirating software” — did not significantly differentiate users in their level of software

76

expropriation, with the only significant difference existing between the responses of
Strongly Disagree and Undecided. Those who strongly opposed the statement “I am
concerned about copyright infringement on the lntemet” were significantly different from
the other Likert-scale categories in the mean level of overall pirating behavior in the
population. However, only 4.43% of the variation in pirating was due to this predictor
variable. Finally, the number of years an individual has been using the lntemet did not
matter in distinguishing higher levels of pirating activity among respondents.
Multivariate Statistics

To determine if the means of online pirating for those who participated in software
piracy with physical removable media were significantly different in the population than
those who did not, two-way analysis of variance was employed (see Table 7). The overall
model - a measure of the influencing power of all factors and interactions involved on the
dependent variable - was significant. Also significant was whether the individual had
facilitated intellectual property theft through the use of his or her own CD burner.
However, no differentiation was evident among those who had simply used an
unauthorized CD copy, nor was there an exponential interactive effect among the
independent variables apart from their additive power. Based on the analysis,
involvement in piracy through physical media accounts for 15.3% of variation in the
unlawful duplication of software over a network connection. To summarize, merely
having exchanged or obtained pirated software on CD is not significantly related to online
piracy, but having burned or recorded pirated software onto CD is a significant predictor
of uploading or downloading warez on the lntemet. This lends partial support for the

fourth hypothesis.

77

Table 7. Two-Way ANOVA of CDROM Piracy and Overall Online Pirating

 

Variable F Sig.
Corrected Model .000
V30 — “I have bought/received/borrowed a copy

of at least one software package on CDR” .036 .849
V31 — “I have bumed/recorded at least one

software package onto CDR” 43.033 .000
V30 * V31 2.457 .118

 

R Squared = .153 (Adjusted R Squared = .147)

To empirically evaluate the viability of the four hypotheses, Ordinary Least
Squares regression was performed. This multivariate analysis was used to examine all of
the variables together; that is, to determine the influence of the predictors on pirating,
controlling for demographic and historic pirating variables. Three models were created to
evaluate the relationship of the variables, and the findings are summarized below.

The first model aimed to determine the relationship of demographic variables to
Overall Online Pirating Behavior. Sex, race, age, college major, year of studies,
employment status, parent’s annual income, father’s educational level, and mother’s
educational level were included to control for the sample characteristics. Those who
were male, nonwhite, and not majoring in Social Science or Business had increased levels
of Internet piracy. Only 7% of variation was explained by demographic differences

among respondents.

78

Table 8. Model I: OLS Regression Analysis on Overall Online Pirating (n=433)

 

 

Model Predictor Std. Error Beta t
Constant

Demographic Variables

Male? .10 .19 4.01"
White? .11 -.11 -2.19*
21 or older? .12 -.02 -.35
Social Science Major? .1 1 -.13 -2.54*
Business Major? .13 -. 13 -2.35*
Senior? .12 .01 .13
Employed? .1 1 -.03 -.54
Family makes $50,000 or more? .1 l -.01 -.24
Father has his College Degree? .1 1 -.09 -1.63
Mother has her College Degree? .11 .07 1.32

 

"‘ Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
R Squared = .07

The second model incorporated three independent variables to determine the
impact of opportunity and past piracy: “I use Ethernet, cable-modem, or DSL connectivity
in my dorm room, apartment, or house”; “I have bought/received/borrow a copy of at
least one software package(s) burned onto a CD-R (custom-made CD)” and “I have
burned/recorded at least one software package onto CD-R (custom-made CD)”. Once
again, the dependent variable utilized is Overall Online Pirating Behavior.

As expected, there is a significant positive relationship between high-speed
Internet access and overall pirating (see Table 9). This supports the first hypothesis that
speedy and dedicated online access facilitates software piracy. An interesting finding
stemmed from the control variables included to assess the influence of past pirating
behavior involving tangible removable media (such as the duplication of CDROMs). It

was discovered that those who have used a copy of a program on an unauthorized and

79

duplicated CD are no more likely than their counterparts to pirate. However, those who

own a CD burner, and have created and recorded CDs themselves, are significantly

differentiated in their pirating activity than those who have not. Owning and using a

recording drive to duplicate software increases pirating behavior, once again affirrning

one aspect of the fourth hypothesis. To reiterate, while obtaining broadband connectivity

increases overall pirating, having experience with the creation of illegal CD duplications

of software differentiates pirates to a larger degree. The explained variation of Model II,

based on these three predictor variables, is 21%, a notable increase from Model I.

Table 9. Model II: OLS Regession Analysis on Overall Online Pirating (n=433)

 

 

 

 

Model Predictor Std. Error Beta t
Constant
Demographic Variables
Male? .10 .12 2.71M
White? .10 -.08 -1.79*
21 or older? .11 .02 .37
Social Science Major? .10 -.13 -2.60**
Business Major? .12 -.09 -1.89
Senior? . 12 -.01 -.22
Employed? .10 -.O4 -.94
Family makes $50,000 or more? .10 -.05 -1.02
Father has his College Degree? .10 -.09 -1.69
Mother has her College Degree? .10 .05 1.01
Oflortuniggd Physical Media Variables
I use high-speed lntemet access in my home .09 .10 2.12*
I have bought/received/borrowed a copy .10 .08 1.60
of at least one software package on CDR
I have bumed/recorded at least one software .11 .31 6.19"
package on CDR

 

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
R Squared = .21

80

The third model added the variable of Overall Neutralization Behavior to
determine whether a priori justifications lend themselves to an increased amount of
Overall Online Pirating Behavior (see Table 10). As mentioned earlier, the usage of
neutralization techniques in freeing each student from any imposed constraints of ethical
computing was measured with a series of questions, each of which presented a particular
situational aspect or characteristic which may or may not influence the student to pirate.
Arrival at this one measure of the theoretical perspective warrants description. The nine
techniques each were represented by varying numbers of questions: Denial of
Responsibility was measured with 11 items (two were subsequently deleted because they
did not satisfactorily differentiate between those who were more and less likely to pirate);
Denial of Injury, 6 items; Denial of Victim, 4 items; Condemnation of the Condemners, 5
items; Appeal to Higher Loyalties, 6 items; Metaphor of the Ledger, 5 items; Claim of
Normalcy, 4 items; Denial of Negative Intent, 7 items; and finally, Claim of Relative
Acceptability, 3 items.

A reliability analysis was first conducted to determine which variables are more
dependable in differentiating individuals and in measuring the respective construct. The
derived alpha values all fell above .8, and are specified in Appendix B. Furthermore, for
practically every item in the section designed to measure the applicability of
neutralization theory, the alpha values would have decreased if the question was removed
from the analysis. Then, because of the large number of items, a factor analysis was
conducted to make sure that each set of observable measures was specifically identifying

a particular, heretofore unobservable concept (that is, a technique of neutralization).

81

For Denial of Responsibility, the factor analysis revealed two primary constructs
with Eigenvalues over 1. Two questions were subsequently discarded because they
loaded high on each factor, and the analysis was rerun. The Eigenvalue for the second
construct remained greater than 1. However, upon closer examination, it was detected
that the first construct explained 50% of the variance among the items, while the second
explained only 14%. Also, all factor loadings for the Denial of Responsibility variables
were greater than .6. A subsequent scree plot validated the contention that there existed
only one dominant factor. Finally, as noted in the table below, the alpha value for the
items in totality was .90, which indicates that if an individual answered one way for a
particular question, it is very likely that s/he answered the same way for the other items in
the set. For these reasons, a one-factor solution was forced. The sets of questions
measuring the eight other tenets were also found to be very consistent measures of each
construct, and loaded highly on their respective factor scores. Consequently, these nine
variables, normally distributed with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1, were
considered to be solid appraisers of Sykes and Matza’s techniques of neutralization.
Please see Appendix B for the factor score breakdown and reliability analyses on these
items.

When they were included in the regression model however, a few techniques were
found to be positively related to Overall Online Pirating Behavior, one was found to be
inversely related, and the others were not found to be related at all. This indicated to me
that the tenets could not be adequately and reliably differentiated from each other in the
manner that I had sought, and necessitated aggregation into one factor score measuring

Overall Neutralization for inclusion in the analysis. My theoretical justification for

82

piracy, then, had to be measured at a macro level, rather than specifically identifying
which techniques were most conducive to the crime. Therefore, responses from the fifty
situational questions in the survey were factor analyzed. Seven components were initially
derived with Eigenvalues over 1, but a one-factor solution was forced as 45.2% of the
overall variance was explained by the first component. This produced a singular variable
to measure one’s proclivity to neutralize and was used in the regression analysis to

ascertain the theory’s applicability to Internet piracy.

Table 10. Model 111: OLS Regression Analysis on Overall Online Pirating Qi=433)

 

 

 

 

 

Model Predictor Std. Error Beta t

Constant

Demomanhic Vaflbles

Male? .09 .12 256*

White? .10 -.08 -1.72

21 or older? .11 .02 .43

Social Science Major? .10 -.13 -2.79**

Business Major? .12 -.09 -l .80

Senior? .1 1 -.01 -.22

Employed? . 1 0 -.03 -.77

Family makes $50,000 or more? .10 -.04 -.95

Father has his College Degree? .10 -.08 -1.67

Mother has her College Degree? .10 .04 .86

Opmrtunitv and Physical Media Variables

I use high-speed lntemet access in my home .09 .09 1.95“

I have bought/received/borrowed a copy .10 .07 1.34
of at least one software package on CDR

I have bumed/recorded at least one software .11 .31 6.21 **
package on CDR

Theory Variam

Overall Neutralization Behavior .04 .16 3.5 5“

 

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
R Squared = .23

83

Male respondents and non-Social Science majors were still more likely to pirate.
Also, the significance of hi gh-speed access and piracy through the creation of physical
media both hold after inclusion of these additional variables. Of the variation in the
dependent variable, 23% can be attributed to the group of predictors. Thus, very little
predictive power was gained through the addition of the neutralization construct, a likely
indication that while Sykes and Matza’s theory is a suitable framework in which to view
intellectual property theft, opportunity and past piracy differentiate among online pirates
to a much greater degree. In sum, potential employment of the techniques of
neutralization, broadband access to the Internet, and previous pirating behavior with
recordable CDs are the most important determinants of lntemet piracy (with the latter
continuing to be the strongest predictor with beta = .31).

Unfortunately, due to the limitations in my conceptualization of the questions to
measure each respective neutralization precept, I was unable to specify exactly which of
the nine individual techniques were most important predictors of piracy. As such, I could
not test if Denial of Victim, Claim of Normalcy, and Appeal to Higher Loyalties were
most frequently employed to discount any misgivings or cast aside any need to adhere to
social and legal constraints, thus freeing the individual to commit the crime. This leaves
Hypothesis 3 unproved. Furthermore, because of a general inability to identify all of the
aspects that most lend themselves to this little-studied high-tech crime, much variation in
the dependent variable remains to be explained. I hope that I am able to determine in
future research another factor that will better differentiate software pirates.

The impetus for this research was the conjecture that hi gh-speed access facilitates

software piracy to some degree. However, not much overall variation in pirating could be

84

attributed to broadband connectivity. The theoretical components of neutralization theory
were then added to the empirical assessment and accounted for much more variance in
the dependent measure. Finally, demographic characteristics were included, and only
slightly more variation was elucidated. The second hypothesis, which stated that Sykes
and Matza’s neutralization theory was an applicable perspective with which to view
software piracy, is hence corroborated.

It bears mentioning at this time that in each of these models, F was significant,
signalling that the variables utilized were a good fit for the analysis. Also, the tolerance
and variance inflation factor statistics for each model did not indicate a problem of shared
explained variance among the independent variables. This occurred when each of the
nine neutralization tenets was included both separately and together into the OLS

regression, as well as when the one variable of Overall Neutralization was included.

85

LIMITATIONS

A few limitations exist in attributing software piracy to Sykes and Matza’s
neutralization theory. First, the theory does not indicate why some students engage in
software piracy and why some do not. It focuses on the reasoning behind the behaviors
rather than the initial decision to contemplate the behavior itself. What makes software
piracy attractive in the first place? The theory is based on rationalizing processes
originating before the act occurs, but why some are more likely than others to have that
penchant towards deviance is not determinable. The theory also assumes that individuals
are committed to the mores of society well before the option for transgression even
presents itself. If no bond to convention exists in the first place, there would be no need
to use techniques of neutralization to evade obligations to societal laws (Lanier & Henry,
1998). Thus, since there are varying degrees of commitment to the dominant culture,
perhaps those distinctly committed to antisocial standards do not employ neutralization to
weaken or sever any potential constraints. Additionally, it is difficult to determine the
causal order involved with a cross-sectional study — that is, if neutralizing techniques and
verbalizations are employed before, during, or after piracy takes place. Finally, the theory
does not establish how the techniques, motives, and rationalizations for committing
piracy are learned by new offenders, or how piracy first became a problem. Only one
longitudinal study could be located that provides an empirical analysis on neutralization
theory has been performed (Minor 1981).

Neutralization theory, as posited by Sykes and Matza (195 7), holds that offenders
only justify the misbehaviors that they themselves commit (McCarthy & Stewart, 1998).

It needs to be determined if, and to what degree, software pirates use (or would use) these

86

rationalizations to disengage themselves from conventional morality for other acts of
deviance. If it is discovered that excuses are accepted allowing engagement in piracy, but
not in other high-tech crimes (such as hacking or child pornography), additional
credibility would be lent to the specific applicability of the theory to the illegal
duplication of software files.

How long are neutralizing techniques necessary in the course of a pirate’s criminal
career? Perhaps they are used quite frequently at the commencement of infringing
behavior, but decrease in incidence as the pirate becomes more and more entrenched in
the delinquent activity. Thus, in time s/he would no longer need to resolve any
dissonance stemming from the conflict between moral values and immoral behavior, and
would continue the misdeed in accordance with a new deviant value system.
Furthermore, at what point in a delinquent’s career are these methods of rationalization
most employed? More generally, what degree of influence do the techniques have in
facilitating software piracy through the traditional borrowing and copying of programs on
physical media, as compared to the illegal transfer of warez over the lntemet?

Another question has to do with the degree of success the techniques of
neutralization have in preventing the onset of feelings of guilt. Perhaps as time goes on,
these rationalizations have become more acceptable in both the minds of the deviants and
to society as a whole, while the line between upright behavior and criminal behavior is
increasingly blurred. The validity of this supposition requires a longitudinal study to
analyze the influence of the theory at the commencement, continuance, and resolution

stages of piracy participation.

87

It was initially suggested that a panel study might be used in addition to the cross-
sectional perspective of this research in order to more thoroughly test the applicability of
the theory. However, I contend that for the purposes of the current work, it is not
necessary. It would be difficult to survey the same set of pe0ple two or more times,
considering this research is based on self-reported criminal activity - an inherently
sensitive subject - and must remain anonymous due to this fact. The same set of students
would also be problematic to keep track of, as many decide to leave a particular dorm
room for another, or choose to move off campus into an apartment or house. The
experimental mortality would most likely cripple the reliability of the findings. A panel
study, though, would provide evaluation data if any particular policy solutions were
implemented, on account of my findings or otherwise. Nevertheless, since neutralizations
are specified by Sykes and Matza to occur before the act is committed, I feel that studies
after policy implementation would necessitate an entirely new theoretical perspective.
Additionally, there are a multitude of logistical difficulties concerning time, money, and
other resources requisite to measure tendency to neutralize at one occasion or time period,
and then to follow up with the same individuals months or even years later to determine
their level of involvement in piracy at that time.

A few methodological issues arised during the research. For one, although
anonymity and confidentiality were promised, we could not ensure the veracity of the
feedback received, an inherent negative characteristic of self-report studies.
Nonrespondent bias may have occurred in that those who did respond might have been
less likely to expropriate software than those who did not respond (Seale, Polakowski, &

Schneider, 1998).

88

The ad hoc questionnaire developed solely for this paper suffered from some
methodological weaknesses. It is likely that these occurred simply due to inexperience
with developing a survey instrument, and the mistakes have taught me valuable lessons
which from which I will be able to benefit during future quantitative research procedures.
For instance, the answer choices in a few questions did not include an “N/A” option for
those who had not participated in software piracy. These items consequently had to be
removed. The responses might have been more conducive to analysis if the scales always
provided “0” as the first option, and then increased incrementally in the next answer
choice (e.g., 1-?). This author twice made the mistake of grouping 0 with 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
in questions intended to measure incidence and intensity of piracy, not realizing the
drastic difference between those who had not pirated at all, and those who had pirated at
least one time.

The survey itself had an inordinate amount of questions (131), as it was believed
that each and every question was important to the study. Admittedly, if some of the
prosocial questions had been removed, the number of items would have decreased by 15-
20%. Nevertheless, without prosocial questions, the intrinsic purpose of the instrument to
measure students’ pirating activities would have been transparent to practically all
respondents. A few professors and students in the classes surveyed did suggest reducing
the amount of questions to preclude the possibility of individuals skipping or randomly
answering items. Unfortunately, some inquiries (such as the respondent’s discipline and
age) were only presentable by extending the answer choices over a series of questions and
providing “None of the above” as an option for each one, due to the limitations of the

scantron forms utilized. For example, to determine the discipline under which a student’s

89

major falls among twenty three choices, six questions had to be utilized to cover every
single option (see Survey Instrument in Appendix A for further clarification).

A relatively serious problem stemmed from the use of scantron forms to collect
response data. After performing listwise deletion of missing cases, a shocking 14.6% (73
responses) of the sample were removed. On some scantrons, individuals seemed to be
missing questions randomly; that is, it was not a particular small set of respondents who
were failing to answer all of the questions. The trend seemed to be distributed without
any semblance of logic. Upon pondering the possible reasons for this unexpected
occurrence, it was conjectured that some students did not properly bubble in the response
for each question, perhaps marking beyond or outside of the circles, or not fully erasing a
previous answer choice, or left stray marks on their scantron form. Their intended
responses, then, likely were not recognized by a fastidious scantron scoring machine,
leaving blank (e.g., missing) responses. It might have been prudent to go through each
scantron manually and ensure that each answer choices entered in error were properly
erased, and that all responses were properly bubbled inside the appropriate circle, and that
no stray marks were left which might potentially confuse the scoring machine. In
retrospect, it is somewhat amusing to think that a study about a consequence stemming
from the advancement of technology would be tripped up due to the nuances associated
with another technological development — the computerized scoring system.

A few final limitations stem from the study population chosen. For instance, it is
possible that the moral value systems of university students are already established,
decreasing the potential influence of the techniques of neutralization on behavior.

Additionally, a logistic problem occurred as the race, age, and year of studies were all

90

highly skewed. A very small proportion of the sample was nonwhite, of freshman or
sophomore standing, or less than 21 years of age. While the distorted distribution of race
in my sample mirrors the overall student population at this university, age and year of
studies might have been more varied had the research occurred during the fall or spring
semester of a school year. It is conjectured that upperclassmen take summer classes to a
greater degree than younger students, presumably to assist in graduating on time.
Freshmen and sophomores generally seem to be unconcerned with degree and credit hour
requirements at the early stages of their academic career, and are not likely to take
summer classes unless they are eager to “get ahead”. This unintended consequence made
it impossible to compare the pirating behavior between age groups and cohorts.
Moreover, the vast majority of the student population was wealthy (as inferred by the fact
that their parents’ income of $50,000 or more), and so it was difficult to determine if
pirating behavior is differentiated by socioeconomic status. Academic major or discipline
of study was another variable not as evenly distributed among respondents as I would
have hoped, precluding the possibility of accurately comparing the infiinging activity of
one group to another. Fortunately, these logistic problems can be corrected quite easily in

a future wave of study.

91

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Through this extensive study and analysis, three of the four previously specified
hypotheses were substantiated. The dominant finding was that piracy is a problem among
college students, supporting descriptive research conducted on this topic. Moreover, it
was found that high—speed lntemet access, particularly Ethernet access in dorm room or
residential hall settings, lends itself to this particular intellectual property theft. What can
be done about this problem? We must now turn our attention to possible solutions that
can be implemented to curb the incidence and frequency of the computer crime. When
the boundaries of lawfirl behavior are clearly defined, it will presumably be more
challenging for potential offenders to neutralize their deviant actions through the
techniques previously mentioned. Deviance may be reduced in severity and frequency,
then, with the use of laws, legal sanctions, or threats of sanction (Tittle, 1980). If
acceptable and unacceptable computing behavior is plainly spelled out by university
administration through the use of ethical codes substantively similar to laws and legal
sanctions, the incidence of piracy among students may be reduced. Engendering a respect
for intellectual creations and property among students is an intrinsically essential function
of higher learning, particularly when it involves a networked environment where
duplication and dissemination of works without the author or owner's permission can
proliferate easily and with great celerity.

While Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) in university handbooks and codebooks are
used frequently to accomplish this end, they are not enough, as many students do not take
the time to read such lengthy administrative discourses. The Michigan State University

AUP (1998) states:

92

5. Michigan State University utilizes a wide variety of
software, with an equally wide range of license and
copyright provisions. Users are responsible for informing
themselves of, and complying scrupulously with, the
license and copyright provisions of the software that they
use.

5.1. No software copy is to be made by any User without a
prior, good faith determination that such copying is in fact
permissible. All Users must respect the legal protection
provided by copyright and license to programs and data.

Investigation and criminal or civil actions are the consequences of this form of
criminal activity, as proposed by the Vice Provost of Computing and Technology.
Furthermore, the AUP goes on to specify that "Users are responsible for informing
themselves of, and complying scrupulously with, the license and copyright provisions of
the software that they use" (Michigan State University AUP, 1998). While this
disclaimer perhaps absolves the college of any legal duty to specifically educate the
student body about intellectual property theft, it does not serve to abrogate its
commission. F urtherrnore, the guidelines are likely to be considered "window dressing",
and fail to engender a respect for intellectual labor and creativity, which is seemingly
essential to refraining from piracy. Such codes must clearly delineate the unethical
computing behaviors that will not be tolerated, as well as the consequences that will
result. As a guideline or framework for use, the Software and Information Industry

Association provides a Recommended lntemet Usage Policy that can be adapted as

93

necessary by universities to suit their interests (Recommended, 1999). Aside from
increasing methods of deterrence and awareness of sanctions, universities should inform
the student body of the regular occurrence of piracy detection and computer auditing,
monitoring, and logging by network staff and administrators. The SIIA and the BSA
provides interested organizations and individuals with a self-audit kit at either zero or
minimal cost (SPAudit Software Management Tools, 1999; Software Piracy, 1999).
Thus, it is hoped that consciousness by students of continually impending “sweeps” by
those in charge will serve as a disincentive to participate in the crime.

Monitoring is currently being performed to ensure the efficiency and peak
functionality of the campus LAN by analyzing how many packets of data are lost as a
result of heavy bandwidth usage, overload, or other network traffic issues (personal
correspondence, February 3, 2000). It has been suggested that monitoring of bandwidth
and determination of exactly what is being transferred (through a technique called “packet
sniffing”) is increasingly necessary to address the issue of illegal copyright infringement
occurring over university communication lines. However, there are some issues that
preclude the possibility of using this technique. At the routing level, where the local area
network (i.e., the university network) is connected to the lntemet, traffic can be filtered so
that incoming and outgoing data on certain ports are allowed and disallowed for usage,
thus reducing the amount of throughput requiring monitoring. This, unfortunately, might
unintentionally restrict legitimate users in their computing and networking abilities.
Further, determining the content of the data transversing over the network pipelines is

much more difficult.

94

With connection-based traffic, such as FTP and IRC, the client computer must
contact and establish a connection with the remote computer in order to facilitate transfer
of data, increasing the challenge of ferreting out information from the packets.
Determining the content of transfers through connection-based traffic is an extremely
arduous task because each packet of data must be analyzed, which can consume
exponentially large amounts of time and hardware resources. Packet sniffing will also
compete for the time and attention of network administrators who are usually quite busy
tending to other vital day-to-day affairs such as maximizing “uptime” for all servers and
workstations online and maintaining network connectivity throughout campus. Finally,
most transfers of program files occur in binary format, rather than ASCII format, and it is
therefore extremely hard to detect what an assortment of zeros and ones mean when
attempting to deduce the type of files that are being transferred. Most importantly,
though, is the issue of whether network administrators on a campus have the legal right
and ethical consent to inspect the contents of files being transferred, and many would
argue that this is a fundamental breach of students’ civil and privacy rights.

Perhaps a proviso in text can be called up on the computer screens of students the
first time they register to use the dedicated Ethernet access in their residential halls,
delineating the honorable behavior required while using the school’s resources and access
to the Internet, and reminding users of the negative implications that will result from
illegal behavior. A small automatically executable file can even be written and installed
on every user’s computer displaying a similar warning message upon logon concerning
proper computer usage. Periodic mass emails sent to the student body may help to

remind individuals that unethical actions online will not be tolerated. Another idea would

95

be to require the signature of all potential users of the university network and bandwidth,
perhaps incorporated into the university application for enrollment form, to officially
indicate an agreement to abide by virtuous computing standards. These strategies should
reduce, to some degree, the erosion of accountability for unethical computing practices.
The SIIA provides a sample policy statement for organizations to use, and recommends
that all users (faculty, staff, students) read and sign such a document to indicate
agreement to abide by the rules (Sample Corporate Policy Statement, 1999).

Another possible solution results from the existence of a caching server, which
exists in each dorm room and resides on a network between a student’s computer and
web and ftp browsing software and the lntemet web and file servers from which
documents and information are being retrieved. It can be considered a “data liaison”
which saves frequently requested data into a collection that is made immediately available
to users as soon as a request is made by a client computer. Rather than going out onto the
Internet to obtain the content and unnecessarily adding to the volume of lntemet traffic
and congestion, the caching server functionally accelerates the communications flow of
the network and reduces latency (transmission delays) by delivering documents and data
from its storage repositories rather than from the origin server. When a student turns on
his computer, the network interface card is activated and broadcasts the lntemet address it
has been assigned, indicating that the port is open and ready for data transfer. It is
suggested that each time this broadcast stream of data is received by the caching server, it
can be configured to push a popup window onto the user’s desktop. This small window
would then serve to remind the user of the acceptable use policies of the campus network,

and would contain an “OK” button which must be clicked (thereby consciously indicating

96

at least surface abidance by ethical computing mores) before the school’s hi gh-speed
lntemet connection can be used. It bears mentioning that this procedure is currently in
place on many employee computers at the university studied, but has not been designed to
function on the computers of dorm room residents. Perhaps the popup reminder’s
absence has fostered piracy among students to a greater degree than would have occurred
had it been utilized.

Some universities distribute CDROMs to every incoming student, containing
licensed or freeware copies of Internet software such as Netscape Navigator and
Microsoft lntemet Explorer, as well as a program which configures the client system (or
allows for effortless configuration by the student) to use the Ethernet ports in university
dormitories. When the program files on the CDROM are run, shortcuts to web pages
such as the MSU Acceptable Use Policy, the Business Software Alliance, or the Software
and Information Industry can be installed onto the desktop of the user’s computer. This
not only would facilitate easy accessibility to rules and regulations governing intellectual
property and honorable computing practices without having to search for the information,
but also increases cognizance and awareness of the university’s insistence on, and
attention to, lawful use of their network resources.

One suggestion initially contemplated was to install secondary phone lines in each
of the dorm rooms and increase the number of ports that the campus dial-in server can
hold in order to allow for more users to be connected through an analog, low-speed
(maximum threshold of 56 kbps) line. This would shrink ideal and maximum bandwidth
usage from 10 mbps to 56 kbps (although current FCC regulations limit download speeds

to 53kbps), and thereby discourage users from software piracy by requiring them to spend

97

hours and hours online to download files, since the speed of transfer is exponentially
lower. Admittedly, this idea is quite drastic and might not even be considered if the
piracy rate among students was extraordinarily high.

Upon further inquiry, the prospective solution was downed for a host of financial
and logistic reasons. The cost of each outlet on the average in a hall is about $500 to
install. Additionally, there is an annual cost of about $10 per outlet to maintain the
network and the electronics. The current system functions at 10 mbps but has the
capability to be extended to 100 mbps and 600 mbps and possibly higher as technological
needs and the added value of service warrant it. To add a second phone line, one must
essentially rewire the hall phone system and add a replacement line and a second line.
Notably, the cost to do this is not any cheaper than the cost to do the cabling necessary for
Ethernet. However, upon activation of the second phone line, the service costs for each
of these additional phone lines is $17.50 per month to the national provider, Ameritech.
That is a cost of $200 per year per dorm room, and the necessity to install additional
phone lines at the dial-in end will cost approximately the same. The present Ethernet
installation is considered to be good for a minimum of 10 years. The electronics will be
changed after about 5 years at the cost of approximately $100 per outlet. Ethernet cost
over 10 years will be roughly $700 per line while the telephone costs will be closer to
$2500 per line plus the cost of additional dial-in lines. In sum, the idea of secondary
phone lines for dial-in Ethernet access, albeit idealistic and well intentioned, was found to
be unworkable.

The illegal expropriation of software was found to be a significant problem for the

sample as a whole, not exclusive only to those with high-speed lntemet access. Some

98

discussion of policy implications to deal with copyright infringement by the entire student
body is merited. One such potentially beneficial solution might involve relational
interaction between universities and the IT industry, particular software development
companies. These business entities might send representatives as public speakers to
campuses during either the first week of orientation, or to a required introductory
computing class during the semester. In these venues, representatives could then discuss
the germane copyright laws and infringements that accompany unethical computer usage
and conceivably aid in deterring denial of responsibility, denial of negative intent, and
claim of relative acceptability. Furthermore, the speakers could champion their cause by
describing the damage that is done to the IT industry, developers and programmers (both
by removing financial incentive and through the stifling of innovation and creativity), and
ultimately the consumer population, plausibly countering denial of injury. Furthermore,
by the speaker’s presence, the existence of a real and visible victim will be demonstrated,
ideally dissuading the perception of software manufacturers as nonhuman, remote, and
oblivious entities.

As previously explained, neutralization is used to curtail the emergence of
dissonance developing from committing the proscribed act. However, to preclude the
onset of these techniques, other steps can be taken to increase recognition that software is
a tangible product with an assignable value, and that intellectual property theft is a crime.
For instance, universities are increasingly requiring incoming hi gh-school students to take
a basic introductory course pertaining to computers, general office applications (word
processing, spreadsheet, presentation programs), and the lntemet. It is suggested that

instructors of these courses incorporate into their lesson plan a time where the distinction

99

between moral and immoral computing behavior can be clearly defined. Even a brief
mention of computer ethics during orientation sessions and campus tours is likely to be
helpful in educating students and underscoring the necessity to adhere to institutional and
external standards of proper usage of computing resources. Publication of national
articles about computer criminal arrests in the school newspaper might also engender a
deeper awareness of the seriousness of the issue at hand and facilitate cognitive
restructuring. In addition, anti-piracy signs and posters in computer laboratories and even
heavily frequented school halls or areas would increase sensitivity toward the university
policy, as well as to copyright law in general.

Solomon and O’Brien (1990) found that nearly half of the students they surveyed
had never heard a faculty member or administrator speak out against software piracy, and
that 25% had heard university personnel condone the unauthorized duplication of a
program. While the generalizability of these findings is as yet unproven, it can be
inferred that faculty members do influence, consciously or unconsciously, the ethical
practices of their students to some degree. Perhaps it is necessary to require instructors
and professors in all courses where the use of a computer is expected to include in their
syllabus a warning against the use of illegal software, as many have found it necessary to
provide a similar admonition against plagiarism. At the very least, professors of certain
majors in which the use of computing resources is extremely high (engineering, computer
science, graphics design, journalism) should emphasize the importance of complying with
the school’s directives in this area. It is hoped that these admonitions will forestall any

neutralizing techniques.

100

With regard to class assignments and student projects, perhaps faculty members
should ask students to attach evidence of the purchase of original software if the students
use software which are not supplied by the university. Faculty should caution students
that they may turn down a student’s assignment or project if they are developed using
pirated software. A possibility might be to require students to attach evidence of the
official purchase of software when turning in class papers or projects if that software is
not freely accessible in student computer labs or at the library. This, unfortunately, would
usher in a host of inconveniences and problems, as many individuals likely have
misplaced or discarded proof of purchases and receipts. Additionally, as more software is
available for download through online retail stores and distributors after the provision of
one’s credit card number, there may be no tangible indication of purchase aside from a
receipt in the form of a web page, which many will forget to save to their hard drive or
print out a hard copy. Most notably, however, will be the added burden on both faculty
and students to coordinate the process and ensure that everyone has a legitimate copy of
the necessary application(s).

What punitive measures can be instituted to discipline transgressors and dissuade
others from following in those footsteps? As mentioned earlier, perhaps those who
transgress codes of ethics in a university setting should be denied access to future use of
the lntemet for a specified period of time. Although this would be hard to monitor and
enforce, the presence of such a sanction might deter potential offenders. Restricting
bandwidth at certain times of the day also seems feasible. At first glance it might make
sense to cap transfer speeds at night, either in the aggregate (for all students as a whole)

or for each network port or dorm room connection. While this time of day is when most

101

users are on their computers for purposes other than work (e. g. downloading software or
music), it will not aid the problem of excessive bandwidth consumption and subsequent
traffic bottlenecks during the day, when most individuals are working or needing the
network resources for lawful occupational or educational purposes. Further, while it
might reduce the frequency of software pirated overnight, it likely will not decrease the
incidence of illegal file transfers. Additionally, by implementing restrictions on the
amount of data an individual can transfer, legitimate users are unnecessarily penalized
and precluded from using the network connection for appropriate purposes. These range
from obtaining a new freeware operating system build or a software service pack or patch
to fix operational problems, to backing up their data on a remote site in the event of a
local hard drive failure, to sending an engineering professor a host of large computer-
assisted drafting (CAD) files for inclusion in a research project.

As mentioned earlier, software manufacturers are increasingly implementing
server-side verification designs to reduce the piracy of their products. This is when a
serial number or license key is sent to an online database upon the execution of the
program to confirm that it is legitimate and appropriated only to the user who purchased
the product. If an individual attempts to utilize a key previously designated to another
user, the program will shut down and not function until a valid license is purchased.
That key will then become “blacklisted”, and subsequent pirates who attempt to register
the program with it will be stymied. One of the largest software manufacturers in the
world, Microsoft Corporation, has recently enacted such a system to decrease pirating of
their office productivity suite. It requires users to register their product through an online

process within the initial fifty uses, or the program will cease firnctioning (Microsoft,

102

2000). With more and more lntemet users obtaining dedicated connections, their
computers will always be online and able to contact a remote database to verify a serial
number or keycode before granting access to utilize the program. This can be countered,
of course, by unplugging one’s lntemet connection before executing a program —
something very few individuals will deem reasonable and worthy of the extra effort.
Therefore, it is suggested that all software developers implement such a remote
authentication scheme to cross-check user licenses with a list of valid, registered,
purchased codes.

To further explore countermeasures that might be implemented, and to obtain a
comprehensive understanding of unethical computing behavior that occurs on campus, an
interview with Dr. Robert Wittick (personal correspondence, March 27, 2000) was
conducted. Dr. Wittick is the Director of Central Services at Michigan State University
and handles all disciplinary actions resulting from breaches of the Acceptable Use Policy
by students. Some of the unethical behaviors that have been brought to his attention
include chain letters, pyramid schemes, the posting of copyright material (particularly
unauthorized full-length music files), port scanning to exploit vulnerabilities in other
computer systems and subsequently commandeer through the use of trojan horse
programs, mail bombs, spamming, and other related attacks. Most such unauthorized
computing activity occurs in dorm rooms rather than in computer labs, conceivably
because when a student logs onto a lab system, s/he must provide a user ID to obtain
access. This has the effect of reminding the individual that his or her actions are
recursively traceable. In a residence hall, the student’s ID is automatically authenticated

when the operating system loads up, and an lntemet Protocol address is allocated,

103

enabling readily accessible and instant lntemet access. Because of this seamless,
transparent background-processed verification of a user’s ID, students may forget that the
port being used has been assigned specifically to them and that therefore all online actions
made using that port are traceable.

When a complaint has been received, the network manager is contacted to check
the logs of date, time, and IP address to verify that the questionable activity was
performed by the suspected individual (or, by someone using that account). The student
is then contacted by US Postal mail as well as by email and asked to come in for a
meeting. If it is determined that the student is blatantly at fault, any number of measures
can be taken based on the seriousness of the act, such as disabling the individual
computer account, bringing the student up before a Judicial Board for disciplinary action,
or contacting the police. Disabling a student’s computer account is by no means a benign
sanction; many critical academic functions such as email, registration for classes, the
distribution of coursework, the use of expensive software licensed by the university, and
the conducting of much research all require access to a computer, a privilege available
only to those with a valid usemame and password.

With regard strictly to software piracy, Wittick asserts that in the six years of
tenure in his current position, there has not been a single case of software piracy brought
to his attention. In addition, no bandwidth monitoring is performed at this particular
university with the intention of ascertaining the identity of those transferring large
volumes of files. No packet sniffing is performed to determine the content of files being
transferred, as the university is particularly adamant about abiding by the Academic

Freedom for Students doctrines in place, and respecting unconditionally the student’s

104

privacy and personal rights. Finally, no personal information about a student will be
released if, for instance, a software manufacturer which remotely verifies license keys
contacts the university after detecting that a student attempted to use an illegal serial
number to register an application. Even the police, unless serving a subpoena or another
legal document, cannot demand information about the identity of a student. These
dictums exist to promote the advancement, dissemination, and application of knowledge
through the freedom of expression and communication, and consequently are in place to
maintain and further a scholarly environment conducive to learning (Student Rights,
1999). While some of these policies might not be plausible at smaller universities and
colleges, noteworthy potentialities can be extrapolated, modified, and put to use based on
these practices, such as informally interrogating those students consuming inordinate
amounts of bandwidth and putting a strain on the network as a whole.

In order to determine the efficacy of codes, ethical training, warning signs,
disclaimers, and entreatrnents to students from faculty and software manufacturers in
reducing the fi'equency of software piracy through increased awareness and sensitivity,
longitudinal studies must be performed following such policy implementation. As
always, replication with samples from other universities of varying student and regional
demographics are required to further validate the appropriateness of applying

neutralization theory to software piracy, and to increase external validity.

105

CONCLUSION

Prior to the current work, the majority of research in the software piracy arena has
been rather descriptive, and has been used only in identifying the existence and purview
of the problem. The present study is markedly different and has sought to determine
behavioral, sociological, economic, and environmental factors that facilitate the
prevalence of piracy. The instrument served to extrapolate the applicability of
neutralization theory as well as to infer policy solutions that might curb the problem.
Further, the incidence and frequency of pirating behavior online was found to be
positively correlated with high-speed lntemet access. Support was found for Sykes and
Matza’s neutralization theory as a mechanism that students employ to achieve a break
with any normative constraints, freeing them to commit the act after redefining the
behavior in a positive, acceptable light. Contrary to the third hypothesis, the influence of
neutralization’s separate components could not be accurately fleshed out; therefore, no
particular tenet was found to be a stronger predictor than another. Finally, support was
discovered for the fourth conjecture that experience with illegal duplication of software
through the use of CD burners lends itself to an increased participation in copyright
infringement over the lntemet

Advancements in information technology, allowing for improvements in the speed
of communications, the accessibility of information and data files, and the increase in
overall computing power to run processes previously unfeasible, have opened the door to
a multitude of new behaviors. The file-sharing capabilities of the Internet, concomitant
with high-speed access provided to students in residential hall settings, have greatly

increased the prevalence of the unauthorized distribution and downloading of copyrighted

106

programs from various web and archive sites. Unfortunately, the distinction between
right and wrong among these behaviors is sometimes unclear and susceptible to varying
interpretations. The deficiency of such a demarcation line, the failure of universities to
step up and address this issue through the specific and conspicuous delineation of
appropriate and inappropriate computing behavior, and the failure to cultivate cognitive
restructuring among those particularly prone to engage in online deviance has in some
respects fostered and perpetuated the problem of software piracy.

Matrix Information and Directory Services (http://www.mids.org) estimates that
the total number of worldwide Internet users will grow to 707 million by 2001. As we
move into a global economy, information will be the main source of power among
people. Most of these individuals will use the lntemet for legitimate purposes, but a good
proportion will exploit its vulnerabilities and weaknesses, and violate the rights of others
through software piracy and other forms of criminal activity. The role computers and the
lntemet play in our lives will continue to increase in scope and intensity, and the
development of policy to combat deviance resulting from technological progress, such as
software piracy, warrants immediate attention and additional inquiry by academics. The
convergence of communications, computing, and crime has already reaped sizeable
deleterious consequences for business and industry, and a subsequent decrease (or even a
plateau) of this malfeasance does not seem imminent. Therefore, software manufacturers
and developers will continue to be exploited and cheated out of revenue rightfully theirs
while online bandits plunder substantial but undeserved benefits. As a result, companies
will be forced to pass on the costs associated with the crime to legitimate consumers in

the form of higher prices for their products. Employee layoffs, cutbacks, and the

107

production of less stable and shoddier programs will also inevitably occur as businesses
attempt to stay afloat in an enormously competitive market. The only winners in this
situation will be the lawbreaking lntemet rogues, while the victimization of law-abiding
corporations and citizens will continue with reckless abandon. However, an effort
towards addressing this critical issue can be made with the implementation and sustaining
of prescribed policy measures, as well as with further inquiry into novel forms of

deviance spawned by technological advances such as the lntemet.

108

 

APPENDICES

109

APPENDIX A

110

APPENDIX A
Internet Use Questionnaire

Thank you for taking the time to fill out the following questionnaire. Its purpose is to
obtain an understanding of college students’ perceptions of, and attitudes toward, their
use of the lntemet. Your input is valuable to us and will aid in:

l. assessing the extent to which the lntemet has become an integral part of
students’ lives.
2. examining your ideas of acceptable and unacceptable conduct on the lntemet.

Please select an answer for each of the following questions based on your personal
circumstances/knowledge. Also, don't spend too long on any one statement; just input
your initial reaction on the scantron form provided.

This survey is completely voluntary and anonymous. You are free to not answer any
question. Do not write your name or any other identifying information on the
questionnaire or scantron.

I would sincerely appreciate your honest answers in order to obtain a reliable measure.
You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by beginning this questionnaire.

Thank you in advance for your response. Should you have any questions or concerns,
please feel free to call (517) 355-2197 or email Sameer Hinduja at hindujas@msu.edu.

 

 

FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, PLEASE RESPOND AS
FOLLOWS: A = STRONGLY AGREE, B = AGREE, C = UNDECIDED,
D = DISAGREE, E = STRONGLY DISAGREE

1. The lntemet is indispensable to me.

2. I use the Internet to meet my social needs.

3. I am concerned about security, privacy, and confidentiality on the lntemet (e. g.,
people reading my email, finding out what websites I visit, collecting
information about me through my web surfing practices, criminals intercepting
my credit card number when I make online purchases, etc.)

4. I am concerned about copyright infringement on the lntemet

5. Censorship on the lntemet is necessary in some cases.

6. The anonymous nature of the lntemet is something I value.

111

Information, graphics, and files posted to the lntemet can and should be used for
personal purposes by whoever is able to access them.

Individuals should be able to assume different identities, personas, and roles
while using the lntemet if they so choose.

For the following questions, please answer A for TRUE and B for FALSE

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

$119.05”?

I have Ethernet, cable modem, or DSL connectivity to the lntemet in my dorm
room, apartment, or house, allowing me to use the lntemet at relatively high
speeds without tying up a telephone line.

1 pg Ethernet, cable modem, or DSL connectivity in my dorm room, apartment,
or house.

I connect to the Internet using a telephone line and regular computer modem.
As each year goes by, I spend more and more time on the lntemet.

I find it easier to communicate with others in a “virtual” online setting than in
real life.

In the following list, please count up the number of items that you use the
Internet for, and answer accordingly.

Email, Chat/IRC

Research for school work

File Transfer

Using the Newsgroups

Product and Travel Information

Online Stock Trading

Online Shopping

Online Auctions

Online Games

Online Banking

To collect information related to news, sports, or the weather
To collect information related to personal interests and hobbies
Web Design

0-2 items
3-5 items
6-8 items
9-1 1 items
12-1 3 items

112

15. In the following list, please count up the number of items that you have
done, and answer accordingly.

changed my browser's "startup" or "home" page

made a purchase online for more than $100

participated in an online game

participated in an online auction

changed my "cookie" preferences

participated in an online chat or discussion (not including email, ICQ, or AOL
Instant Messenger)

listened to a radio broadcast or music clip online

made a telephone call online

created a web page

set up my incoming and outgoing mail server preferences

0-2 items
3-4 items
5-6 items
7-8 items
9—10 items

P1309”?

For each of the following questions, please select from the answer choices
provided.

16. On average, how many hours per week do you spend on the lntemet, not including
email?

Less than 5 hours

5-10 hours

11-15 hours

16-20 hours

21 or more hours

mung?

17. On average, how many hours per week do you spend on the lntemet, including
email?

Less than 5 hours

5-10 hours

11-15 hours

16-20 hours

20 or more hours

mDOW?

113

18. How long have you been using computers?
A. Less than 1 year
B. 1-2 years
C. 3-4 years
D. 5-6 years
E. 7 or more years

19. How long have you been using the lntemet?
A. Less than one year
B. 1-2 years
C. 3-4 years
D. 5-6 years
E. 7 or more years

20. For which file transferring purposes do you use the lntemet? (In the following list,
please count up the items that you have done, and answer accordingly.)

Uploading or downloading documents, text, and web pages
Uploading or downloading graphics, pictures, .wav files, midi files, .au files,
screensavers

o Uploading or downloading music mp3s
Uploading or downloading shareware or freeware applications/ games
Uploading or downloading commercial full-version programs
(applications/ games)

One of the above
Two of the above
Three of the above
. Four of the above
All of the above

EGGS”?

21. How many hours/day do you spend on the Internet chatting or messaging with other
lntemet users (Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Personal Online Messaging Programs (ICQ,
Microsoft NetMeeting, AOL Instant Messenger, etc.)?

A. Less than one hour

B. 1-2 hours

C. 3-4 hours

D. 5-6 hours

B. 7 or more hours

114

22. How many hours/day do you spend on the World Wide Web or USENET?
Less than one hour

1-2 hours

3-4 hours

5-6 hours

7 or more hours

W909”?

23. How many hours/day do you spend on the lntemet transferring files?
A. Less than one hour
B. 1-2 hours
C. 3-4 hours
D. 5-6 hours
E. 7 or more hours

24. The frequency of transferring commercial full-version applications/ games (not
shareware or demo software) that exists on the lntemet is (from YOUR experience):
Extremely prevalent

Prevalent

Occasionally prevalent

Very rare

Unheard of

mpow>

25. How frequently do you upload/download commercial full-version software
programs to/ from others (on average)?

A. N/A
B. 1-5 times a week
C. 6-15 times a week
D. 16-30 times a week
E. 31 or more times a week
For the following questions, please answer A for TRUE and B for FALSE.
26. I know what warez is.
27. I know what an .nfo file is.
28. I know what O-day means.

29. I know how to obtain commercial full-version applications/ games.

30. I have bought/received/borrowed a copy of at least one software package(s) burned
onto a CD-R (custom-made CD).

31. I have bumed/recorded at least one software package(s) onto CD-R (custom-made
CD).

115

32. I have uploaded/downloaded at least one commercial full—version software program
to/ from someone.

33. I have accessed commercial full-version software through my web browser.

34. I have uploaded/downloaded commercial full-version software to/from the
USENET newsgroups.

35. I have uploaded/downloaded commercial full-version software through IRC or an
Instant Messaging Program.

36. I have transferred or received commercial full-version software through an Instant
Messaging program (ICQ, AOL IM, NetMeeting, PAL).

37. I have logged into an FTP server in order to upload/download commercial full-
version software.

38. I have set up an FTP server on my computer system in order to allow others to log
in and upload/download commercial full-version software to/from me.

For the following questions, please choose one of the responses provided.

39. When was the first time you transferred commercial full-version software on the
lntemet?

A. less than 6 months ago

B. 6 months ago

C. 1 year ago

D. 2-4 years ago

E. 5 or more years ago

40. When was the last time you transferred commercial full-version software on the
Internet?

A. Last year

B. Last month

C. Last week

D. Yesterday

E. Today

41. How often in the last month have you transferred commercial full-version software
on the lntemet?

0-5 times

6-15 times

16-25 times

26-35 times

36 or more times

NUDE”?

116

42. How often in the last year have you transferred commercial full-version software on
the lntemet?

A. 0-5 times

B. 6-15 times

C. 16—25 times

D. 26-35 times

E. 36 or more times

FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, PLEASE RESPOND AS
FOLLOWS: A = STRONGLY AGREE, B = AGREE, C = UNDECIDED,
D = DISAGREE, E = STRONGLY DISAGREE

43. Generally speaking, I would feel guilty for downloading/uploading commercial
full-version software?

I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO DOWNLOAD/UPLOAD COMMERCIAL FULL-
VERSION SOFTWARE:

44. if I could not afford the purchase price of the product?
45. if I have too many other expenses as a college student?
46. because school and life in general is hard enough as it is?

47. since numerous sites offering commercial full-version software for free download
are readily available?

48. if I heard or read news reports stating that software companies drastically
overcharge and rip off the consumer for their products?

49. since there are no clear-cut rules, laws, regulations, or even instruction on proper
computing usage, and therefore it might not even be illegal?

50. if all my friends and classmates were doing it?

51. because businesses do it, and similar questionable activities, a good proportion of
the time?

52. because no one else seems to have the time or the desire to help me out, so I am
forced to help myself out any way I can?

53. because life is unfair, and everyone is corrupt and in a rat race to get ahead,
regardless of who gets hurt.

54. because people do what they need to do to get to the top, and if I don't take
advantage of a situation, someone else will, to my detriment?

117

I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO DOWNLOAD/UPLOAD COMMERCIAL FULL-
VERSION SOFTWARE:

55. if it were known that the software company "could afford it" and would never miss
the tiny amount of proceeds lost from just one copy?

56. if it were held that "theft" isn't really taking place because all parties involved still
have the same software and no one is being denied use of it, as only a copy of the
program is being borrowed for use?

57. if it were known that software companies work into their annual budget an amount
allocated solely to cover the costs of "shrinkage", or loss of capital because of theft, and
therefore are already accounting for and expecting some loss through Internet
distribution?

58. if it were held that by conquering security protection schemes of programs, I am
actually exposing flaws and encouraging companies to fix them, and are thereby doing
them a favor?

59. if it were known that law enforcement agencies, universities, and authorities in
general couldn't care less about the activity, lack adequate abilities to detect or combat
the activity, and have bigger things to worry about?

60. if it were known that through sales to corporations and individuals, software
companies more than make up for losses incurred through downloading and uploading
on the lntemet by individuals?

I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO DOWNLOAD/UPLOAD COMMERCIAL FULL-
VERSION SOFTWARE:

61. if it were held that software companies, to some extent, deserve to have their
commercial full-version software distributed freely considering the fact that they rip off
consumers?

 

62. if it were held that no one is really getting hurt from lntemet distribution?

63. if it were held that software companies are an unsuspecting, remote, and oblivious
entity, and are clueless of a little distribution of their commercial full-version products
over the lntemet?

64. since it is difficult to believe that anyone really cares if a piece of software is copied
over the lntemet?

118

I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO DOWNLOAD/UPLOAD COMMERCIAL F ULL-
VERSION SOFTWARE:

65. because software companies, and a good proportion of corporations and wealthy
people for that matter, succeed and get rich through unethical practices anyway, and
lntemet distribution serves to counteract that?

66. if it were held that any practices or conventions that restrict the free flow of
information and programs stifle progress and technological development, and should be
done away with in the best interests of society?

67. because a good proportion of laws are unfair and unjust in and of themselves?

68. because hardly anyone has been caught or punished or has been subject to even the
slightest repercussions for lntemet distribution?

69. since I've been victimized before and unfairly taken advantage of in the past by
others, it's therefore alright to try to compensate or make up for that through lntemet
distribution?

I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO DOWNLOAD/UPLOAD COMMERCIAL FULL-
VERSION SOFTWARE:

70. if I needed the software and wouldn't be able to obtain or use it any other way?
71. if a family member, friend, or significant other needed it?
72. if a family member, fiiend, or significant other pressured me to get it?

73. if it will be used to complete a project for school or work, or to achieve other
school-related and career-related goals?

74. if it will be used to benefit an individual or a business somehow?
75. if I had little other choice?

I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO DOWNLOAD/UPLOAD COMMERCIAL FULL-
VERSION SOFTWARE:

76. if it were held that lntemet distribution is harmless and relatively innocent and
minor compared to all of the harm that occurs in the world?

77. since it is okay if I do somethingquestionable every now and then - it is better than
a frequently dishonest person engaging in misdeeds over and over again?

119

 

78. because it isn't so bad to do something for myself occasionally, especially if I really
need it, considering all the good things I do for others?

79. because I deserve something for free sometimes?
80. because in "the grand scheme of things”, it really does not matter?

I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO DOWNLOAD/UPLOAD COMMERCIAL F ULL-
VERSION SOFTWARE:

81. if it were prevalent all over the lntemet, and if a lot of people were doing it?
82. if it were held that no one else seems to care whether or not they get caught?
83. if it were held that other people are benefiting from it, and so why shouldn't I?

84. if having access to free software makes me feel at least a little more "cool", or to
some degree increases my perception of self-worth?

I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO DOWNLOAD/UPLOAD COMMERCIAL FULL-
VERSION SOFTWARE:

85. because there aren't really any steadfast rules or objective values about behavior in a
virtual setting such as the lntemet?

86. if it were held that I am not really doing anything wrong?

87. because 1 need to try it out before I go out and spend money to purchase it, since I
can't afford to waste money on an inferior product?

88. because without the ability to evaluate the product, I will not be able to determine if
it meets my needs?

89. because I wouldn't or couldn't purchase the product anyway, and therefore the
software company is not really being denied of any potential profits?

90. because by using the product, 1 might be able to recommend it for purchase to
family, friends, and acquaintances?

91. because I plan to use it for educational purposes, or to learn from it?

I WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO DOWNLOAD/UPLOAD COMMERCIAL FULL-
VERSION SOFTWARE:

92. because the anonymous nature of the lntemet affords privacy and somewhat of a
shield from detection; and so, why not take advantage?

120

 

93. because no one really cares about what I do online - it is just too removed from the
"real world"?

94. because it is better, or at least more acceptable, to be engaging in this activity on a
computer than going out and tangibly harming people?

For the following questions, please answer A for TRUE and B for FALSE and C
for NOT APPLICABLE.

95. The majority of my file transferring takes place at night (11pm to 7am).

96. I leave my computer on for extended periods of time (e. g., overnight) to transfer
files.

97. I am a member of an online group that trades/distributes commercial full-version
software

98. I have a personal account on one or more FTP sites

99. I can find almost any piece of commercial software I might need on the lntemet,
either through fiiends or searching/browsing through file archives

100. The majority (50%+) of software on my computer is legitimately licensed.
101. At least one program/ game on my computer is not legitimately licensed.

102. Before my hi gh-speed access, I used to upload/download commercial full-version
software.

103. Without my hi gh-speed access, and with only a telephone/modem connection, I
would still upload/download commercial full-version software at times.

104. Without my high-speed access, and with only a telephone/modem connection, I
would still download commercial full-version software at the same rate I am currently
doing so.

105. I have transferred commercial full-version software on the lntemet since I started
college while living in my dorm room or on campus apartment.

106. I have transferred commercial full-version software on the lntemet prior to starting
college and prior to living in my dorm room or on campus apartment.

107. High-speed access in my dorm room, apartment, or house makes it easier (or

would make it easier if I had high-speed access) to upload/download commercial full-
version software from the lntemet than a standard telephone/modem connection would.

121

108. I upload/download files using my Network Neighborhood (over the university’s
local area network) to and from individuals on campus MORE than I transfer files to
and from individuals who are off campus (over the external lntemet, outside of the
local area network).

109. I have recently stopped transferring commercial full—version software.
110. I feel that the distribution of commercial full-version software is wrong.

111. I don’t think I will ever be disciplined or get into trouble for transferring
commercial full-version software files.

112. I am worried about legal repercussions, such as fines of up to $150,000 per
program and up to five years in prison, that could result from the distribution of
commercial full-version software.

113. I have at least one time felt so guilty that I went and purchased the software that I
had downloaded.

For each of the following questions, please select from the answer choices
provided.

114. Race:
A. Caucasian/White
B. African American
C. Asian/Pacific Islander
D. Hispanic
E. Other

115.Sex:
A. Female
B. Male

1 16. Age:

16 or younger

17

18

19

None of the above

W905”?

122

 

l 17. Age:
A. 20
B. 21
C. 22
D. 23 or older
E. None of the above

1 18. Year of Studies:
A. Freshman
B. Sophomore
C. Junior
D. Senior
E. Graduate Student

119. My major is housed in the college of:
A. Agricultural and Natural Resources
B. Arts & Letters
C. Eli Broad College of Business
D. Communication Arts and Sciences
E. None of the above

120. My major is housed in the college of:
A. The Detroit College of Law
B. Education
C. Engineering
D. Honors College
E. None of the above

121. My major is housed in the college of:
A. Human Ecology
B. Human Medicine
C. International Studies & Programs
D. James Madison College
B. None of the above

122. My major is housed in the college of:
Nat Super Cyclotron Lab

Natural Science

Nursing

Osteopathic Medicine

None of the above

€11,009”?

123

123. My major is housed in the college of:

A.

Social Science

B. Urban Affairs Programs

C.

Veterinary Medicine

D. None of the above

124. My major is housed in the College of Engineering, and is:

.3"

W909”

Engineering (Agricultural, Chemical, Civil, Environmental, Electrical,
Mechanical, Engineering Arts, etc)

Computer Science

Computer Engineering

Materials Science

My major is not housed in the College of Engineering

125. My major is not housed in the College of Engineering, but I have obtained my
experience with computers from:

P1905”?

Previous employment

Training programs

School courses

A family member, relative, or close friend who works with computers
My major is housed in the College of Engineering

126. What is the highest degree of education your father has completed?

A.

B
C.
D
E

High School or equivalent
Vocational/Technical School (2 year)
Some College

College Graduate (4 year)

. Graduate/Professional Degree

127. What is the highest degree of education your mother has completed?

A.
B.
C.
D.
B.

High School or equivalent
Vocational/Technical School (2 year)
Some College

College Graduate (4 year)
Graduate/Professional Degree

128. What is your parents' annual household income?

mcnw>

$0 to $19,999
$20,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$50,000 or more

124

129. Your employment (job) status:
A. I do not have a job
B. I work approximately 10 hours a week
C. I work approximately 20 hours a week
D. I work approximately 30 hours a week
E. I work approximately 40 hours a week

130. At myjob, my use ofa computer is:
A. Minimal
B. Moderate
C. Heavy
D. I do not use a computer at my job
E. I do not have a job

131. I live in an:
A. On-Campus Residence Hall (dorm room)
B. On-Campus Apartment
C. Off-Campus Apartment or House
D. Other

125

 

APPENDIX B

126

 

 

mmn. «E0850: HE 0: .53 000 0:02:00
4:050:00 0 H0 0505260 00—8 0.5: H .2 0:: d0: 0:. 0: :0w 0. 0: 0: H000: >05 00:3 0: 0300: 00:33 Vm>
won. 05: 30w 0:? H0 000::0w0: 600:0 Em 00 00:: :0: 0 :H 0:: 3:050 0H 0:0b0>0 0:: 50.5: 0H 0.:— 050000 mm>
mm». 0:00 H >03 50 50 .2005: E0:
0: 000:8 80 H 00 .50 0:: E0: 0: 0:00: 05 :0 0E: 05 020: 0: 08000 000 0:0 0: 0000000 Nm>
Hm». H.050 05 H0 5:00:05 :00w 0 002380 0350:0050 5:50 0:0 0H 0: 00000503 050000 Hm>
m s. 0: 058 203 022.030 as 85.5 0: =0 : 00>
awe. SE2: 0: :0>0 00: EwHE : 0:80:05 0:: .0060: 550800 00:05 :0
:0:0:.:0:H :0>0 :0 .0:0::H:w0: .035 .003: 50.520 0: 0:0 0:05 8:0 0v>
mow. 00.02005 :05 00H 5:50:00 05 to 2.. H50 09:20:05
330308: 02:00:80 053600 005 5:80 0:000: 030: :00: :0 :50: H HH wv>
omo. 003282..” 3500: 0:0 32:30: 00¢ :0H 0:03:00 :0H0:0>-=:.H 3808800 w::0.H.H0 0020 580:5: 0050 55
won. 00H x 00 :m:0:0 Em: 0H H80:0w 5 05 0:0 30:00 00:80: 00>
mom. 3:00:00 0w0=00 0 00 008090 0050 ES: 00: 02:: H .2 mv>
So. 90:00:: 05 .Ho 00:: 000:05: 05 Bob: :0: 2:00 H .HH $5
56004 58$ 003055

 

080. u 0 0:50:88: :0 350 4 22...

127

 

0:08 0:5

 

 

 

 

3m. 05 :05 00.000 0. 0:03:00 .:0 000.0 0 0. 00:00 3.00: 0:050 :05 0>0..0n 0: :.:0:.:.:.0 0. :. 00:.0 00>
m:0::0::H 05 :05 0:5080 :0.50>-.H:.. .0.805500 :.05 00 :0.::n.::0.0 0.::.. 0 .5 03.55

mm... 0:0 0:0 B5.50 0:0.>..5 0:0 .0550: .m:.:0000:05 :0 0:0 00500500 0:03:00 :05 0.0:. 803:. 0. m0>

.mm. 05.55505 5525 58.: :5: w:.::0w 3.00: 0. 0:0 0: :05 0.0:. 0:03 :. .:. N0>
00:05:58 000 0.: >05 :05 :00.: 05 5.50.050 3.00:0 0050.505 0:03:50 :0.0:0>-..:.:

.3. .0.805500 :.05 0.30:. 0: 0.80000 50:00 0500 0: .00500500 0:03:50 :05 0.0: 0:03 :. 0. .o>

5.0004 5:000 00.00.:0>

0 .3. n :0 5.:0.> 00 .02—RH .U 0.5;.
00.0:0.>.0:. .3 :050::. 05 :0 5.05.0: 0:0 5.0005300 5:85 00:50:. 00000. 5.: 0: 00.05

wow. :05 0:05 00500500 0:03:50 .0.0:0.>.0:. 0:0 05.:05050 0: 00.00 5:85 :05 :305. 803:. 0. 00>
0:500 503 0: 05.5
5%.: 0>0: 0:0 .>:.>.:00 05 :00500 5:00:00 0: 00.5.00 0:0:0000 0.00. .>:.>.:00 05 5000 000.

9... 0:00 :.:0.:00 .0:0:0w :. 00.:.:05:0 0:0 .00.:.0:0>5: .00.0:0w0 ::05080.50 30. :05 :305. 0:03 :. 0. 00>
0:05.: 0 505 m:.00 50:05 0:0 0:0 505 5.: 0: 00500500 5505005 0:0 030...

won. 5.00000 3.0500 50 H 050580 .:0 005050 :0.:00:80 5.5000 5.55500 .3 :05 0.0:. 0:03 :. 0. wm>
505550.. .:0 0:000 05 550

mm... 0: 3.0.00 0800020 :5050 :0 55:0 .0550 :.05 0::. 0.53 00500500 0:03:50 :05 :305. 0:03 :. 0. hm>
000: 5.: 003850 5.00 0. 50580 05 00 3000 0 >50 00 .:. .5 00: 00500 5.00 0. 0:0 0: 0:0 0:03:000

0mm. 0500 05 0>0:. ...:0 00>.0>:. 00.800 :0 05000: 000.0 5.0.0: 3.00: :.:0. .. 005.. :05 0.0:. 0:03 :. 0. cm>
00000 0:0 :0:.. 58.: :00. 0000080

Rm. 00 :::050 5.: 05 00.5 :0>0: 0.:03 0:0 ..:. 05...:0 0.50.. 500500 0:03:00 05 :05 :305. 0:03 :. 0. mm>

5.000.. 5:000 00.00.:0>

 

t. a. u 0 5...: :0 55: .0 030:.

128

 

SK.
mmw.

vow.
S6.
03.
Em.

mac—:34 88mm

mousse 8&0 2:: cm: 5: mn>
“US$088 $253 a go 363%.: an 60:09 9 com: on :3, z .2 vn>
mmfiom wen—2.82.8 Ba
Bum—848:8 .850 0528 2 8 £83 8 3053 you 6&8.“— m 229:8 9 won: on :3, z .: m>>
A“: How 9 2: 33305 850 38¢in ho 65.5 .89an haze a .2 N>>
m: 830: 350 Enoufimi 8 .255 .6582: 338m a : F>
Q33 850 has : om: ho Sago 8 03a 3 raw—:03 98 295.8 2: BBQ: _ : on>
353:;

 

33. n 5 83.934 .BAWE 3 .393 .m— 93:.

 

mcocsnEmE BESS swaps: :2: Sm a: BEE ho 23:09:00 3 Eu 9 Emu—m

 

won. 28805 M: £28 3 “m8 2.: E mo owflcmga :83 >135 can 283 @3550; soon 0?“ 85m mo>
meogntummv BEBE “8 mcofimseomfi
«on. 63:33 05 :05 9 80.33 :03 mm: .8 cop—mass ho Ewsmo :03 was gob; 322 3:33 wo>
mum. Aug—3&2: mo 98 E “8.8: 98 human 8m 953 mo coquoa woow a 3:83 $>
@3068 go
885:: 53 2: 5 FEB 33m 0:8 3 2:05 98 .EoEQBogo—u Hammo—oanoa 98 mmewoa 0:5
mm». mEEmoa was scams—~85 .3 30¢ 08% 05 8.5%: E5 828350 ho moocofla b8 HS: 20: 0.83 z a oc>
$9: 38258
9 838 cozsntfiv BEES can «83»: 8288a 3035:: awn—85 not Hum 93 @883 5:8:
mmw. $5 .5.“ @389 3:33 23 823.898 mo coEomoE team a can .moEano Baa/$8 0983 mc>
wEwmoq 33mm 83mg;

 

meow. n d Eons—oeuou 05 no BEE—52:80 d 033—.

129

 

2:03.38 :0 :0::00:0: :8 080808 0080: 088 0: :0

 

 

 

 

3:. ..._000.. 0:08 2:: 0 802 :0 :00.: 08 00208 80288 00:: 0: 80000 w:_>0: :: Vm>
mmw. a 82:08 83 8 :80 J: 808 8:883 0:0 2:00: :080 :08 20: 0:03 2 :2 mw>
8%. “83:00 :0w :3: :0: :0 :0833 0:00 0: 2:08 020 0:0 0: :3: :20: 0:03 :_ .z Nw>
Sum. m: w80: 0:03 2:00: .:0 :0. 0 8: 80 4082:: 0:: :0>0 =0 ::20>0:: 0:03 2 8: _w>
86002 8:00.: m2n0t0>
80:. n a 5.0.82 :0 EEO .0 2%,:
$5. m:0::08 :0: 80: 3.00: :: ...mw:.8: :0 0838 88w 3:: 8 8:003 ow>
wow. $082888 008 :8 828088 8:82: 8:003 mn>

5.23:0 :8 0: : 8:3: :00w 0:: =0 8:220:00
Km. 4: :00: 3:00: _ «:2 3:200:00 “38:22:80 2088 :8 828088 0: 0: :03 8 :.:2 :: 8:003 w>>

:80w0 :0>0 :80 :0>0 2002028 8 w:_w0w:0 :020: 80:32:
vow. 380808 0 :08 :0:3 2 2 - :3: :80 30: b0>0 2380801: 825088 0: H .2 >020 2 :2 008m E.>

22:03 3: 8 2:80 :08 8:0: 3: .:0 :0
own. 0: 88:88 :088 :80 880:8 38:20: :80 828:0: 2 :0:::£::2: :0::0::: :08 :23 0:03 :2 «:2 en>

86002 8:00:

8:003

 

8:. n a .5003 2: :0 8830:: .: 2...;

130

 

$308 wee—.3: bflwcs Him So wEow

 

 

 

 

Rm. 551—8388 s :o EH33“ £5 E wcmewco on 9 658303 22: 68H 8 S .523 E 2 8:83 vo>

mum. 9233 Hafiz 05 Bob HUQSEE 08 5% fl 2 - 25:0 oHu H «E? Sons mama 332 28 o: 8:83 mm>
mamasgvm 8H8 Ho: 33 .8 can 2.282%

mow. 88H 22% a Ho 323088 98 >23th mEo‘Ca BEBE 05 .3 0.58: 329305 2: 3:83 ~o>

wEHEQH 88mm moHpmtm>

o Hmw. u d 5:33.553. 9523— .? 530 .H 035.

www. m: 88H :32 8 S .8893 Hmcougzwo 8H z om: 2 cmHa H 8:83 Ho>
mmoocmHEwscoa HE“

mmw. £255 SHHEmH 9 8383 SH z @5868». 2 03m on EmHE H «.2605 2: main 3 8:83 oa>
mauoa Hag—Boa ES .3 3:36 mien 338 Ho: mH

can. @868 Bch8 05 88205 van «3393 8.603 05 329:6 “.2238 Ho raw—:03 H 0983 aw>
mauve:

wmw. b: 388 3 2 055.3% 8 03m 3 Ho: :3» H .6253 2: 08230 9 >55“ 2: :55; 3:83 ww>
Sagan “2.5%: as so >288 833

Hmw. 9 Roam rcmo H 8ch JH 8383 2 >258 28% was So ow H 283 Bo : ab 2 Bo: H 3:83 nw>

0.2.. mwcea mafia—S wEoHu EH3. .0: Eu H 85 20: 295 z .z cw>
$0685 05 mm :25

5o. wcHzom Hunt; a E 8323 Sons mosz> 038qu Ho 8:: 3&3on b8 3H3. H.298 805 8:83 mw>

mEHUmQH 86mm moHnwta>

 

33. n 6 «=8:— o>=mwoz .3 .55: .= 035.

131

APPENDIX C

132

APPENDIX C: CLASSES SURVEYED

 

 

 

Course Number

MSC 300
MSC 300
ENG 310
MSC 310
MSC 310
ADV 205
ECE 345
ECE 345
ANT 316
MTH 103
CJ 421
CI 110
CI 220
CJ 335
PLS 200
PLS 324
ANP 202
ANP 452
PSY 295
SOC 131
SOC 322
PHL 130
ACC 411
COM 240
BCH 401
PSY 304
EC 330
MSC 401
PSY 200

Course Name

Managerial Marketing

Managerial Marketing

Literature in English to 1660

International and Comparative Dimensions of Business
International and Comparative Dimensions of Business
Principles of Advertising

Electronic Instrumentation and Systems
Electronic Instrumentation and Systems
General Human Anatomy

College Algebra

Minorities, Crime, and Social Policy
Introduction to Criminal Justice

Criminology

Police Process

Introduction to Political Science

American Legislative Process

Biocultural Evolution

North American Prehistory

Data Analysis in Psychological Research
Social Problems

Sociology of Work

Logic and Reasoning

Auditing

Introduction to Organizational Communication
Basic Biochemistry

Psychological Measurement

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets
Procurement & Supply Management

Cognitive Psychology

 

133

 

REFERENCES

134

REFERENCES

Agnew, R. (1994). The techniques of neutralization and violence. Criminology, 32 (4),
555-580.

Agnew, R. & Peters, A. A. R. (1986, March). The techniques of neutralization: An
analysis of predisposing and situational factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
13 (1), 81-97.

Austin, R. L. (1977). Commitment, neutralization, and delinquence. Pp. 121-137 in T.
N. Ferdinand (ed.), Juvenile Delinquency: Little Brother Grows Up. California:
Sage.

Ball, R. A. (1966). An empirical exploration of neutralization theory. Criminologjca, 4
(2), 22-32.

Ball, R. A. & Lilly, J. R. (1971). Juvenile delinquency in a rurban [sic] county.
Criminology, 9 (1), 69-85.

Brennan, W. C. (1974, December). Abortion and the techniques of neutralization.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 14(4), 358-365.

Buckley, M. R., Wiese, D. S., & Harvey, M. G. (1998, May-June). An investigation into
the dimensions of unethical behavior. Journal of Education for Business, 73 (5),
284-290.

Cheng, H. K., Sims, R. R., & Teegen, H. (1997, Spring). To purchase or pirate software:
An empirical study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13 (4), 49-60.

Christensen, A. L. & Eining, M. M. (1991, Spring). Factors influencing software piracy:
Implications for accountants. Journal of Information Systems, 67-80.

Cissification of Softwa_r§. (1999). Software and Information Indusz Association.
[Online] Available http://www.siia.net/piracy/programs/share.htm, December 12,
1999.

C lausing, J. (2000). Software executives say consumers wileay for piragy. New York
Times Online. [Online] Available
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/OO/O6/cyber/articles/O8piracy.html

Cohen, E. & Cornwell, L. (1989). College students believe piracy is acceptable. Q3
Edfltor Forum, 1 (3), 2-5.

135

Computer crime, can it affect you? (2000). Royal Canadian Mounted Police. [Online]
Available http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/rcmpccs/cpu-crim.html, November 10,
1999.

Colorado Governor Issues Executive Order On Computer Software Piracy. Business
Software Alliance. [Online] Available
http://www.bsa.org/bin/show.cgi?URL=pressbox/policy/952979724.html, March
25, 2000.

Cressey, D. R. (1953). Othemeople’s money: A study of the social psychology of
embezzlement. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.

 

Cressey, D. R. (1970). The respectable criminal. In James Short (ed.), Modern
Criminals. New York: Transaction-Aldine.

Crown, D. F. & Spiller, M. S. (1998). Learning from the literature on collegiate
cheating: A review of empirical research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (6), 683-
700.

Eining, M. M. & Christensen, A. L. (1991). A psycho-social model of software piracy:
The development and test of a model. In Ethical Issues in Information Systems
(editors: R. Dejoie, G. Fowler, & D. Paradice), Boyd & Fraser Publishing Co.,
Boston, MA, pp 134-140.

Ellis, D. R. (1986, April). Computer law — A primer on the law of software protection.
The Florida Bar J oumal.

Glass, R. S. & Wood, W. A. (1996). Situational determinants of software piracy: an
equity theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1189-1198.

Global Software Pilgcv Report. (1997). International Planning and Research
Corporation for the Business Software Alliance and Software Publishers
Association. [Online] Available http://www.bsa.org/statistics/97ipr.pdf, October
9, 1999.

Global Software Piracy Report. (1998). International Planning and Research
Corporation for the Business Software Alliance and Software Publishers
Association. [Online] Available http://www.siia.net/piracy/pubs/99g.asp, August
01, 2000.

Gopal, R. D. & Sanders, G. L. (1998, December). International software piracy:

Analysis of key issues and impfl. Information Systems Research, 9 (4), 380-
397.

136

 

Harrington, S. J. (1989, Summer). Why people copy software and create computer
viruses: Individual characteristics or situational factors? Information Resources
Management Journal, 28-37.

Harrington, S. J. (1996, September). The effects of codes of ethics and personal denial
of responsibility on computer abuse judgments and intentions. MIS Quarterly, 20
(3), 257-278.

Henry, S. (1990). Degrees of DevianceLStudent Accounts of Their Deviant Behavior.
Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Company.

Hindelgang, M. J. (1974). Moral evaluation of illegal behaviors. Social Problems, 21,
370-385.

Hollinger, R. C. (1991). Neutralizing in the workplace: An empirical analysis of
property theft and production deviance. Deviant Behavior, 12, 169-202.

Hudson, G. (1995, October). Copyright in the digital medium: A comparison of two
proposals. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [Online] Available
http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/student-papers/fall95-papers/hudson-
copyright.html, December 12, 1999.

Irn, J. H & Koen, C. (1990). Software piracy and responsibilities of educational
institutions. Information & Management, 18, (4), 189-194.

Irn, J. H. & Van Epps, P. D. (1991, Summer). Software piracy and software security in
business schools: An ethical perspective. Data Base 22 (3), 15-21.

 

Irn, J. H., & Van Epps, P. D. (1992a). Legal and ethical issues of software Dim.
International Association for Computer Information Systems. New Orleans, LA.

Irn, J. H. & Van Epps, P. D. (1992b). Software piracy and software security measures in
business schools. Information & Management, 23, (4), 193-203.

International Review of Criminal Policy - United Naftions Mm] on the Prevention and
Control of Computer Related Crime. (1994). [Online] Available
http://www.ifs.univie.ac.at/%7Epr2gql/rev4344.htm1, February 12, 1999.

lntemet Software Piracy. (1998). Business Software Alliance. [Online] Available
http://www.nopiracy.com/intemet_piracy_c.htrnl, December 12, 1999.

Kievit, K. (1991, Fall). Information systems majors/non-majors and computer ethics.
Journal of Comgter Information Systems, 32 (1), 43-49.

137

Landsheer, J. A., Hart, H., & Kox, W. (1994, Winter). Delinquent values and victim
damage: Exploring the limits of neutralization theory. British Journal of
Criminology, 34 (1), 44-53.

Klocklars, C. B. (1974). The Professional Fence. New York: Free Press.
Lanier, M. & Henry, S. (1998). Essential Criminology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Leventhal, L. M., Instone, K. E., & Chilson, D. W. (1992). Another view of computer
science ethics: patterns of responses among computer scientists. Journal of
Sglstem Software, 17, 49-60.

Malhotra, Y. (1994a, June). Controlling copyright infringements of intellectual property:
The case of computer software — part one. J oumal of Systems Management, 45,

32-35.

Malhotra, Y. (1994b, July). Controlling copyright infringements of intellectual property:
The case of computer software — part two. Journal of Systems Management, 45,
32-35.

McCarthy, J. G. & Stewart, A. L. (1998, December). Neutralisation [sic] as a process of
graduated desensitization: Moral values of offenders. International J oumal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 42 (4), 278-290.

Michigan State University AUP. (1998). Network Communications Committee of
C .C.S.A.C. Vice Provost for Computing and Technology. [Online] Available
http://www.msu.edu/dig/aup/msuaup.html, November 29, 1999.

Microsoft Incorporates New Anti-Piracy Technologies In Windows 2000 Office 2000.
(2000). Microsoft Corporation. [Online] Available
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/ZOOO/febOO/apfeaturespr.asp

 

Minor, W. W. (1980, May). The neutralization of criminal offense. Criminology, 18 (1),
103-120.

Minor, W. W. (1981, July). Techniques of neutralization: A reconceptualization and
empirical examination. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18 (1),
295-3 1 8.

Oz, E. (1990, August). The attitude of managers-to-be toward software piracy. OR/MS
Today, 17 (4), 24-26.

Patrizio, A. (1999, August 23). DOJ cracks down on MP3 pjratp. Wired News. Wired

Digital, Inc. [Online] Available
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/O,1283,21391,00.htm1, November 20, 1999.

138

Peace, A. G. (1995). A predictive model of software piracy behavior: An empirical
validation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Peace, A. G. (1997, Fall). Software piracy and computer-using professionals: a survey.
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 38 (1), 94-99.

Pfuhl, E. H. & Henry, S. (1993). The Deviance Process. 3rd ed. Hawthorne, NY: Walter
de Gruyter, Inc.

Pogue, David. (1998, October 30). Some “warez” Over the Rainbow. MacWorld. 14,10.

Press Release. (1999). Business Software Alliance. [Online] Available
http:/www.bsa.org/pressbox/policy/944837492.htm, December 12, 1999.

Rahim, M. M., Seyal, A. H., & Rahman, N. A. (1999). Software piracy among
computing students: a Bruneian scenario. Computers and Edmtion, 32, 301-321.

Recommended University lntemet Usage Policy. (1999). [Online] Available
http://www.siia.net/piracy/programs/univgdZ.htrn

Reid, R. A., Thompson, J. K., & Logsdon, J. M. (1992, Fall). Knowledge and attitudes
of management students toward software piracy. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 33, 46-51.

RIAA - The Net Act. (2000). Recording Industry Association of America. [Online]
Available http://www.riaa.com/Protect-Online-2.cfin

Rogers, J. W. & Buffalo, M. D. (1974). Neutralization techniques: Toward a simplified
measurement scale. Pacific Sociological Review, 17 (3), 313-331.

Sacco, V. F. & Zureik, E. (1990). Correlates of computer misuse: data from a self-
reporting sample. Behaviour and Information Technology, 9. 353-369.

Sample Corporate Policy Statement. (1999). Software & Information Industry
Association. [Online] Available http://www.siia.net/piracy/programs/sftuse2.htrn,
December 12, 1999.

Scale, D. A., Polakowski, M., & Schneider, S. (1998, Jan-Feb). It’s not really theft!
Personal and workplace ethics that enable software piracy. Behaviour and

Information Technology, 17 (1), 27-40.

Simpson, P. M., Banerjee, D., & Simpson, C. L. Jr. (1994). Softlifting: A model of
motivating factors. J oumal of Business Ethics, 13, 431-438.

139

Sims, R. R., Cheng, H.K., & Teegen, H. (1996). Toward a profile of student software
piraters. Journal of Business Ethic; 15, 839-849.

Smith, R. ( 1997, January). Internet Piracy. Australian Institute of Criminology. Trends
and Issues in Criminal Justice, 65, 1-6.

Software Piracy. (1999). Business Software Alliance. [Online] Available
http://www.nopiracy.com/intro__c.html, December 12, 1999.

Software piracy and US. law. (1998). Business Software Alliance. [Online] Available
http://www.nopiracy.corn/swandlaw_c.htm, December 12, 1999.

SPA Anti-Piracy Division's Copyright Protection Campaign. (1998). Software and
Information Industry Association. [Online] Available
http://www.siia.net/piracy/programs/backgrounder.htm, December 12, 1999.

SPAudit Software Management Tools. (1999). Software and Information Industry
Association. [Online] Available http://www.siia.net/piracy/tools/download.htrn,
December 12, 1999.

Software WatchdogAMs Cyberpiraay. (1999). Business Software Alliance. [Online]
Available
http://www.bsa.org/pressbox/enforcement/index.html?/pressbox/enforcement/942
331921.html, December 11, 1999.

Solomon, S. & O’Brien, J. A. (1990, Spring). The effect of demographic factors on
attitudes toward software piracy. Journal of Computer Infonfltion Systems, 40-
46.

Student Rights and Responsibilities at Michigan State University. (1999). Michigan
State University. [Online] Available http://www.vps.msu.edu/SpLife/afrl .htrn,
March 27, 2000.

Study of the Social Conaequences of the lntemet. (2000). Stanford Institute for the
Quantitative Study of Society. Stanford University. [Online] Available
http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/Press_Release/Preliminary_Report.pdf

Swinyard, W. R., Rinne, H., & Kau, A. K. (1990). The morality of software piracy: A
cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Business Ethics. 9. 655-664.

Sykes, G. M. & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of
delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664-670.

140

Temple University Pays $100,000 To Settle Software Claims. Business Software
Alliance. [Online] Available
http://www.bsa.org/pressbox/enforcement/index.html?/pressbox/enforcement/952
007190.html, March 25, 2000.

The Copyright Act and Fair Use. (1999). Software Information Industry Association.
[Online] Available http://www.siia.net/piracy/programs/fairuse.htm, December
12, 1999

Thompson, W. E. & Harred, J. L. (1992, July-September). Topless dancers — managing
stigma in a deviant occupation. Deviant Behavior, 13 (3), 291-311.

Thou Shalt Not Drape. (1984). Association of Data Processing Service Organizations.
Arlington, VA.

Thurman, Q. C. (1984). Deviance and the neutralization of moral commitment: An
empirical analysis. Defiant Behavior. 5. 291-304.

Tittle, C. R. (1980). Sanctions and social deviance: The question of deterrence. New
York: Praeger Publishers.

Warez: Myth vs. fa_c_t_. (1998). Business Software Alliance. [Online] Available
http://www.nopiracy.corn/warezfaq_c.htrnl, December 12, 1999.

What is Free Software? - GNU Proiect. (1999). Free Software Foundation. [Online]
Available http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, November 20, 1999.

Wong, E. Y. H. How should we teach computer ethics? (1995, December). A short
study done in Hong Kong. Computers and Education, 25 (4), 179-191.

Wong, G., Kong, A., & Ngai, S. (1990, November). A study of unauthorized software
copying among post-secondary students in Hong Kong. The Austr2_r_l_ian Computer
Journal 22 (4), 114-122.

 

Wood, W. & Glass, R. (1995, Winter). Sex as a determinant of software piracy. Journal
of Computer Information Systems, 36 (2), 37-40.

Young, M. (1988). The indignant page: Techniques of neutralization in the publications
of pedophile organizations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 583-591.

141

llllllllllllllllll