In the United States, actions of an individual are often perceived to fit into two distinct categories: right or wrong. This line of crystal-clear judgement is ingrained into the minds of most citizen, as they are raised to believe that the laws of the United States are what definitively separate the heroes and villains of society. Things are unfortunately not always so clear, and with the emergence of new technologies an unusual wave of crime proved to add more complexity than ever–and on a worldwide scale. This infraction was coined as “digital piracy” and is considered the illegal act of duplicating, copying, or sharing a digital work without the creator’s permission (Ingram). The U.S. has attempted to prevent this theft through a multitude of laws and regulations, but the issue has only worsened internationally as China is the greatest producer of pirated materials in the world, with astounding rates reaching upwards of 90% (Evans). U.S. citizens often conclude from this information that China is overflowing with criminals, but that is far from the truth. Many studies have shown that attitude is the leading factor to shape behavior, and this knowledge is certainly applicable to behaviors of piracy. Because the beliefs of an individual are what shape their actions, understanding the different histories and values of China versus the U.S. could lead to a greater understanding of why this crime occurs. If these cultural differences are acknowledged, rather than ignored, it could help to diminish digital piracy’s negative impact on both countries.
In the first place, the two countries have followed completely different paths to reach their current intellectual property laws. In the United States, the conversation around copyrighted material began in the early 1700’s, as many American authors found their works stolen, and could not be reimbursed for the theft. In 1709, Daniel Defoe, author of Robinson Crusoe, famously said:
Why have we laws against house-breakers, highway robbers, pick-pockets, ravishers of women, and all kinds of open violence [and yet no protection for the author]? When in this case a man has his goods stolen, his pocket pick’d, his estate ruined, his prospect of advantage ravish’d from him, after infinite labour, study, and expense. (Bently)
This statement very well encapsulates the feelings of many American citizens at this time in history. Intellectual property was easily stolen from the creator, and there were no laws in place to prevent the act. However, this all changed in May of 1790. The United States’ senate passed the Copyright Act of 1790, which gave protection to authors and inventors for 14 years, with a renewable 14 year term if the author was still alive. This law ensured that the original creator could benefit from the capitalization of their product, and be the sole seller of their commodity in the market. The act officially opened up the discussion over copyright laws, and continued to be altered as the surrounding country evolved (Copyright Act of 1790).
The most extensive revision to this law occurred in 1976, as the United States struggled to keep up with the demands of pressing technological advancement. Just seven years before this revision, the computer network which eventually became the internet was created, and only consisted of four nodes. It roughly doubled in size every 14 months since its invention, and continues to do so into the 21st century, as there are now over one billion nodes. In the 1970’s this level of growth was incredibly worrying, as the internet was making intellectual property theft more accessible than ever before (Bridy). Because of these radical changes in technology, Congress updated the law to directly address the issues of the new, digital age. The law addressed digital piracy, and states that theft of copyrighted material is illegal in both the physical or digital format. The law asserts that piracy is a serious threat to the economy and its citizens, and says that effective criminal enforcement of these intellectual property laws is among the highest priorities of the Attorney General. This shows how highly intellectual property is regarded by U.S. citizens, as intellectual property ownership is an integral feature of capitalism. As Appendix F, section 503 of the copyright law asserts this belief, as it says digital piracy reduces jobs, exports, and decreases the overall competitiveness of American industry. Intellectual property is revered in the United States’ culture, as individuals value their personal work highly, and would like to reap the profits for themselves (Copyright Law of the United States).
Contrary to U.S. laws, China followed a much longer, slower journey to establish a sensible copyright system. The United States is a relatively young country when compared to the elder China, therefore the deliberation over copyright laws dates back much further in the past for China. Most scholars believe the notion of copyright emerged within the area at the same time as the invention of printing, which dates back to the Tang Dynasty (A.D. 618-906). This concept was not put in place for the citizens, but rather for the dynasty. They wanted a way to regulate what was being printed to the public, and this helped them control the publication of unwanted materials. The focus throughout much of China’s history revolved around maintaining this authority of the state, and in the 1700’s, discomfort over this notion began to increase. The Chinese government still controlled what was being printed to the public, but simultaneously the United States and England were spreading the idea of intellectual property to the world, even enacting laws before the 19th century began. At the same point in history, the discussion over intellectual property was intensifying in both the United States and China, but in opposing ways (Alford).
Subsequently, when the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949, the notion of establishing legitimate copyright laws was under more consideration than ever before. The first form of legal copyright in China was enacted on August 11, 1950, and was titled the Interim Regulations Concerning the Grant of Rights Over Inventions and Patent Rights. This was established to provide inventors with a way to legally patent their products, and prevented the theft of their individual ideas. Though it seemed like a great idea, it turns out that this law was hardly ever put to use. In fact, between 1950-1963 only four patents and six certificates were ever granted to inventors. This exemplifies how Chinese citizens were discouraged from wanting to apply for a patent, as most property was considered to be shared amongst all (Ganea and Pattloch).
In addition, the first law to acknowledge the copyright of artistic works was enacted by China’s Congress in 1990. Before this point, any of these works (such as films or literature) were not considered to be the creator’s intellectual property. This allowed citizens to apply for full ownership of this property, and granted them the ability to sue infringers. However, this law was still followed quite poorly by both chinese citizens and legislators. Western lawyers often criticize the Chinese legislation of the time, as justice was hardly served to the people who broke this law. Judges were paid low wages, and were often susceptible to bribes by the defendant. It was also difficult to communicate the importance of intellectual property to Chinese citizens.. Because the communist regime had a set wage for the citizens, having ownership of an intellectual product did not seem to provide much benefit to the creator. Furthermore, Chinese citizens tend to have a genuine appreciation of collectivism, and were often encouraged to share their ideas with others. Though these were all issues in response to the new law, it kickstarted China’s quest towards a better understanding of intellectual property (Kachuriak).
The United States was continually irritated by China’s negligence of these laws, as it led to multiple accounts of theft of internationally copyrighted material. This came to fruition in 1994, when the first official copyright case involving the U.S. occurred in China. There were multiple children’s publishers in China selling books which involved well-known Disney characters such as Mickey Mouse and Goofy, all without permission from the copyright holder. The Walt Disney Company filed a suit against the publishers, and though they won, the payment for damages was shockingly low at only $27,000. Situations like this provoked the U.S. to force China into more severe copyright laws, allowing China very little leeway for a compromise (Zhang).
After this incident, the United States took a severe approach by threatening to stop all trade with China if they did not fix the issue. Finally, in 1995, the two countries negotiated new copyright laws for China. Though the new laws did curb copyright infringement to an extent, in recent years the crime has become seemingly unstoppable. China is a huge world force with well over a billion citizens, and their current levels of piracy reflect the impact they have on the world. The piracy of U.S. materials in China has resulted in annual losses of approximately $827 million, and U.S. companies such as Disney and Microsoft have attempted to enter its market, but found it plagued with copyright infringers. Currently, the leading source of copyright infringement is the theft of software, as the leading advocate for the global software industry (BSA) estimates that up to 94% of the software used in China is pirated. An example of this piracy at its worst occurred when it was found that China’s Shenzhen University had made 650,000 holograms which were virtually identical to those created by Microsoft, resulting in a loss of $30 million to the large company. These occurrences in China are quite frightful to U.S. companies, as it discourages them from selling, licensing, or transferring any of their goods to the country (Kachuriak).
Nevertheless, the United States is certainly not perfect either. The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that up to 600,000 films are being downloaded onto the internet by various Americans every day. Though this may be immediately construed as a negative for the film industry, a study conducted by Carnegie Mellon University in 2016 attempted to test whether there are any positive outcomes of film piracy. The study hypothesized that there are two probable effects of film piracy. The first hypothesis states that movie piracy steals content, and therefore prevents the sale of the film. The second hypothesis, however, is one which is often overlooked. It asserts that spreading content illegally pre-release may actually spread enough word of mouth to increase sales once the movie is put in theaters. The study searched for answers by analyzing data from all wide-release U.S. movies from the years 2006 to 2008, and the numbers proved that in most cases box-office revenue would increase 15% if digital piracy was taken out of the equation. This equates to a loss of around $1.3 billion of revenue. Despite this fact, it has been speculated that some companies purposefully release their films early, based on the principles of the study’s second hypothesis. A miniscule amount (3%) of companies would benefit from doing so, but this study proves how the majority of movie-makers are hurt immensely by the effects of piracy (Ma).
With all of the downsides to pirating, it is difficult to comprehend why it has become such a prevalent issue in society. Many studies have been conducted to attempt to answer this question, and it has been almost unanimously concluded that attitude is the most important factor in committing an illegal act. This would make sense, as attitude is considered the most important attribute of social psychology, and in 29 out of 30 studies it is what leads to piracy. In a study conducted in 2006 by Sulaiman Al-Rafee and Timothy Paul Cronan, it was discovered that there were a multitude of factors which shape pirating behavior. Of the variables tested, the most significant factors were found to be age, deceitfulness, and high levels of positivity.
To elaborate on these factors, age was important because it seemed that older subjects were more likely to have a distasteful view toward piracy. This could be attributed to the fact that elderly subjects did not grow up so accustomed to the digital world, and therefore do not view the act as a natural occurrence. The study then uses the psychology term “machiavellianism” to describe a deceitful person, and it was found that more of this trait often causes a person to pirate. People with this trait commonly exploit others to reach personal goals, and this often occurs when pirated material is resold for a profit to the copyright infringer. The last factor is slightly more surprising, but showed that positive beliefs did connect quite strongly to behaviors of piracy. If a person thinks intellectual property theft will have a positive impact on their life, then they may be more likely to commit the crime without considering the consequences. These factors show how piracy is not just the act of criminals, but something which everyday citizens are capable of, and can be traced back to the mindset they have acquired throughout their life (Al-Rafee and Cronan).
Granted that this is true, this study can help explain why piracy is also an issue in China. The mindset shared by Chinese citizens revolves around collectivism, and many scholars believe this is the leading reason for the country’s outstandingly high piracy rates. Scholars such as Wendy Wan have studied the attitude of Chinese consumers, and argue that Chinese citizens often accept piracy because of their high levels of face consciousness. “Face” refers to a person’s physical appearance, and if they have “face consciousness” this means they will tend to put more emphasis on their physical qualities, rather than their inner attributes. This concept is known by many to be one of China’s most important cultural values. In Wan’s 2009 study, she tested if high levels of face consciousness are what lead to piracy, and after interviewing 300 Chinese citizens, this was found to be true. Wan says in her discussion:
One side of the coin of face consciousness is extravagance, while the other side of the coin is a low moral standard resulting from materialism. Pirated CDs are more acceptable to those with face consciousness because they are more materialistic and have a lower moral threshold. Moreover, face consciousness leads to risk aversion which in turn leads to greater compliance with traditional practices. The Chinese traditional practice of learning is by copying. As a result, pirated CDs are even legitimate because they are consistent with that traditional practice. (Wan)
This is an important discovery, as it shows how China’s culture has had a significant impact on why these citizens pirate material. They have been raised with the cultural practices of sharing and copying, and this leads them to believe the act is acceptable. Similar to the United States, copyright infringers in China are often ordinary citizens, and are simply impacted by the beliefs they were raised with.
Studies such as these consistently prove to be important in order to understand why piracy still regularly occurs around the world. It is based on the attitude of individuals, along with the long-cultivated beliefs which are established through cultural practices. In the United States, individuality is placed at the utmost importance, and when mixed with capitalism, it yields a competitive atmosphere around intellectual property. However, in China, collectivism generates a sense of unity among citizens, and these ample amounts of equity cause the citizens to want to share intellectual creations with one another. Collectivism also leads to a lessened amount of individual responsibility, as a crime committed is often viewed to be shared by many, not just the act of one person. As a Chinese proverb says of this, “The law cannot apply if everybody breaks it.” It is imperative to acknowledge these differences between Chinese and American values when attempting to curb piracy, as this can finally lead to the root of the problem: attitude (Lu).
Up until now, there have been two popular methods utilized to stop piracy. The first is prevention, and this method attempts to make piracy so difficult that people do not find the act any more useful than legally purchasing the material. The second is a deterrent, and this uses the threat of undesirable legal consequences to stop infringers from wanting to pirate material in the first place. Both of these approaches have been employed by the United States and Chinese government, yet to no avail. If the most recent data on attitude is taken into account, however, then there are new suggestions which could possibly lead to the desired results (Al-Rafee and Cronan). For example, research has shown that if consumer beliefs toward piracy are adjusted to view it more negatively, then this would have the most substantial impact on their actions. If piracy is considered a shameful act, and advertised as such, perhaps this would affect consumers more than just telling them it is illegal. Theories like this show the importance of utilizing all available research, and continuing to search for more methods which line up with the facts are what may actually result in change (Husted).
All things considered, it is easy to judge China’s copyright issues from thousands of miles away, but perhaps they have more in common with the U.S. than initially expected. China and the U.S. have taken very different paths to reach their current intellectual property rights, and both countries still have a ways to go. Though the countries have differing values, this diversity should be embraced instead of judged. The collectivist and individualist ideals of these countries have vast differences, but their basis lies on attitude, and this should be the primary focus when attempting to stop digital piracy. This crime is built on complex motives, and committed by average citizens, plus there is no certain solution to the problem. However, current research shows that the United States and China must look past their differences in order to fix it, as their issues lie in the attitude of their citizens, not their differences of legislation.