Consumer Focus, a UK statutory agency charged with safeguarding consumer interests, recently issued a report, entitled Time to Change the Tune: Consumer Research Briefing on Copyright (2010). The report describes findings of recent empirical research on UK consumers’ perceptions of certain aspects of copyright law. The following findings may be of particular interest to legal informatics or legal communication researchers:
- Approximately 15% of respondents reported engaging in digital media “format shifting” that violates UK copyright law;
- 38% of respondents who reported using a smartphone, iPod, MP3 player or MP4 player also reported engaging in such “format shifting”;
- 18% of respondents who reported using a mobile phone reported engaging in such “format shifting”;
- Only 26% of respondents stated they thought that “[c]opying a CD or DVD you have bought to another format so that you have a copy in more than one location” — which is prohibited by UK copyright law — was prohibited under that law;
- Only 17% of respondents stated that they thought that “[c]opying a CD or DVD you have bought to a computer for your own use” — which is prohibited by UK copyright law — was prohibited under that law;
- Only 15% of respondents stated that they thought that “[c]op[ying] a CD or DVD you have bought to an iPod, mobile phone or any other mobile device for your own use” — which is prohibited by UK copyright law — was prohibited under that law;
- On the basis of these results, the researchers concluded “that three quarters of British consumers believe that ['format-shifting'] is legal, while in fact it is not”;
- 73% of respondents stated that they agreed with the following statement: “I’m never quite sure what is legal and illegal under current copyright law.”
Please see the report for more information on these findings, and for a description of additional findings.
Respecting the methodology used by the researchers, the report states:
This report is based on quantitative consumer research that aimed to establish a comprehensive picture of the copyright related activities consumers engage in. The survey was carried out by Kantar Media which conducted 2,026 face to face interviews between 17 and 23 September 2009. Kantar Media interviewed consumers aged 15 or older and the research is representative of the British population.
Unless otherwise indicated all data is based on a sample of 2,026.
Saskia Walzel of Consumer Focus provided by email the following additional information about the methodology used by the researchers:
The respondents were not entirely randomly selected, but was based on random local sampling. [Below] you will find more information about the face-to-face omnibus through which the interviews were conducted. The Company use to be called BMRB, and was then bought by TNS, and is now Kantar Media.
We overall conducted a 20 min interview and the results published in [C]hange the Tune are only a fraction of that. We plan to publish the rest over the coming 3 months.
Re sample size – we went for 2,000 because we knew that about 60 percent of the British population has access to the internet, has used it recently, and because we wanted to make reliable statements for this sup group. If the data we are presenting is based on less than the full sample of 2,026, we indicate that.
Ms. Walzel provided the following additional information about why Consumer Focus decided to commission face-to-face interviews, rather than telephone or online consumer research:
This is because a telephone approach would generally exclude people who only have a mobile phone. This would have a high correlation with the group of people more likely to do activities such as format-shifting so they should be better represented through face-to-face. A self-completion element is also not possible on the phone making it more difficult to tackle the issue about coverage of unlawful activities. Online research would clearly skew things in the other direction and only represent people with access to a computer. The face-to-face omnibus delivers the biggest sample size in the time available (2,000 adults) and we have the option to include pictures if our piloting suggests this would be the best way of communicating some of the concepts.
The following information was provided on the face-to-face omnibus:
3.2 The BMRB omnibus delivers robust numbers in key sub groups BMRB Omnibus is part of the TNS Group, one of the largest market research agencies in the world. It is a sister company within the Kantar ‘Information Insight and Consultancy Division’ of WPP. BMRB Omnibus works closely with Kantar Media on the placement of TGI. The Face-to-Face Omnibus is a weekly survey providing 2,000 in-home interviews with a nationally representative sample of adults aged 15 and over across GB. It represents adults in England, Wales and Scotland in their natural proportions. The survey uses a Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) system.
We recommend interviewing all c.2,000 adults. This large overall sample size limits the confidence intervals around the results at the top level. Furthermore, it will allow us to ‘zoom in’ and analyse results by a variety of key sub-groups. These could be demographic groups or, for example, people who have specifically format-shifted content. With this base size it would be possible to zoom in on any group representing even only 5% or more of the population (at least 100 people).
[...]Regardless of the sample size we are able to ‘gross up’ results to reflect actual population size of around 49 million. A factor of about 24.5 is applied to all figures to achieve this (in ‘000s).
3.3 Our approach includes interviewing 15 to 17 year olds
We recommend including the full sample of adults from the age of 15. We have seen that 15 to 19 year olds are more likely to be involved in the activities you are most interested in and they are more likely to be creating user generated content. It will be important to include the views of this section of the population in our research.
3.4 Random locale sampling delivers an excellent representation of adults across Great Britain
The sampling technique we have developed and refined over many years is a tightly controlled form of random location sampling (random locale). This technique is used by the omnibus as well as the majority of BMRB’s random location surveys. It provides nationally representative samples at a fraction of the cost of random probability surveys.
One of the key benefits is that this is a fully inclusive approach. People are included within the sample frame regardless of their social characteristics and there are strict controls using ACORN classifications to ensure this is the case.
Random location is a single-stage sample design, taking as its universe Sample Units, a bespoke amalgamation of Output Areas (OA’s – the basic building block used for output from the 2001 Census) in Great Britain. Sample Units have an average size of 300 households and this is subject to far less variation than was with the case with EDs (Enumeration Districts). OA’s are grouped into Sample Units by CACI within ward and taking account of their ACORN characteristics.
The use of ACORN ensures all types of area are fully represented and that selection of respondents is largely taken out of the hands of the interviewers. In conventional quota sampling interviewers are given quotas to fill, usually from specified administration areas. When, for example, an interviewer is asked to complete a quota of AB respondents she will tend to go to a part of the district where she knows such individuals to be available. AB individuals living in mixed social class areas will have little chance of inclusion. A significant proportion of the population lives in mixed social class areas so this can lead to bias. On BMRB Face to Face Omnibus the interviewer is required to draw respondents from a small set of homogenous streets, selected with probability proportional to population after stratification by ACORN characteristics and region.
Likelihood of being at home and so available for interview is the only variable not controlled. Quotas are therefore set to control this element – age and working status within sex – giving a near to random sample of individuals within an SU.
Often companies’ over-issue addresses in order to achieve the required strike rate within the tight timetable and this can lead to distortions in the final balance of sample achieved. Typically we use 235 sampling units (sampling points) per survey. Precise sampling units of addresses combined with control of quotas affecting likelihood of being at home produces a sample profile that is similar to that achieved on The National Readership Survey (which uses random probability sampling) after four call-backs. Only a limited amount of corrective weighting is therefore needed to adjust the final results on our omnibus survey so that they are in line with the national demographic profile. This sampling approach means that quotas do not need to be set on the number of people with technology such as internet access DVRs or MP3 players as these groups will fall out naturally. Indeed, the face-to-face omnibus is the vehicle that has been providing BMRB with its internet user penetration and profile information for over 12 years.
Our analysis in section 2 has demonstrated that we will achieve robust numbers of people in these groups from our starting sample size of 2,000.
Thanks to Ms. Walzel for providing this information about the methodology.
Tags: Legal information behavior, Legal communication, Survey methods in legal informatics, Empirical studies of legal information behavior, Nonlawyers' legal information behavior, Survey methods in legal communication studies, Citizens' knowledge of law, Citizens' knowledge of copyright law, Citizens' knowledge of intellectual property law, Nonlawyers' knowledge of law, Knowledge of the law studies, Consumer Focus, UK citizens' knowledge of law, UK citizens' knowledge of copyright law, Saskia Walzel, Time to Change the Tune, Consumer Research Briefing on Copyright, Citizens' beliefs about law, Citizens' beliefs about copyright law, Citizens' beliefs about intellectual property law
