The rates of digital piracy appear to be increasing, suggesting that additional research that uses new approaches is necessary to evaluate the problem. Using data from undergraduate students (n = 353), the present study explores actual digital piracy and the intention to perform piracy using latent class analysis, develops profiles of these individuals, and provides an analysis of the differences between intentions and actual digital piracy for the groups. The results indicate three separate classes for each form of digital piracy and different profiles for each form of piracy. Actual piracy shows more demographic and social learning theory differences among individuals, whereas scenario-based digital piracy shows more self-control and social learning theory differences among individuals. A cross-tab analysis shows that there are differences between individuals who actually perform digital piracy and those who have the intention to pirate. Research and policy implications are discussed from these findings.
Akers, R.L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
2.
Babbie, E. (2002). The basics of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
3.
Bouffard, J.A. (2002). Methodological and theoretical implications of using subject-generated consequences in tests of rational choice theory. Justice Quarterly, 19, 747-771.
4.
Christensen, A., & Eining, M.M. (1991). Factors influencing software piracy: Implications for accountants. Journal of Information Systems, 5, 67-80.
5.
Gopal, R., Sanders, G.L., Bhattacharjee, S., Agrawal, M., & Wagner, S. (2004). A behavioral model of digital music piracy. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 14, 89-105.
6.
Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
Grasmick, H.G., Tittle, C.R., Bursik, R.J., & Arneklev, B.J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29.
8.
Higgins, G.E. (2005). Can self-control theory help understand the software piracy problem? Deviant Behavior, 26, 1-24.
9.
Higgins, G.E. (2007). Examining the original Grasmick scale: A Rasch model approach. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 157-178.
10.
Higgins, G.E., Fell, B.D., & Wilson, A.L. (2006). Digital piracy: Assessing the contributions of an integrated self-control theory and social learning theory using structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society, 19, 3-22.
11.
Higgins, G.E., & Makin, D.A. (2004a). Does social learning theory condition the effects of low self-control on college students' software piracy? Journal of Economic Crime Management, 2, 1-22.
Higgins, G.E., & Ricketts, M.L. (2004). Motivation or opportunity: Which serves as the best mediator in self-control theory? Western Criminology Review, 5(2), 77-96.
14.
Higgins, G.E., Wilson, A.L., & Fell, B.D. (2005). An application of deterrence theory to software piracy. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 12, 166-194.
15.
Hinduja, S. (2001). Correlates of Internet software piracy. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17, 369-382.
16.
Hinduja, S. (2003). Trends and patterns among online software pirates . Ethics and Information Technology, 5, 49-61.
17.
Hirschi, T. (2004). Self-control and crime. In Roy F. Baumeister & Karen D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 537-552). New York: Guilford.
18.
Hollinger, R.C. (1988). Computer hackers follow a Guttman-like progression . Sociology and Social Research, 72, 199-200.
19.
Husted, B.W. (2000). The impact of national culture on software piracy . Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 431-438.
20.
International Federation of Phonographic Industries. (2006). The recording industry 2006 piracy report: Protecting creativity in music. Retrieved on December 7, 2006, from http://www.ifpi.org.
21.
Klepper, S., & Nagin, D. (1989). The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology, 27, 721-746.
22.
Koen, C.M., & Im, J.H. (1997). Software piracy and its legal implications. Security Journal, 31, 265-272.
23.
Love, S.R. (2006). Illicit sexual behavior: A test of self-control theory. Deviant Behavior, 27, 505-536.
24.
McCutcheon, A.L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Piquero, A.R. (in press). Taking stock of developmental trajectories over the life course. In Akiva Liberman (Ed.), Longitudinal research on crime and delinquency. New York : Springer.
27.
Piquero, A.R., & Bouffard, J. (2007). Something old, something new: A preliminary investigation of Hirschi's redefined self-control. Justice Quarterly, 24, 1-27.
28.
Piquero, A.R., Macintosh, R., & Hickman, M. (2000). Does self-control affect survey response? Applying exploratory, confirmatory, and item response theory analysis to Grasmick et al.'s self-control scale. Criminology, 38, 897-930.
29.
Piquero, A.R., & Piquero, N. (2006). Democracy and intellectual property: Examining trajectories of software piracy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605, 227-235.
30.
Piquero, A.R., & Tibbetts, S. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders' decision making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly , 13, 481-510.
31.
Pogarsky, G. (2002). Identifying "deterrable" offenders: Implications for research on deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19, 431-453.
32.
Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A.R. (2004). Studying the reach of deterrence: Can deterrence theory help explain police misconduct? Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 371-386.
33.
Pratt, T.C., & Cullen, F.T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.
34.
Skinner, W.F., & Fream, A.M. (1997). A social learning theory analysis of computer crime among college students. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 495-518.
Tittle, C.R., Ward, D., & Grasmick, H. (2003). Self-control and crime/deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 333-365.
37.
Wall, D.S. (2005). The Internet as a conduit for criminal activity . In A. Pattavina (Ed.), Information technology and the criminal justice system (pp. 78-94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
Wolfe, S.E., Higgins, G.E., & Marcum, C.D. (in press). Deterrence and digital piracy: A preliminary examination of the role of viruses. Social Science Computer Review.
39.
Wright, B.R.E., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E., & Paternoster, R. (2004). Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally prone individuals? Rational choice, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 447-464.
