IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/war/wpaper/2015-24.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Digital piracy and the perception of price fairness

Author

Listed:
  • Michal Krawczyk

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Anna Kukla-Gryz

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Joanna Tyrowicz

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw; National Bank of Poland)

Abstract

We focus on the relationship between pricing of cultural goods and willingness to download their unauthorized versions. Building on equity theory we propose that perceiving a price as overly high provides a self-justification for downloading content from unauthorized sources. In a large-scale online experiment on customers of a major e-book store we employ the Bayesian Truth Serum to induce truthful confessions of acquiring content from unauthorized sources. We confirm that self-reported downloading from unauthorized sources is associated with having experienced overpricing. We also relate it to endorsing relatively positive views on the role of file-sharing services and believing that "pirate's" motives are relatively principled, while those of abstainers are rather pragmatic.

Suggested Citation

  • Michal Krawczyk & Anna Kukla-Gryz & Joanna Tyrowicz, 2015. "Digital piracy and the perception of price fairness," Working Papers 2015-24, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    • Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2015-24
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/index.php/download_file/1879/
    File Function: First version, 2015
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franziska Voelckner, 2006. "An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 137-149, April.
    2. Charles Hill, 2007. "Digital piracy: Causes, consequences, and strategic responses," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 9-25, March.
    3. Barrage, Lint & Lee, Min Sok, 2010. "A penny for your thoughts: Inducing truth-telling in stated preference elicitation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 140-142, February.
    4. Martyna Kobus & Michał Krawczyk, 2013. "Piracy as an ethical decision," Working Papers 2013-22, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anna Kukla-Gryz & Joanna Tyrowicz & Michał Krawczyk, 2021. "Digital piracy and the perception of price fairness: evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, March.
    2. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    3. Kirsten, Johann & Vermeulen, Hes & van Zyl, Karlien & du Rand, Gerrie & du Plessis, Henrietta & Weissnar, Tessa, 2017. "Do South African Consumers have an Appetite for an Origin-based Certification System for Meat Products? A Synthesis of Studies on Perceptions, Preferences and Experiments," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 8(01), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Dost, Florian & Geiger, Ingmar, 2017. "Value-based pricing in competitive situations with the help of multi-product price response maps," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 219-236.
    5. Connie Bateman & Sean Valentine & Terri Rittenburg, 2013. "Ethical Decision Making in a Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Situation: The Role of Moral Absolutes and Social Consensus," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(2), pages 229-240, June.
    6. Ericka Costa & Dario Montemurro & Diego Giuliani, 2019. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for green cars: a discrete choice analysis in Italy," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2425-2442, October.
    7. Eline Jongmans & Alain Jolibert & Julie Irwin, 2014. "Estimation du poids d'un attribut environnemental : influence et effet des mesures d'évaluation," Post-Print halshs-01185772, HAL.
    8. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    9. Martin Eisend, 2019. "Morality Effects and Consumer Responses to Counterfeit and Pirated Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 301-323, January.
    10. Mankaï, Selim & Marchand, Sébastien & Le, Ngoc Ha, 2024. "Valuing insurance against small probability risks: A meta-analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. Anna Kukla-Gryz & Joanna Tyrowicz & Michał Krawczyk & Konrad Siwiński, 2015. "We all do it, but are we willing to admit? Incentivizing digital pirates' confessions," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 184-188, February.
    12. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    13. Marine Le Gall-Ely, 2009. "Définition, mesure et déterminants du consentement à payer du consommateur : synthèse critique et voies de recherche," Post-Print hal-00522826, HAL.
    14. Helga Fehr-Duda & Robin Schimmelpfennig, 2018. "Wider die Zahlengläubigkeit: Sind Befragungsergebnisse eine gute Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Entscheidungen?," ECON - Working Papers 297, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2018.
    15. Lichters, Marcel & Wackershauser, Verena & Han, Shixing & Vogt, Bodo, 2019. "On the applicability of the BDM mechanism in product evaluation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-7.
    16. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    17. Braun, Alexander & Schmeiser, Hato & Schreiber, Florian, 2016. "On consumer preferences and the willingness to pay for term life insurance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 761-776.
    18. Nadine Gatzert & Anna Kraus, 2024. "Do sustainability attributes play a role for individuals’ decisions regarding unit-linked life insurance? A survey research on German private investors," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 49(4), pages 719-746, October.
    19. Nikolaus Franke & Martin Schreier, 2008. "Product uniqueness as a driver of customer utility in mass customization," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 93-107, June.
    20. Stich, Lucas & Spann, Martin & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2022. "Paying for open access," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 273-286.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    inequality; longevity; defined contribution; defined benefit; Gini;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A13 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Social Values
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2015-24. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marcin Bąba (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.