Germany's Curious Income Divide On Infringement Remedies: High-Earners Support Content Blocking, Oppose Disconnection
from the copy-culture dept
Recently, the American Assembly released Copy Culture In The US & Germany, a report based on an extensive survey about attitudes and practices surrounding media consumption and piracy in the two countries. (Disclosure: We supplied the design and layout work for the report.) It contains lots of interesting facts, and some very surprising ones—such as more support for content blocking than one would expect given the public reaction to things like SOPA and ACTA. We've already discussed one of the important broad takeaways—even more evidence that pirates buy more media—but amidst the smaller details in the survey are several other points that are worthy of a closer look.
First up is a curious trend that emerged in Germany: when asked if copyright infringers should face disconnection of their internet access as a penalty, opinion was roughly split among low-income respondents, while opposition was higher among those who earned more:
Opposition to disconnection also rises sharply with income (which in turn correlates with the propensity to buy media). Among penalty supporters who make more than €3000/month, 20% support disconnection; 74% oppose it.
As the report notes, this could have something to do with the fact that higher earners also buy more media—though that still doesn't make it entirely clear why this should be the case. Even more curiously, high-earners were more likely to support content blocking by ISPs, search engines and social networks, but still more likely to oppose internet monitoring.
It seems like there's a lot of room for conjecture as to what these patterns mean, if anything, so I'm throwing this open to our readers, especially those in Germany: what social, economic or other factors that correlate with income might explain this trend?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content blocking, disconnect, germany, infringement, remedies
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'll take a crack at this.
Lower income people may not have Internet at all, and thus don't care much about people getting disconnected.
High-income people don't care so much if they get content for free. They can afford it. But getting disconnected would be very inconvenient for them. Some of them might even mildly want to get content for free, but not at the cost of their Internet. So, if it's filtered at some other level, they'd be satisfied with just accessing whatever gets around the filter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or they know that they have the resources needed to get around the filter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Title is wrong
Wait, isn't that backwards?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Title is wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Title is wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Education/class issue?
Those who have gone to college, especially those having gone to college in the last ~20 years since the internet and sharing started becoming pervasive, may be less in favor of disconnection as an option. They're more likely to telecommute and need access for their jobs. More likely to get more of their entertainment via the internet, as opposed to traditional broadcast media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Education/class issue?
In my experience, the higher individual education the more likely people I know are to think about things beyond what immediatly affects them. Like the consequences of internet shutoff to some accused copyright infringer and the tremendous collateral damage that would do. They are also more likely to be well informed on the general three strikes style enforcement and it's contradiction to "in dubio pro reo" as fundamental basis of German law.
Higher education also gives a better understanding and recognition for the dangers associated with monitoring in general - and therefor an opposition to it.
The better acceptance of content blocking is something I'd explain with the correlation of income and age - management or teamlead roles etc. are well paid and usually later in your career. Older people are on average less savvy with technology and most problems with content blocking are of a technological nature. Thus, the higher income bracket, while better educated, might still believe the image of 'clean blocking' the media propagate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think jobs has a lot of say in the disconnection issue. The more you have used IT in information sharing contexts at your job, the better you know its potential and importance! Jobs taking computer-skills are usually well paid or wellpaid jobs demands computer-use.
On the flipside, the higher earners will also include more people with a "competitive fairness" opinion. Since Germany is highly regulated, blocking any sites operating on other less respectable terms can therefore be seen as acceptable.
When it comes to privacy, it is pretty clear that the man monitoring others will be more inclined to dislike being monitored as opposed to those being monitored every day!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brains?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brains?
Reason being, those in higher tax brackets have more access to better education options. Of course, those that make money on the internet might be less tolerant of being disconnected from the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While it's a challenge to pull a cultural insight from one chart...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this shows that people of an economic level sufficient to make them a regular consumer , concede that an organization has certain rights, but also certain responsibilities. Likely being people who work hard for their luxuries, these individuals respect the idea of wanting to be paid for work or services or products rendered. But, to get those rights, the organization has responsibilities. Pro-actively targeting file sources paints the picture of an artist fighting to protect something made of their own two hands.
However, putting the responsibility of sterilizing one's habits on the consumer creates a change in value. The risk of losing what is likely considered a basic utility akin to water or power creates a change in value. The cost of compliance goes up as well. Who is this company to tell you that because you clicked a link on some random website on 3 separate occasions, you are now unworthy of so much as glancing at the web? If the link is so dangerous, why do they let it stay up? If they are monitoring you, they clearly know about it. Now the consumer has built up the idea that they are an ignorant bystander caught in the crossfire. Like buying a DVD from a convenience store only to have the FBI break down your door and arrest you for infringement because the store owner was selling bootlegs. Worse yet may be the reasons for why you downloaded something to begin with. Your CD is old and broken so you download a backup off pirate bay. You've tried over and over to find a certain tv show online, but the rightsholder has set up geographical blocking and doesn't offer in your area. One of your friends in another country sent you a link to something they think you'll like. Something you might have even gone out and bought the next day.
TL:DR = It comes down to who is getting hit. Higher income consumer's understand a rightsholder's right to protect their work, but do not appreciate being spied on or threatened. And most importantly, if something isn't being offered, don't get upset when people find another way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]