Journal of Computer Information Systems

ISSN: 0887-4417 (Print) 2380-2057 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucis20

Knowledge of Software Piracy as an Antecedent to

Reducing Pirating Behavior

Trevor T. Moores, Alexander Nill & Marcus A. Rothenberger

To cite this article: Trevor T. Moores, Alexander Nill & Marcus A. Rothenberger (2009)
Knowledge of Software Piracy as an Antecedent to Reducing Pirating Behavior, Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 50:1, 82-89

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2009.11645365

Published online: 11 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucis20

Download by: [Ryerson University Library] Date: 18 October 2016, At: 08:34
 Knowledge of Software Piracy as an
Antecedent to Reducing Pirating Behavior
TREVOR T. MOORES ALEXANDER NILL MARCUS A. ROTHENBERGER
Univ. of Nevada Las Vegas Univ. of Nevada Las Vegas
Las Vegas, NV 89154-6034 Las Vegas, NV 89154-6010
ABSTRACT
We set out to answer the question: Can legislative and
educational outreach programs reduce the level of software piracy?
Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, we hypothesize that
knowledge of software piracy promoted by these campaigns will
lead to increased awareness of the legal consequences of engaging
in software piracy and the likelihood of being punished. These two
constructs, in turn, will impact on one’s attitude towards software
piracy, and hence, on the level of one’s pirating behavior. We
test the model using a sample of U.S. business students and
find strong support for the model, with an understanding of the
number of jobs lost due to software piracy being the dominant
factor. This suggests that decision makers in the software industry
need to refocus educational outreach programs from stressing the
illegality of copyright infringement to emphasizing the social
consequences of such behavior.
Keywords: Ethics, Knowledge, PLS, Software Piracy, Theory
of Planned Behavior.
INTRODUCTION
Major software companies are losing 35-40% of their potential
retail revenue to software pirates around the world. Software piracy
involves the illegal copying, distribution, or sale of commercial
software without a license. It is estimated that between 2003
and 2007 the global software piracy rate averaged 35.8% (BSA,
2008), which means that nearly 36 out of every 100 copies of
business software installed on computers around the world are
illegal copies. As a result, software vendors are estimated to have
lost over $183.6 billion in sales over that period, averaging $36.7
billion a year. This money could have been used to fund further
R&D, expand markets, or hire new employees.
The response of governments and vendor organizations, such
as the Business Software Alliance (BSA), is one of legislation,
education and enforcement. Legislation protecting intellectual
property rights in the U.S. include the 1997 No Internet Theft
(NET) Act, which makes the unlicensed distribution of digital
goods illegal, even if no fee is involved, and the 1998 Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), which makes it illegal
to circumvent digital rights management (DRM) controls.
International protection for intellectual property rights include
the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s 1995 Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement, and
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)’s 1996
“Internet Treaties,” which include the WIPO Copyright Treaty
(WCT).
Educational outreach programs have existed since the early-
1990s, with campaigns such as ‘Don’t Copy That Floppy’
developed by the Software Publishers Alliance (SPA). On the
BSA website (www.bsa.org) there are links for people worried
82 Journal of Computer Information Systems
Univ. of Nevada Las Vegas
Las Vegas, NV 89154-6034
about Internet fraud, and audit tools for companies to ensure the
software on their servers are properly licensed. There is also a
Newsroom link that reports the results of “sweeps week,” where
companies in a given area are raided, and also of the pursuit
and conviction of Internet pirates. A Report Piracy link offers a
reward of up to $1,000,000. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also
support a number of websites, such as TheTrueCosts.Org, that
outline the $200-250 billion and 750,000 job losses associated
with all types of counterfeiting and piracy.
The basic tenet behind all these programs is that if people
understand software piracy is a crime and has harmful social
and economic consequences, they will stop engaging in soft-
ware piracy. We set out to test that assumption. We suggest
that if legislative and educational programs have had an effect,
we should be able to relate a person’s level of knowledge of
software piracy to a heightened fear of punishment, and an
understanding of the legal consequences of engaging in software
piracy. In turn, this should form a negative attitude towards
software piracy and result in lower levels of piracy. Borrow-
ing from the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), we suggest
that subjective norms and perceived behavioral control may also
play a role.
RESEARCH MODEL
We propose a micro-level model of an individual’s software
pirating behavior, partially based on the Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB). The key exogenous variable is defined as
knowledge of software piracy. We hypothesize that a successful
anti-piracy campaign must be successful in communicating
knowledge about the nature and consequences of engaging in
software piracy. Knowledge will impact on one’s perceived
likelihood of punishment, and generate a fear of the legal
consequences associated with engaging in software piracy. In
turn, these two constructs will affect one’s attitude towards the
act, and, along with subjective norms and perceived behavioral
control, will impact on the level of software piracy behavior. The
research model is shown in Figure 1.
Antecedents of Behavior
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) suggests
that behavior is determined by intention, while intention is
determined by one’s personal (attitude), social (subjective norms),
and volitional (perceived behavioral control) beliefs. Attitude
(ATT) refers to the degree to which a person has a favorable or
unfavorable evaluation of the behavior. Attitudes develop from
salient beliefs a person holds about a behavior. People tend to
favor behaviors that are believed to have desirable outcomes and
form negative attitudes towards behavior that are associated with
undesirable outcomes.
Fall 2009
 FIGURE 1 — Theoretical Model
KNOW = Knowledge of software piracy; PLP = Perceived likelihood of punishment; FLC = Fear
of legal consequences; ATT = Attitude; SN = Social norms; PBC = Perceived behavioral control;
BEHAV = Behavior (level of pirating software)
Subjective norms (SN) refer to the perceived peer or social
pressure to perform (or not perform) a specific behavior. If
important referent groups or individuals approve of a behavior,
the more likely a person will be to engage in that behavior. Finally,
perceived behavioral control (PBC) refers to the perceived ease or
difficulty of performing a specific behavior. In other words, being
able to successfully carry out the behavior is a joint function of
motivation (ATT and SN) and actual ability (PBC). The theory
is well supported (Armitage & Conner, 2001), and has been used
to predict a number of different types of undesirable behavior,
such as cheating on a test, shoplifting, and lying (Beck & Ajzen,
1991), drug use (McMillan & Conner, 2003), and faking positive
characteristics on admission tests (McFarland & Ryan, 2006).
When applied to software piracy, however, TPB has yielded
mixed results. In one study (Peace et al., 2003), punishment
severity and certainty negatively impacted on one’s attitude
towards software piracy, suggesting that anti-piracy campaigns
that targeted these attributes would be effective at reducing the
level of software piracy. However, there was no measure of the
extent to which the respondents knew the legal ramifications
of software piracy. In other studies, awareness of the law was
a weak predictor of attitude (Goles et al., 2008), with other
constructs such as moral obligation and habitual (past) behavior
being a better predictor of intention than TPB’s trio of attitude,
social norms, and perceived behavioral control (e.g., Cronan &
Al-Rafee, 2008).
In light of these problems, we will apply TPB to software
piracy within a framework of understanding the social, legal,
and economic consequences of software piracy, brought about
by ongoing legislative and educational anti-piracy campaigns.
Behavior (BEHAV) is defined in terms of copyright compliance,
or the extent to which an individual maintains their personal
computer free of unlicensed or counterfeit software. Attitude
(ATT) is defined as the extent to which an individual agrees
that copyright violations are wrong, and would support further
legislation against piracy. Such an attitude would be hostile
towards software piracy.
Given that moral acts are often defined in terms of what
society expects of the individual, subjective norms is an
important element of the decision-making process (Lee et al.
Fall 2009 Journal of Computer Information Systems
2008; Ramakrishna et al. 2001; Walstrom, 2006). In this case,
engaging in software piracy is often facilitated by a feeling that
‘everyone else is doing it, so it can’t be wrong.’ Therefore, we
define subjective norms (SN) as the extent to which the individual
believes that peers are also engaging in software piracy. Finally,
perceived behavioral control (PBC) is defined in terms of the ease
of copyright violation, or the ease with which someone believes
they can find, make, or use pirated software.
Given that behavior is the key endogenous variable, and
intention has sometimes been found to have a weak relationship
to behavior (e.g., Kim & Malhotra, 2005; Limayem et al. 2004),
we depart from TPB by relating ATT, SN, and PBC directly to
behavior (BEHAV). Therefore, we have:
H1: A hostile attitude towards copyright violations (ATT)
will positively determine one’s level of copyright
compliance (BEHAV).
H2: The use of pirated software by one’s peers (SN)
will negatively determine one’s level of copyright
compliance (BEHAV).
H3: The ease of engaging in copyright violations (PBC)
will negatively determine one’s level of copyright
compliance (BEHAV).
Antecedents of Attitude
We propose that in order to change a person’s attitude
towards software piracy, the individual must understand what
software piracy is, and be aware of the likelihood and severity of
punishment of engaging in software piracy. Other models have
applied deterrence theory to suggest that punishment certainty
and punishment severity will impact on attitude (Peace et al.
2003), while the perceived lack of censure has often been given as
a reason for engaging in an act that is known to be illegal (Moores
& Chang, 2006; Moores & Dhaliwal, 2004).
Therefore, we define two antecedent constructs that impact on
attitude. The perceived likelihood of punishment (PLP) is defined
as the perception that anyone that engages in software piracy will
be caught and prosecuted. The fear of legal consequences (FLC)
is defined as a fear of the potential legal consequences associated
83
with engaging in software piracy. The difference between the
two constructs is that although an individual may understand
that software piracy is illegal, they may not believe they would
ever be caught, or they may not know or fear the severity of the
punishment enacted by law. Therefore, we have:
H4: The perceived likelihood of punishment (PLP) for
engaging in software piracy will positively determine
a hostile attitude towards copyright violations (ATT).
H5: A fear of the legal consequences (FLC) for engaging
in software piracy will positively determine a hostile
attitude towards copyright violations (ATT).
The effectiveness of legislation as a deterrent is enhanced
when individuals are successfully prosecuted. For instance, the
BSA posts a number of reports under their Newsroom link of
companies making settlements for using unlicensed software,
including over $2 million from 19 companies during a “sweep’s
week” in July 2006. There are also numerous reports of individuals
being convicted under the NET act. Some receive more than five
years in prison, and fines running into the millions of dollars. The
extent to which someone will respond to these threats of censure,
however, will depend on the extent to which they know what
software piracy is, are aware of the likelihood of punishment,
and the legal consequences involved. Our final two hypotheses,
therefore, are:
H6: One’s level of knowledge of software piracy (KNOW)
will positively determine one’s perceived likelihood
of punishment (PLP) for engaging in software piracy.
H7: One’s level of knowledge of software piracy (KNOW)
will positively determine one’s fear of the legal
consequences (FLC) for engaging in software piracy.
METHODOLOGY
Items were developed for each construct adapting from those
that exist and tested using a series of pilot studies with the aim of
producing 3-5 items for each construct, with six items developed
for the knowledge construct. The PLP items are reverse coded
to allow a more intuitive wording in which people engaging in
software piracy feel they will be not caught. A lack of censure is
often cited as a reason for engaging in software piracy (Moores
& Chang 2006). Given that software piracy involves buying as
well as using, each scale include items that refer to installing
illegal copies of software products, as well as buying counterfeit
or unauthorized copies of software.
The scale for knowledge of software piracy, KNOW, used a
set of six questions with a True, False, and Don’t Know scale. The
Don’t Know response is designed to eliminate guesses and ensure
correct responses are strong cases of knowledge. The questions
were designed to capture the different aspects of software piracy
often used in anti-piracy campaigns, such as the legal protection
given to software, and the major economic and social losses in the
U.S. associated with software piracy. This type of information is
prominently featured in press releases and newspaper articles on
software piracy, and highlighted by vendor organizations such as
BSA. If participants in this survey have read or heard anything
about software piracy, they should be able to correctly answer
one or more of these questions.
The questions were also designed to vary in terms of the level
of detail of information, from the particular country with the
84 Journal of Computer Information Systems
highest piracy rate, to the meaning of shareware. This variation is
meant to capture the breadth and depth of a person’s knowledge
of software piracy. Answering a question correctly received one
point, answering incorrectly or Don’t Know received zero points.
The final items are shown in the Appendix.
The target sample was business students at a large southwestern
U.S. university. The U.S. is the largest software market in the
world and accounts for 20% of the global losses due to software
piracy. The survey instrument included an introduction that stated
participation is voluntary, responses are collected anonymously,
and confidentiality is guaranteed. In order to “cue” the respondents,
a definition of software piracy as “the unauthorized production,
duplication, or use of a software product” was provided. The
knowledge items were presented first, followed by the rest, with
some of the items randomly scattered throughout the list in order
to reduce common response bias. The demographic questions
were placed at the end of the survey form.
The survey was distributed as a within-class exercise for
graduate and undergraduate business majors. Of 108 questionnaires
distributed, all were returned. Five were incomplete, leaving
a usable sample of 103. Given the 95% response rate, no non-
response bias analysis is carried out. Demographic information
provided by the participants showed 52% were male, 48%
female, with an average age of 25.7 years, and 5.4 years of work
experience.
RESULTS
We use partial least squares (PLS-Graph 3.0 Build 1126) to
analyze the relationships defined by the research model. Indicators
for all the constructs except KNOW are defined as reflective, with
pathways from each latent variable (PLP, FLC, ATT, SN, PBC,
and BEHAV) leading outward to its manifest variable (LP1, LP2,
LP3, etc., etc.). Following previous literature (e.g., Yi & Davis,
2003), we define KNOW as formative, because knowledge of
software piracy is an aggregate of component knowledge, with
each question capturing a different aspect of the problem (i.e.,
social and financial effects, copyright issues, etc.). In this case,
pathways from each manifest variable (KN1, KN2, etc.), lead
inward to the latent variable, KNOW.
Measurement Model
Convergent and discriminant reliability of reflective items
can be shown by carrying out a PLS confirmatory factor analysis.
Items should load with their a priori constructs with a loading
of at least .6 and preferably greater than .7 (Chin 1998), with
the remaining correlations indicating cross-loading. The results
(see Table 1), show that each set of items (shown in bold), have
loadings greater than .7, with the majority above .8, and no cross-
loadings above .6.
The significance of loadings can be tested using a bootstrap
analysis, which involves resampling the original dataset with
one data point replaced. The ratio of coefficient to the variance
derived from the bootstrapping is treated as a t-statistic, with a
ratio greater than 2 being significant. Although there is no strict
rule, a bootstrap using at least 100 resamples is common. In this
case, using 100 resamples indicate that all items load significantly
on their respective constructs (p < .001).
Convergent and discriminant reliability of constructs can be
shown by calculating the composite reliability, average variance
extracted, and inter-construct correlations. For convergent
Fall 2009
 TABLE 1 — Loadings and Cross-Loadings for Reflective Measures
Item PLP FLC ATT SN PBC BEHAV
LP1 0.713 -0.198 -0.050 0.197 0.244 -0.119
LP2 0.740 -0.215 -0.043 0.204 0.304 -0.082
LP4 0.863 -0.433 -0.193 0.418 0.460 -0.381
LP5 0.856 -0.304 -0.182 0.292 0.428 -0.211
LP6 0.850 -0.403 -0.271 0.317 0.390 -0.308
LC1 -0.412 0.870 0.516 -0.301 -0.419 0.513
LC2 -0.396 0.911 0.600 -0.340 -0.471 0.523
LC3 -0.374 0.885 0.582 -0.412 -0.450 0.451
LC4 -0.295 0.886 0.550 -0.346 -0.399 0.412
AT1 -0.149 0.572 0.829 -0.405 -0.294 0.563
AT2 -0.143 0.574 0.803 -0.372 -0.310 0.462
AT3 -0.200 0.509 0.801 -0.455 -0.297 0.501
AT4 -0.108 0.447 0.846 -0.323 -0.218 0.377
AT5 -0.313 0.414 0.776 -0.253 -0.266 0.286
SN1 0.324 -0.338 -0.395 0.815 0.425 -0.393
SN2 0.421 -0.405 -0.449 0.864 0.468 -0.446
SN3 0.169 -0.208 -0.261 0.729 0.381 -0.442
BC1 0.403 -0.319 -0.241 0.537 0.807 -0.290
BC2 0.373 -0.426 -0.262 0.451 0.827 -0.341
BC3 0.452 -0.482 -0.330 0.400 0.850 -0.296
BC4 0.412 -0.466 -0.372 0.359 0.854 -0.321
BC5 0.304 -0.318 -0.217 0.441 0.784 -0.310
BH1 -0.229 0.500 0.457 -0.409 -0.390 0.863
BH2 -0.400 0.497 0.501 -0.502 -0.366 0.886
BH3 -0.258 0.486 0.508 -0.495 -0.336 0.941
BH4 -0.243 0.446 0.536 -0.504 -0.279 0.903
Note: Loadings shown in bold represent items loading on their a priori constructs. No cross-loadings exceed .6.

TABLE 2 — Convergent Reliability of Constructs

reliability, CR and AVE are expected to be above .7 and .5,
Construct CR AVE
respectively, while for discriminant reliability the square root of
PLP .903 .651 the AVE should exceed the inter-construct correlations (Hair et al.
FLC .937 .789 1998). The results obtained from bootstrapping (100 resamples)
ATT .906 .658 show that all constructs have a CR above .8 and AVE above .6
SN .846 .648 (see Table 2), while the square root of the AVE exceeds the inter-
construct correlations by at least .25 (see Table 3). The relatively
PBC .914 .680
low inter-construct correlations also suggest there is no evidence
BEHAV .944 .808 of a common method bias.

TABLE 3 — Discriminant Reliability of Constructs

KNOW PLP FLC ATT SN PBC BEHAV
KNOW n/a
PLP -.293 .807
FLC .519 -.417 .888
ATT .270 -.216 .632 .811
SN -.092 .379 -.394 -.458 .805
PBC -.149 .471 -.489 -.345 .529 .825
BEHAV .248 -.316 .535 .558 -.533 -.379 .899
Note: Square-root of the AVE on the diagonals, inter-construct correlations within the columns.

Fall 2009 Journal of Computer Information Systems 85

 TABLE 4
Analysis of Formative Construct, Knowledge of Software Piracy (KNOW)
Item Num. answered correctly Weight Mean of subsamples Std. Err. t-Statistic
KN1 42 .961 .901 .131 7.315
KN2 8 -.215 -.176 .148 1.455
KN3 11 -.135 -.137 .187 .720
KN4 54 .089 .041 .172 .517
KN5 83 .175 .143 .125 1.409
KN6 51 .141 .134 .148 .954
Note: t-Statistics greater than 1.984 are significant at p < .05.

FIGURE 2 — Path Model

Note: *** p < .01. Figures in parentheses are t-scores.

KNOW = Knowledge of software piracy; PLP = Perceived likelihood of punishment; FLC = Fear of
legal consequences; ATT = Attitude; SN = Social norms; PBC = Perceived behavioral control; BEHAV
= Behavior (level of pirating software)

Given that KNOW is a formative construct, the weights
of the six items can be examined to determine which are
significantly impacting on the construct. The weights and re-
sults of bootstrapping (100 resamples) are given in Table 4.
It can be seen that KN1, which relates to the estimated 100,000
jobs lost each year due to software piracy, is the dominant
item. In short, correctly answering this question accounts for
almost all of the variance in the construct and is responsible for
the significant relationships detected between KNOW and PLP,
and FLC.
Structural Model
and 41.4%, respectively, suggesting the model accounts for a
substantial amount of variance in these constructs. This result
provides support for hypotheses H1, H2, H5, and H7, but only
weak support for H6.
We test the role of KNOW by adding paths from KNOW
to ATT, SN, PBC, and BEHAV. The only significant pathway
is between KNOW and PBC (t = 2.021, p = .046), but the path
coefficient is marginal (b = -.217), and the R2 is relatively low
(4.7%), suggesting a statistically significant but semantically
unimportant relationship. The alternative pathways add nothing
to the original research model and confirms that KNOW is the
key exogenous variable and acts through PLP and FLC.

The path coefficients obtained from PLS analysis is shown DISCUSSION

in Figure 2, with t-statistics derived from bootstrapping (100
resamples) in parentheses. Meaningful — as opposed to just
statistically significant — path coefficients should be at least .2
and preferably greater than .3 (Chin 1998). All path coefficients
are significant at p < .01, except for PLP to ATT, and PBC to
BEHAV. Although the path from KNOW to PLP is significant,
the R2 is relatively low (8.6%), suggesting borderline importance.
The R2 value for FLC, ATT, and BEHAV is 26.9%, 40.3%,
The results of this study suggest the more people know about
software piracy and the social, legal, and economic consequences
of stealing software, the more they perceive the likelihood
exists that installing illegal software will result in some form of
punishment, and the greater the fear of the legal consequences
for doing so. The fear of legal consequences (FLC) is the prime
motivating factor, impacting significantly on attitude towards

86 Journal of Computer Information Systems Fall 2009

software piracy (ATT), and consequently on behavior (BEHAV).
Subjective norms (SN) also play a role, with a significant
relationship being found between SN and BEHAV.
The lack of significance between PBC and BEHAV may be
due in part to the relatively low incidence of software piracy
amongst the participants in this survey. On average, 35% of the
participants violated the compliance behavior items (answering
‘1’ or ‘2’ on the 5-point Likert scale), which is higher than the
software piracy rate for the U.S., which stood at 20% in 2007, but
much lower than other studies conducted in high piracy countries
such as Hong Kong and Singapore (Moores & Chang 2006;
Moores & Dhaliwal 2004). In studies where more than 50% of
the participants admitted to engaging in software piracy, PBC has
a strong influence on intention (Peace et al. 2003).
On the other hand, it would not be surprising to find that if
someone believed software piracy was wrong, the ease with
which software could be pirated would have no impact on their
behavior. This suggestion is supported by adding a path from PBC
to ATT and from PBC to SN. While the path from PBC to ATT is
insignificant (b = -.077), the path from PBC to SN is found to be
strong (b = .537), significant (t = 6.651, p = .000), and accounts
for 28.9% of the variance in SN. It would appear, therefore, that a
relative lack of difficulty in producing pirated software heightens
the perception that ‘everyone else is doing it,’ but has no impact
on those that believe it to be wrong.
Theoretical Contributions
While it seems a tautology to suggest that decision-making
requires knowledge, a measure of a person’s understanding of
an act has not been previously introduced into models of ethical
decision-making. Both the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and
the theory of reasoned action (TRA) assume that if someone has
a positive attitude towards a behavior they will follow-through
with that behavior unless there are social (SN) or practical
(PBC) constraints. We have shown that one’s attitude towards
a behavior depends on understanding the consequences of that
behavior (in this case, FLC and PLP), but understanding the
consequences depends on knowing something about the behavior
being considered.
Although the theory of planned behavior does include
attitudinal beliefs about the positive (or negative) outcome
expectations of the act, this does not seem to capture enough of
the social aspect of software piracy. Ethical problems typically
involve a tension between the needs and rights and one (person
or group) against another. In this case, there is a person’s desire
for a piece of software versus the cost of acquiring that software
legally. Attitudinal beliefs may conflict, therefore, where pirating
software is good for the individual but bad for others (i.e., the
software vendor). Our results suggest that if someone understands
the wider social impact of their selfish behavior they are more
likely to develop a negative attitude towards software piracy. This
is also the goal of anti-piracy campaigns.
Furthermore, the lack of significance for perceived behavioral
control (PBC) suggests that software piracy must be deemed a
purely volitional act with no significant behavioral controls. The
PBC construct attempts to explain actions that are intended but
prevented by negative beliefs about ability. Although software
vendors have introduced product keys and activation procedures
to try and log installations and ensure the same software disk is not
being installed across multiple computers, professional software
pirates have always been one step ahead of the authentication
Fall 2009 Journal of Computer Information Systems
process. For instance, arcades in Hong Kong selling pirated
software include utilities to generate valid product keys and
instructions on how to circumvent the online activation process
(Walls & Harvey, 2006). Pirating software is still very easy to
do.
Practical Implications
The knowledge items suggest that an understanding of the
number of jobs that are lost due to software piracy had a significant
impact on FLC, ATT, and BEHAV. While current campaigns
focus on the legality of the issue and brow-beat individuals
into remembering that illegal copying is theft, none have
highlighted an issue that is of great concern to all business
students: their future careers. If worries over offshoring and
the loss of entry-level positions has impacted on the psyche of
business students, persuading someone not to pirate software
because it may impact on their future job prospects is likely to
be a powerful message.
One area anti-piracy campaigns do seem to be successful in
promoting is a fear of legal consequences (FLC), which plays a
pivotal role between knowledge and attitude. While some sources
suggest the BSA exaggerates the level of piracy in order to justify
draconian legislation (e.g., The Economist 2005), a fear of
consequences clearly had an effect on a person’s attitude towards
software piracy. We do not suggest that further aggressive
legislation is warranted; rather, it would appear the message has
gotten through and further education on the existing laws may be
the most effective next step.
The power of subjective norms to influence behavior may also
be enhanced by forming alliances with prominent, well-respected
figures to advocate the message that software piracy is wrong. For
instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jackie Chan participated
in an anti-piracy ad for the California Commission for Jobs and
Economic Growth. Anti-piracy campaigns using movie stars, pop
singers, or sports stars would acquire the power of the voice of the
advocate. If the perceived likelihood of punishment is not enough
to stop piracy, the wagging finger of a respected other may be
more effective.
Limitations and Further Work
Whenever a survey asks about illegal behavior, such as soft-
ware piracy, there is a possibility that participants will not answer
honestly. Furthermore, we do not determine the communication
channel through which knowledge about software piracy is
acquired. The information could be acquired by reading
newspapers, watching television, listening to the radio, browsing
the web, or by word-of-mouth. The model only assesses whether
knowledge of software piracy, perceived likelihood of punishment,
and fear of legal consequences significantly impact on attitude,
and hence, behavior. It would be useful to know which channel is
most effective, however, to facilitate a more effective anti-piracy
campaign. This would be an area of further work.
While the sample size is large enough to analyze the full
model, it is not large enough to conduct split-sample tests, look-
ing, say, at the effects of age and gender on the relationships
defined by the model. Age is often found to have an impact on
ethical decision-making (Kini et al. 2000; O’Fallon et al. 2005),
although gender is more controversial (Jaffee & Hyde 2000).
With a larger sample, these moderating effects could have
been investigated.
87
 Finally, the key knowledge construct defined here contained
only six items, relating to the social, legal, and economic
consequences of software piracy. Although we believe these
are the most important aspects associated with understanding
the consequences of engaging in software piracy, a larger set of
items could have uncovered more elements of knowledge that
impacted on the construct. Further studies could be conducted
to determine which other aspects have a significant impact on
one’s understanding, and hence, should be communicated in any
campaign against software piracy.
CONCLUSIONS
We proposed that if any anti-software piracy campaign is to
be effective at reducing the levels of piracy, the social, legal,
and economic consequences of stealing software must be clearly
communicated to the target audience, in this case, U.S. business
students. We found that knowledge of software piracy led to an
awareness of the punishments involved and a fear of the legal
consequences. A fear of legal consequences impacts on attitude,
and consequently, on behavior. The ethical nature of software
piracy is confirmed with a significant impact of subjective norms
on behavior. Perceived behavioral control appears not to play a
role, perhaps because the ease of copying software is not an issue
if people believe piracy is wrong.
The dominant piece of knowledge involved an understanding
of the tens of thousands of jobs estimated to be lost every year due
to software piracy. This might explain why many of the current
anti-piracy campaigns that focus on the fact that software piracy
is illegal have failed: people understand the legality of copyrights,
but this does not impact on their behavior. We suggest instead
that campaigns of the software industry refocus their message
on the social consequences, namely, that stealing software might
lead to someone they know losing their job.
REFERENCES
[1] Ajzen, I. “The theory of planned behavior: Some unresolved
issues,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes (50:2), 1991, pp. 179-211.
[2] Armitage, C.J., and Conner, M. “Efficacy of the theory of
planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review,” British Journal
of Social Psychology (40:4), 2001, pp. 471-499.
[3] Beck, L., and Ajzen, I. “Predicting dishonest actions using
the theory of planned behavior,” Journal of Research in
Personality (25:3), 1991, pp. 285-301.
[4] BSA. “Fifth Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy
Study,” Washington, DC: Business Software Alliance, 2008
(available online at http://www.bsa.org/globalstudy/).
[5] Chin, W.W. “Issues and opinion on structural equation
modeling,” MIS Quarterly (22:1), 1998, pp. vii-xvi.
[6] Cronan, T.P., and Al-Rafee, S. “Factors that influence the
intention to pirate software and media,” Journal of Business
Ethics (78:4), 2008, pp. 527-545.
[7] Goles, T., Jayatilaka, B., George, B., Parsons, L., Chambers,
V., Taylor, D. and Brune, R. “Softlifting: Exploring
determinants of attitude,” Journal of Business Ethics (77:4),
2008, pp. 481-499.
88 Journal of Computer Information Systems
[8] Hair, Jr., J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black,
W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings (4th ed.),
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998.
[9] Jaffee, S., and Hyde, J.S. “Gender differences in moral
orientation: A meta-analysis,” Psychological Bulletin
(126:5), 2000, pp. 703-726.
[10] Kim, S.S., and Malhotra, N.K. “Predicting system usage
from intention and past use: Scale issues in the predictors,”
Decision Sciences (36:1), 2005, pp. 187-196.
[11] Kini, R.B., Rominger, A., and Vijayaraman, B.S. “An
empirical study of software piracy and moral intensity among
University students,” Journal of Computer Information
Systems (40:3), 2000, pp. 62-72.
[12] Lee, S.M., Yoon, S.N., and Kim, J. “The role of pluralistic
ignorance in internet abuse,” Journal of Computer
Information Systems (48:3), 2008, pp. 38-43.
[13] Limayem, M., Khalifa, M., and Chin, W.W. “Factors
motivating software piracy: A longitudinal study,” IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management (51:4), 2004, pp.
414-425.
[14] McFarland, L.A., and Ryan, A.M. “Toward an integrated
model of applicant faking behavior,” Journal of Applied
Social Psychology (36:4), 2006, pp. 979-1016.
[15] McMillan, B., and Conner, M. “Applying an extended
version of the theory of planned behavior to illicit drug use
among students,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology
(33:8), 2003, pp. 1662-1683.
[16] Moores, T.T., and Chang, J.C.J. “Ethical decision-making
in software piracy: Initial development and test of a four-
component model,” MIS Quarterly (30:1), 2006, pp. 167-
180.
[17] Moores, T.T., and Dhaliwal, J. “A reversed context analysis
of software piracy issues in Singapore,” Information &
Management (41:8), 2004, pp. 1037-1042.
[18] O’Fallon, M.J., and Butterfield, K.D. “A review of the
empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996-2003,”
Journal of Business Ethics (59:4), 2005, pp. 375-413.
[19] Peace, A.G., Galletta, D.F., and Thong, J.Y.L. “Software
piracy in the workplace: A model and empirical test,”
Journal of Management Information Systems (20:1), 2003,
pp. 153-177.
[20] Ramakrishna, H.V., Kini, R.B., and Vijayaraman, B.S.
“Shaping of moral intensity regarding software piracy in
University students: Immediate community effects,” Journal
of Computer Information Systems (41:4), 2001, pp. 47-51.
[21] The Economist “Software piracy: BSA or just BS?” May 21,
2005, pp. 78.
[22] Walls, W.D. and Harvey, P.J. “Digital pirates in practice:
Analysis of market transactions in Hong Kong’s pirate
software arcades,” International Journal of Management
(23:2), 2006, pp. 207-215.
[23] Walstrom, K.A. “Social and legal impacts on information
ethics decision making,” Journal of Computer Information
Systems (47:2), 2006, pp. 1-7.
[24] Yi, M.Y., and Davis, F.D. “Developing and validating an
observational learning model of computer software training
and skill acquisition,” Information Systems Research (14:2),
2003, pp. 146-169.
Fall 2009
 APPENDIX
SURVEY ITEMS

Items are answered on a 5-point (1-Disagree, 5-Agree) Likert Scale, except KNOW, which is answered True, False, Don’t Know, with one
point awarded for a correct answer, and zero otherwise.

Knowledge of Software Piracy (KNOW)

KN1: More than 100,000 jobs are lost each year due to software piracy (True).
KN2: The country of Vietnam is the largest producer of pirated software products (False, the largest producer of pirated software is the
U.S.).
KN3: Shareware is software that you can download, but must pay for (False, shareware are trial versions that can be disseminated for
free).
KN4: U.S. businesses are losing more than $9.2 billion annually due to pirates (False, the actual sum is around $6.7 billion).
KN5: Most software is protected through copyrights (True).
KN6: Copyrights only protect the source code but not the idea or the feel of the software (True).

Perceived Likelihood of Punishment (PLP)

LP1: It is very unlikely that someone who illegally installed software would be caught and prosecuted.
LP2: It is very difficult for law enforcement authorities to identify users of unauthorized installations of software.
LP3: It is not likely that a buyer of counterfeit software would be caught and prosecuted.
LP4: It is very difficult for law enforcement authorities to identify buyers of counterfeit software.
LP5: I do not think that I would get caught if I bought counterfeit software for my computer.

Fear of Legal Consequences (FLC)

LC1: I do not use unauthorized copies of software, because I am afraid of the legal consequences.
LC2: I would not knowingly install illegal copies of a software product on my home computer, because I fear the potential legal
consequences.
LC3: I do not buy counterfeit software because I am afraid of the legal consequences.
LC4: I would not knowingly buy an unauthorized copies or reproductions of a software product for my home computer, because I fear
the potential legal consequences.

Attitude (ATT)
AT1: I am against the unauthorized installation of software.
AT2: I would support tougher legal penalties for the unauthorized use of software.
AT3: I am against the production of counterfeit software.
AT4: I would support tougher legal penalties for the unauthorized production of software.
AT5: The government should make more of an effort to stop the unauthorized production of software.

Subjective Norm (SN)

SN1: I know many people who use copies of software products that they do not legally own.
SN2: Many of my friends have unauthorized installations of software on their computers.
SN3: Many of my friends have installations of unauthorized copies or reproductions of software on their computers.

Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC)

BC1: It is easy to find someone who will let me make unauthorized copies of her/his software.
BC2: It is easy to find a copy of software I want to install but not pay for.
BC3: It is easy to use illegally copied software even without documentation or support.
BC4: Most unauthorized copies of software are as easy to use as the licensed version.
BC5: It is easy to obtain unauthorized copies or reproductions of software.

Behavior (BEHAV)
BH1: All the software on my computer has been legally installed.
BH2: I do not have any illegal copies of software.
BH3: I do not have any unauthorized copies or reproductions of a software product on my computer.
BH4: I do not own any unauthorized copies or reproductions of software.

Fall 2009 Journal of Computer Information Systems 89