56 Trends in Organized Crime/Voi. 8, No.

4, Summer 2005

addition to these private policing responsibilities, trade associations also allow the
industry to have a collective voice and more resources to help mobilize legal re-
sources against the pirating behavior. Trade associations can lobby for the interest
of the industry as a whole and in some instances have proven to be quite success-
ful. For example, the U.S. Senate Bill 893 (effective October 28, 1992) was created
as a response to the pressure of the software industry and increased the penalties
for copyright infringement (Cheng et al., 1997: 50).
The last strategy used to try and control the theft of intellectual property is by
means of lawsuits (both civil and criminal) and legal statutes in order to deter
pirating behavior. Enlisting the help of the government by means of legislative
action is an avenue that is being aggressively pursued. Many trade associations
have not only fought to get laws passed that prohibit the theft of intellectual prop-
erty rights but have also filed their own lawsuits against individuals. Many crimi-
nal statutes against theft of intellectual property are currently on the books with
many of the laws specific to certain forms of intellectual property. For example,
the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 makes the theft of trade secrets a federal
crime while the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalizes the trafficking
of counterfeit goods and services (Maher and Thompson, 2002).
Unfortunately, while each of these strategies in isolation has been well docu-
mented and implemented in a number of arenas, there have been no outcome evalu-
ation efforts that have examined the effectiveness of each of the interventions. In
addition, we know almost nothing about the changes in intellectual property viola-
tions (both by amount and type) that have occurred in response to these prevention
and intervention efforts. This is unfortunate since many of these efforts are costly
in terms of both time and financial resources that are needed for proper implemen-
tation. A clear understanding of the impact of these efforts on intellectual property
violations is imperative to help guide public policies designed to combat piracy
and protect the rights of intellectual property owners.

Agenda for Future Research

As has been made clear, the current state of knowledge regarding the nature and
prevalence of intellectual property theft is scant. A three-pronged research effort is
suggested that may be ambitious--but always relevant in helping to begin to fill
some of the gaps that remain in the knowledge base regarding the theft of intellec-
tual property rights. These three priorities surround data collection efforts, theo-
retical tests, and cataloging and evaluating the knowledge base regarding the effects
of policy efforts.
First, just as the U.S. Bureau of Census together with the Bureau of Justice
Statistics conducts a nationwide survey of crime victims, efforts must be devel-
oped to initiate a nationwide data collection effort that targets information regard-
ing the prevalence of intellectual property theft with special attention made to include
Intellectual Property Crime 57

all varieties of intellectual property violations (i.e., copyright, patents, trademarks,

and trade secrets). This data collection effort need not be separate from those that
are currently conducted but new questions will obviously need to be added. This
nationwide data collection would also benefit from asking respondents about their
knowledge of laws pertaining to and regarding intellectual property rights (e.g.,
copyright laws). It would be useful to understand whether persons are knowledge-
able about such laws in an effort to aid public policy responses for intervention and
prevention efforts. Although there are industry specific measures available on trends
regarding violations of intellectual property rights (e.g., copyright violations in-
eluding music piracy), this data has been gathered by those agencies and organiza-
tions that have a vested interest in the outcome (e.g., RIAA) so an independent
source of information would help to aid in the understanding of the nature and
prevalence of this kind of theft here in the United States. Ideally, international
victimization data would also be collected as well in order to understand the global
impact of these types of offenses.
Second, currently there is very little information known about the causes and
correlates of intellectual property theft and what little information is known seems
to raise more questions than it answers. For example, do the theoretical explana-
tions offered earlier predict all types of intellectual property theft equally well or
does theft of intellectual property fall better under the purview of one theory (i.e.,
social learning) than another (i.e., ethics)? Or is an integration of various frame-
works best suited for the understanding of this type of behavior? Some of the theo-
ries already outlined seek to explain the onset of this kind of behavior while others
focus on explaining persistence and desistence of intellectual property right viola-
tions. Ideally we would want to understand why individuals start offending, what
causes them to continue, and why they stop. In addition, very little is known about
the differences at the individual (i.e., micro) and group (i.e., macro) level. Are
some theories better equipped to understand intellectual property violations at the
micro-level while others better inform us of offending at the macro-level? While
some research has suggested that piracy is more prevalent among younger indi-
viduals (i.e., college students) we know nothing regarding this type of crime over
an individual's life course (though Oz (1990) suggests that the offending behavior
is established long before the individual enters the workforce). Therefore, are some
theories more relevant to an earlier phase as opposed to later part of an individual's
life-course? Other issues regarding the opportunity to offend also arise. Do the
correlates of intellectual property violations (as well as the various types) differ
across samples (i.e., general population, business executives and managers, high
school students, college students) both domestically and abroad? Similarly, how
are the opportunities to offend distributed across different populations? Some evi-
dence seems to suggest that those who use the computer more often are more likely
to report engaging in software piracy (Eining and Christensen, 1991; Sims et al.,
1996) but as of yet no study has directly examined the influence of exposure time
58 Trends in Organized Crime/Voi. 8, No. 4, Summer 2005

and access to the computer or access to Internet services on pirating behavior. In

short, a series of small-scale well-designed surveys could provide important baseline
information regarding the causes of intellectual property theft.
Third, policy options, responses, intervention, and prevention efforts aimed at
curtailing intellectual property violations seem to be changing almost daily. It
would be useful for researchers to catalog these efforts and explain their changing
manifestations over time. For example, many of the prevention efforts that have
been put into place are industry specific. The efforts put into place that surround
music piracy, such as only allowing a song to be copied a certain number of times,
may and often times do differ from the efforts aimed at deterring individuals from
copying the latest movies. Many of these efforts have considered and implemented
technological advancements that make it more difficult to copy products. In that
regard, it would be interesting to understand individual's responses to these efforts
and if they have become deterred or more determined to engage (or continue) the
behavior.
Copyright laws and enforcement of their violations have been ill-studied in the
social sciences. While legal studies have kept track of and documented the ever-
changing laws and legal statutes regarding the theft of intellectual property rights
(see Mailer and Thomson, 2002 for review), very little is known on how these laws
impact the public at large and more specifically the effects the laws have on the
offending behavior. For example, record shows that were prevalent during the 1980s
where it was common to buy bootlegged records and concerts have pretty much
ceased to exist. It is unclear if these outlets were shut down due to the changes in
laws protecting copyrighted works, such as the bootlegged music being sold, or if
the sales of such illegal goods simply was displaced to other venues (many are
found on eBay). Recent news reports have indicated that local area flea markets
have become targeted locations cracking down on the illegal sales of copyrighted
CDs and DVDs. Such interventions require the cooperation of local and federal
law enforcement as well as the cooperation of the recording and/or the motion
picture associations. Understanding not only the costs and consequences of such
actions but the larger impact on society is only one piece to the overall puzzle
regarding the full range of available responses to the theft of intellectual property
rights.
In short, although the legal arena has been witness to much research on the theft
of intellectual property rights, the same cannot be said from the social scientific
community generally, and the criminological community in particular. This is a bit
surprising since criminology contains the theories and requisite methodological
tools needed to effectively understand and document the problem of intellectual
property theft. The Department of Justice and its research ann, the National Insti-
tute of Justice, stands in a good position to begin local and nationwide efforts
together in an effort to document the nature and prevalence of intellectual property
rights violations as well as cataloging and evaluating policy efforts already put into
place. It is important that such research-based efforts are stepped up and executed
Intellectual Property Crime 59

quickly so that the needed data can be collected and used to help inform the public
policy issues, discussions, and decisions that surround the theft of intellectual prop-
erty rights. Nowhere and at no time has this been as important o f an issue as it is in
today's digital age. If America wants to continue to be a world leader in the produc-
tion of intellectual property, a more complete understanding o f the prevalence and
causes o f the problem are needed as well as avenues which can help prevent the
theft from occurring.

References

Adams, J.S. (1963). "Toward an Understanding of Inequity," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, 67, 422--436.
Ajzen, I. (1991). "The Theory of Behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour.
Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall.
Akers, R.L. (1985). Deviant Behavior." A Social Learning Approach (3 rd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Akers, R.L. (1998). Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Devi-
ance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Akers, R.L. (2000). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application (3~ded.).
Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Akers, R.L., Krohn, M.D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and Radosevich, M. (1979). "Social Learning and
Deviant Behavior: A Specific Test of a General Theory" American Sociological Review, 44, 635-
655.
Beccaria, C. (1963). On Crimes and Punishment. New York: MacMillan Publishing.
Bentham, J. (1967). A Fragment on Government and an Introduction to the Principal of Morals and
Legislation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Burgess, R.L., and Akers, R.L. (1966). "A Different Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal
Behaviors." Social Problems, 14, 128-147.
Carruthers, B.G., and Ariovich, L. (2004). "The Sociology of Property Sights. Annual Review of
Sociology, 30, 23-46.
Cheng, H.K., Sims, R.R., and Teegen, H. (1997). "To Purchase or to Pirate Software: An Empirical
Study" Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 49-60.
Christensen, A.L., and Eining, M.M. (1991). "Factors Influencing Software Piracy: Implication for
Accountants." Journal of Information Systems, Spring, 67-80.
Cohen, L.E., and Felson, M. (1979). "Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activities
Approach." American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.
Cohen, E., and Cornwell, L. (1989). "A Question of Ethics: Developing Information Systems Eth-
ics. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 431-437.
Davis, J.R., and Welton, R.E. (1991). "Professional Ethics: Business Students Perceptions." Journal
of Business Ethics, 10, 451-463.
Dusollier, S. (2003). "Open Source and Copyleft: Authorship Reconsidered?" Columbia Journal of
Law and the Arts, 26, 281-296.
Eckhoff, T. (1974). Justice: Its Determinants in Social Interaction. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Rotterdam
University Press.
Eining, M.M., and Christensen, A.L. (1991). "A Psycho-Social Model of Software Piracy: The De-
velopment and Test of a Model;' In R.M. Dejoie, G.C. Fowler, and D.B. Paradice (Eds.), Ethi-
cal lssues in Information Systems (pp. 182-188). Boston, MA: Boyd and Fraser.
Endeshaw, A. (2002). "The Paradox of Intellectual Property Lawmaking in the New Millennium:
Universal Templates as Terms of Surrender for the Non-Industrial Nations; Piracy as an Off-
shoot," Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 10, 47-77.