1 PERCEPTION OF PIRACY AND COPYRIGHT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN VIETNAM By TRAN VO CHI HIEU An Independent Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Business Administration Faculty of Business Administration Asia-Pacific International University Year 2015
2 Independent Study Title: Perception of Piracy and Copyright of Intellectual Property in Vietnam Author: TRAN VO CHI HIEU Thesis Principle Supervisor: Dr. Pak Thong Lee Program: Master of Business Administration Academic Year: 2015 ABSTRACT Intellectual property has a more and more important role in the development of modern society. Protecting intellectual property rights is the key to encourage creations and inventions that are beneficial for society. Computer software which is a kind of intellectual property and also an important part of information technology is severely affected by piracy. Limiting software piracy is not only a technical problem from developers’ point of view, but more crucially perception of copyright and piracy from users. In Vietnam, software piracy has become a serious problem because of the extremely high piracy rate. The main purposes of this study are to understand current Vietnamese users’ perceptions of software piracy and copyright and also investigate the relationships between users’ perceptions and demographic, moral, behavioral factors, software pricing perceptions and risk perceptions. The results reflected that most Vietnamese users are aware of software piracy and copyright. They also viewed that the price of copyright software were high and they would be willing to buy licensed software if they have reasonable price. The study also showed that there are
3 significant relationships between user’s perceptions and demographic, moral, behavioral factors, software pricing perceptions and risk perceptions.
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First of all, I would like to thank Dr. Pak Lee, my advisor, for his kind guidance and for the time that he spent to review and edit my independent study. He always supported me and encouraged me to complete my study in the best way that I could do. I have learned a lot from his knowledge via this study. It was enjoyable and pleasant to work with him. I am sincerely grateful to him for all his help to complete my independent study. Secondly, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Ronny Kountur who instructed very first steps for the proposal of this study. He gave me some ideas that helped me have a well-prepared foundation for my study. I also want to thank Mr. Damrong, Dean of Faculty of Business Administration, who prepared the best conditions for MBA students like me to complete the study. Thirdly, I deeply appreciate my family. To Mom and Dad, because of your constant loves, supports and encouragements, I have more confidence and motivation to study well. I also would like to thank my brother who helped me a lot in distributing questionnaires in Vietnam. With his hard work, I could collect huge data in very short time. To my friends who helped me answer and share my online survey, I really appreciate your ready helps when I need you most. I am very happy and proud that I have good friends like you. The last words, I would like to give special thanks to my lovely wife. She always stands by me to love me, support me, encourage me, and even push me up when I fell into stagnation. Without her, I couldn’t be at APIU and had no chance to
5 complete MBA study either. To my beautiful daughter, you are my angel help me alleviate tiredness. You and your mom are my inspiration and happiness in my life. Thank you both of you for always being by my side, love you by all my heart. Tran Vo Chi Hieu
6 Table of Contents ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................. 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1............................................................................................................ 11 1.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 11 1.2 The purpose of the study ............................................................................... 12 1.3 Background information................................................................................ 13 CHAPTER 2............................................................................................................ 16 2.1 Concepts and related theories ........................................................................ 16 2.2 Research Model............................................................................................. 22 2.3 Research Hypotheses..................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER 3............................................................................................................ 25 3.1 Variables....................................................................................................... 25 3.2 Data collection method.................................................................................. 25 3.3 Research instrument ...................................................................................... 26 3.4 Data analysis................................................................................................. 26 CHAPTER 4............................................................................................................ 28 4.1 General information ...................................................................................... 28 4.2 Hypothesized Findings.................................................................................. 60 CHAPTER 5............................................................................................................ 68 5.1 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 68 5.2 Recommendation........................................................................................... 71 5.3 Limitation ..................................................................................................... 73 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................... 74 APPENDICES......................................................................................................... 76
7 LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1: Number of respondents and percentage of Gender................................... 28 Table 4.2: Number of respondents and percentage of Marital Status ........................ 29 Table 4.3: Number of respondents and percentage of Age........................................ 29 Table 4.4: Number of respondents and percentage of Education .............................. 30 Table 4.5: Number of respondents and percentage of Occupation ............................ 31 Table 4.6: Number of respondents and percentage of Income .................................. 32 Table 4.7: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 1............................ 33 Table 4.8: Number of respondents of Statement 2.................................................... 34 Table 4.9: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 3............................ 35 Table 4.10: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 4.......................... 36 Table 4.11: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 5.......................... 37 Table 4.12: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 6.......................... 38 Table 4.13: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 7.......................... 39 Table 4.14: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 8.......................... 40 Table 4.15: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 9.......................... 41 Table 4.16: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 10........................ 43 Table 4.17: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 11........................ 44 Table 4.18: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 12........................ 45 Table 4.19: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 13........................ 46 Table 4.20: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 14........................ 47 Table 4.21: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 15........................ 48 Table 4.22: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 16........................ 49 Table 4.23: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 17........................ 50
8 Table 4.24: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 18........................ 51 Table 4.25: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 19........................ 52 Table 4.26: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 20........................ 53 Table 4.27: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 21........................ 54 Table 4.28: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 22........................ 55 Table 4.29: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 23........................ 56 Table 4.30: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 24........................ 57 Table 4.31: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 25........................ 58 Table 4.32: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 27........................ 59 Table 4.33: Reliability statistic................................................................................. 60 Table 4.34: Case processing summary ..................................................................... 60 Table 4.35: t-test result comparing Males and Females on Perception...................... 61 Table 4.36: t-test result comparing Marital Statuses on Perception........................... 61 Table 4.37 ANOVA result between Age and Perception .......................................... 62 Table 4.38: ANOVA result between Education and Perception................................ 63 Table 4.39: ANOVA result between Occupation and Perception.............................. 63 Table 4.40: ANOVA result between Income and Perception.................................... 64 Table 4.41: Correlation analysis between moral and behavior factors, pricing perception, perceived risks and perception of copyright and piracy .......................... 65 Table 4.42: Interpreting correlation value ................................................................ 67
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1: Percentage of Gender............................................................................. 28 Figure 4.2: Percentage of Marital Status .................................................................. 29 Figure 4.3: Percentage of Age.................................................................................. 30 Figure 4.4: Percentage of Education......................................................................... 31 Figure 4.5: Percentage of Occupation ...................................................................... 32 Figure 4.6: Percentage of Income............................................................................. 33 Figure 4.7: Number of respondents of Statement 1................................................... 34 Figure 4.8: Number of respondents of Statement 2................................................... 35 Figure 4.9: Number of respondents of Statement 3................................................... 36 Figure 4.10: Number of respondents of Statement 4................................................. 37 Figure 4.11: Number of respondents of Statement 5................................................. 38 Figure 4.12: Number of respondents of Statement 6................................................. 39 Figure 4.13: Number of respondents of Statement 7................................................. 40 Figure 4.14: Number of respondents of Statement 8................................................. 41 Figure 4.15: Number of respondents Statement 9..................................................... 42 Figure 4.16: Number of respondents of Statement 10............................................... 43 Figure 4.17: Number of respondents of Statement 11............................................... 44 Figure 4.18: Number of respondents of Statement 12............................................... 45 Figure 4.19: Number of respondents of Statement 13............................................... 46 Figure 4.20: Number of respondents of Statement 14............................................... 47 Figure 4.21: Number of respondents of Statement 15............................................... 48 Figure 4.22: Number of respondents of Statement 16............................................... 49 Figure 4.23: Number of respondents of Statement 17............................................... 50
10 Figure 4.24: Number of respondents of Statement 18............................................... 51 Figure 4.25: Number of respondents of Statement 19............................................... 52 Figure 4.26: Number of respondents of Statement 20............................................... 53 Figure 4.27: Number of respondents of Statement 21............................................... 54 Figure 4.28: Number of respondents of Statement 22............................................... 55 Figure 4.29: Number of respondents of Statement 23............................................... 56 Figure 4.30: Number of respondents of Statement 24............................................... 57 Figure 4.31: Number of respondents of Statement 25............................................... 58 Figure 4.32: Number of respondents of Statement 26............................................... 59
11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction Intellectual property is invisible but very important for social development. It is the acknowledgement and respect of society granted to inventors for their ideas and discoveries. However, it is often underestimated or ignored by many people when compared with physical property. Hence, violation and piracy often happen to intellectual properties, especially patent, license, and copyright of software, although they are protected by local and international laws in the world. Therefore, protecting intellectual property and its benefits and rights is always the top concern of any inventors and developers. Vietnam is one of the countries which have an extremely high software piracy rate. The rate was 81 percent, and the value of personal computer (PC) software theft in Vietnam totaled 395 million USD in 2011 (Business Software Alliance, 2012). Although the rate was decreasing (83 percent in 2010 and 85 percent in 2009), it was still very high compared with the average rate of Asia-Pacific region of 60 percent and worldwide of 42 percent (Business Software Alliance, 2012). Why is software piracy so common in Vietnam and what are the factors which influence that? The high rate in Vietnam may be due to the low awareness of people about copyright and the price of software are still so high compared with average income of Vietnamese people. This research tries to find out Vietnamese users’ perceptions of copyright and piracy of intellectual properties in information technology (IT) area as
12 well as the relationship between software user perceptions and demographic, moral, price perceptions, risk perceptions and behavioral factors. 1.2 The purpose of the study In the contemporary society, information technology (IT) has an essential role to play in the development of society. Most of industries apply IT as a power tool to improve their effectiveness of operation and productivity. And software is an important part of IT along with hardware. It is used to build reliable and optimal solutions for production and business. According to Business Software Alliance (BSA) (2008), the value of worldwide PC software market was $88 billion in 2008, representing 30% of the total packaged-software market, which was $297 billion. However, in the newest report of BSA about software piracy (2012), the commercial value of this shadow market of pirated software climbed from $58.8 billion in 2010 to $63.4 billion in 2011 with the global piracy rate at 42 percent. In Vietnam, IT has had strongly development steps recently. According to Business Monitor International (2012), software sales in Vietnam increased 22 percent, from 187 million USD in 2011 to 222 million USD in 2012. Nevertheless, the value of software sales was very small compared with values of hardware sales, 1.6 billion USD in 2011 and 1.8 billion USD in 2012. The fact shows that the very high software piracy rate in Vietnam contributed strongly to the huge gap between software sales and hardware sales. It is one of the biggest disadvantages that limit the pace of IT development in Vietnam. Moreover, according to the newest research of BSA and INSEAD, one of the top business universities on the world, about the impact
13 of properly licensed software to economies (2013), every 1 percent of increment of licensed software usage, Vietnamese economy will increase 50 million USD. Continuous improvement to make software more secured is necessary in the context that software cracking is more and more sophisticated. However, that is not the full or optimal solution. More crucially, user is the key that decides software piracy rate high or low. Users with low awareness about copyright and piracy may think intangible assets such as intellectual properties somewhat less important or less valuable than real properties. Besides that, pirating intellectual properties seems to be easier and hard to be detected compared with real properties. Therefore, improving users’ perception on copyright and piracy can decrease significantly software piracy rate. And so, to build an appropriate solution and policy for improving users’ perception, it is necessary to figure out what are main factors affecting it. The purpose of this study is to find out Vietnamese users’ perceptions of copyright and piracy of intellectual properties. It attempts to establish the relationship between software users’ perceptions and the demographic, moral factors, behavior factors, software pricing perceptions and risk perceptions. The findings may be used to help find ways to reduce the high rate of software piracy in Vietnam. 1.3 Background information Nowadays, assets are often grouped into two main categories, tangible and intangible assets which belong to a person or a group of people. They become commercial commodities when they are traded or trafficked among people or organizations. The value of tangible assets is often specified easily at a certain time.
14 In general, protecting tangible assets which are real and touchable is easier than intangible assets which are invisible. Software as well as other intellectual properties are intangible assets and also a kind of commercial commodity. Developers are sellers and users are customers. Hence, it has all the features of common commodity. It can be also traded, sold, and distributed. However, compared with other common commodities, software and intellectual properties in general have a specific feature that allows making perfect clones from an origin or from another copy. And somehow, software piracy is easier and much cheaper to implement and also harder to discover than common commodities. Besides, the framework of law in many countries and its penalties somewhat are not strict and clear enough to judge software piracy. Moreover, software is often distributed via license and copyright. And therefore, its real value is hard to calculate in a certain number. Because of the potential value and easily making copies, software piracy becomes popular in the world, especially developing countries. Users who directly use software have a choice between licensed software and pirated software. So the success of limiting software piracy depends much on the perception of users about copyrights and piracy. The aim of this study is to find the answers to the following questions: What are the current users’ perceptions of software piracy and copyright in Vietnam? What is the relationship between software user perceptions and demographic factors (gender, age, education level, occupation, and
15 income level), moral factor, price perceptions, risk perceptions and behavioral factors?
16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Concepts and related theories The development of modern society is more and more dependent on the pace of the emergence of new invention. The competition among countries as well as corporations is now based on how fast they can generate new and beneficial inventions. So, inventions have become sharp weapons and also big advantages for organizations or individuals to fend off its competitors. Therefore, protecting the rights and benefits for those inventions become an essential task for any inventors. And from that, the term “intellectual property” has emerged. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (2004), “intellectual property, very broadly, means the legal rights which result from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary and artistic fields”. Intellectual property includes three major branches to apply to different types of subject matter; they are copyright, patent and trademark (Yeh, 2012). Because of the important role of intellectual property to social development, countries have laws to protect intellectual property for two main reasons. The first one is to protect the moral and economic rights of creators in their creations and the rights of the public in access to those creations, and the second is to promote the creativity and application of its results and to encourage fair trading which would contribute to economic and social development (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2004). However, intellectual property’ rights varied widely around the world; and due to intellectual property became more important in trade, these differences became a source of tension in
17 international economic relations (WTO, 2013). And therefore, how to globally interlink national and regional intellectual property systems has become a big challenge (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2004). Piracy is a crime having ancient origins. It is considered as robberies from ships of pirates. In the late twentieth century, the term piracy grew and expanded to include copyright violations of intellectual property such as music, films, and computer software (The Free Dictionary, 2013). Within kinds of intellectual property, software was the first copyrighted product that was duplicated on a large scale (Swinyard, Rinne, & Kau, 1990). Business Software Alliance (BSA) (2013) defines software piracy in the following way: Software piracy is the unauthorized copying or distribution of copyrighted software, including downloading, sharing, selling, or installing multiple copies of licensed software. Software piracy also includes license infringement – installing a piece of software more times than the license permits – as well as sharing software license codes, uploading software codes to websites so others can download and use it, sharing software license codes or activation keys, as well as user IDs and passwords for webbased software applications. Software piracy has become a global concern due to its wide popularity and very high commercial value on worldwide. According to the newest report of BSA about global software piracy in 2012, the global piracy rate for PC software hovers at 42 percent. And “the commercial value of this shadow market of pirated software climbed from $58.8 billion in 2010 to $63.4 billion in 2011, a new record, propelled by PC shipments to emerging economies where piracy rates are highest” (Business
18 Software Alliance, 2012, p. 1). The report also revealed that 57 percent of personal computer users on the world admitted they pirated software. That includes 31 percent who said they did it “all of the time,” “most of the time,” or “occasionally,” plus another 26 percent who admitted they pirated, but only “rarely” (Business Software Alliance, 2012). Software piracy rate varies from region to region as well from country to country. According to BSA (2012), regions which have the lowest software piracy rate are North America with 19 percent and Western Europe with 32 percent. Most of countries in these two regions are developed countries. In contrast, regions which have the highest software piracy rate include developing countries. Those regions are Asia Pacific, Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe with 60, 61 and 62 percent respectively. In the Asia Pacific region, Vietnam with the rate 81 percent is one of countries having the highest software piracy rate on the world. From the figures above, it is easy to recognize that software piracy rate in developing countries is higher than developed countries. To limit or reduce software piracy rate, technical methods alone are not sufficient. According to Deloitte (2010), existing license verification mechanisms are not effective enough to limit software piracy in the context of high incentives for piracy. However, making license verification mechanisms stricter and more complicated may lead to unexpected consequences. The complexity of licensing mechanisms is considered as the biggest source of consumer dissatisfaction (Deloitte, 2010). Limayem, Khalifa, & Chin (2004) stated that software can be conceptualized as behaviors of users. Because of significant effect of perceptions on behaviors, perceptions of software users have an important role that strongly effect on software
19 piracy rate. So, understanding major factors affecting users’ perceptions are the key to reduce and limit software piracy. Human perceptions are often varied according to genders, age ranges, education and other demographic factors. Gopal and Sanders (1997) found that female pirate less than male and older people pirate less than younger. The newest research of BSA (2012) also agrees with the statement above. Most of users who said they pirated software are disproportionately young and male. That means there are different perceptions of software piracy in terms of genders and age ranges. Besides that, Crotty (2012) believes that education is the best weapon against piracy. Therefore, people with lower education level may tend to pirate software more often than people with higher education level. According to BSA (2012), emerging economies have been the driving force behind software piracy in recent years. Frequent pirates in emerging economies install nearly four times as many programs of all sorts per new PC as do frequent pirates in mature markets (Business Software Alliance, 2012). The research of Deloitte (2010) showed that GDP per capita has a strong correlation with software piracy rate. When software is priced at parity with software sold in developed economies, countries with low per capita incomes are likely to show higher piracy rates (Deloitte, 2010). And therefore, affordability is one of main reasons for high piracy rates in emerging markets. When the price of software are considered to be too high compared with income of users they will tend to pirate software. That also explains why users with lower income have a higher tendency to pirate software than users with higher income.
20 Apart from demographic factors, moral factors also affect user perception of software piracy and copyright. Software piracy is considered as a legal and moral violation that can makes user feel guilty. According to Cronan and Al Rafee (2008), moral obligation plays an important role that effects of the users’ intentions, and the feelings of guilt prevent users from contributing to pirated software. So, perceiving software piracy as a normal behavior or a violation depends on how strong feeling of guilt is. Moreover, the current perception of users also is affected by their previous behaviors. Tan (2002) suggested that users’ previous behaviors related significantly to software piracy. With the same idea, a research about student of Cronan and Al-Rafee (2008) showed that if students had used a pirated product in the past, their intention to pirate in the future increased. And therefore, the feeling of guilt will be reduced after each time of piracy until users do not feel guilty anymore. Software is a kind of commercial commodity when it is traded and sold. Software vendors can apply many payment methods to distribute their products. However, the conflict of payment methods and customer payment preferences may become a constraint for customers to approach products. According to Hough, Riddle, Allen, and Fox (2009), consumer payment preferences are shifting from paper and cash to electronics. So internet with online payment by credit card is the main channel that most of software vendors use to distribute their software. However, in some developing countries such as Vietnam, the pace of shifting from traditional payment to electronic payment is very slow, especially credit card – a requirement for shopping software online. According to the report of Nielsen (2010), awareness of credit card has increased significantly from 2006 to 2010, however, just on 1 percent
21 of bank users own credit card. Moreover, online shopping is available in Vietnam, but Vietnamese consumers’ trust in it is very tenuous (Ho & Chen, 2013). So there is a big gap between electronic payment method and payment preferences of Vietnamese people. It prevents Vietnamese users to approach licensed software, and therefore it may become a significant contribution to high software piracy rate in Vietnam. Like other commercial commodities, price of software is an important factor that influences decision making of users to software. That is why very low cost plays a critical role in the appeal of pirated software. According to Lau (2006), the key reason that user chose pirated software was the price of original software. In another study about software piracy in Hong Kong, Moores and Dhillion (2000) found that the lower price of legitimate software might reduce software piracy rate. Because of the big difference about price of pirated software and original software while their features are usually almost the same, pirated software catch much more attention of users comparing with original ones. Another factor that may affect users’ perception of piracy and copyright is how they perceive risks. Because pirated software is not official or original, it often goes along with hidden risks. According to Ang, Cheng, Lim and Tambyah (2001), there are six aspects of risk, and three of them including performance, financial and social risk are applicable and appropriate for the context of software piracy. Because of being interfered by crackers, pirated software may malfunction and even damage computer system or data. Moreover, hackers may hide dangerous virus in pirated software to damage system and steal personal data. Those damages from pirated software may lead to financial risk that users have to pay time or money to recover system and data. Besides that, user may also lose money because their personal data
22 such as bank accounts, email addresses, and personal passwords are stolen by hackers. For the social risk, using pirated software is considered as a bad behavior, and that may affect the image or fame of users or organizations. That last risk users have to face is prosecution risk because original software often have copyright that is protected by law. The extremely high software piracy rate in Vietnam needs to be decreased. Perception of software piracy may be one of the keys to solve that problem. And based on the above reviews, there are relationships between perception of software piracy and demographic factors, moral obligation, behaviors and pricing perceptions, and risk perceptions. It is necessary to test and confirm those relationships for the case of Vietnam, and so that appropriate methods will come up to increase the Vietnamese users’ perceptions of software piracy. 2.2 Research Model Software user perception of copyright and piracy Demographic factors • Gender • Age • Marital Status • Education level • Occupation • Income level Moral factors • Moral obligation • Effects of Social consensus Behavioral factors • Previous behaviors • Payment references Pricing Perceptions • Reasonability of price • Affordability of users Perceived Risks • Performance risk • Financial risk • Prosecution risk • Social risk
23 2.3 Research Hypotheses 2.3.1 Hypothesis 1: There is a significant relationship between demographic factors and users’ perception of copyright and piracy. H1.1: There is a significant relationship between gender and users’ perception of copyright and piracy. H1.2: There is a significant relationship between marital status and users’ perception of copyright and piracy. H1.3: There is a significant relationship between age and users’ perception of copyright and piracy. H1.4: There is a significant relationship between education level and users’ perception of copyright and piracy. H1.5: There is a significant relationship between occupation and users’ perception of copyright and piracy. H1.6: There is a significant relationship between income and users’ perception of copyright and piracy. 2.3.2 Hypothesis 2: There is a significant relationship between moral factors and users’ perception of copyright and piracy. 2.3.3 Hypothesis 3: There is a significant relationship between behaviors and user perception of copyright and piracy.
24 2.3.4 Hypothesis 4: There is a significant relationship between pricing perceptions and user perception of copyright and piracy. 2.3.5 Hypothesis 5: There is a significant relationship perceived risks and software user perception of copyright and piracy.
25 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Variables 3.1.1 Independent variables: Demographic factors: gender, marital status, age, education level, occupation, income level Moral factors: moral obligation and effects of social consensus Behavior factors: previous behaviors and payment references Pricing perceptions: reasonability of price and affordability of users. Perceived risks: performance risk, financial risk, prosecution risk and social risk. 3.1.2 Dependent variables: user perception of software piracy and copyright 3.2 Data collection method 3.2.1 Population and sampling design: The objects of this study are all software users in Vietnam. When conducting this research, the researcher had limited time and budget to access whole population of the research. Consequently, for accomplishing the research, the researcher selected the sample for representing whole population. The size of sample is 512 people who are mostly located in Ho Chi Minh City. 3.2.2 Data collection:
26 A survey instrument was used to collect data for this research. This survey was distributed electronically and manually to potential respondents. Google Form was used to make online questionnaire. A link to the online questionnaire was distributed to software users in Vietnam via Vietnamese technological forums CADVIET, and social networks such as Facebook. Along with online questionnaire, hard copy questionnaires were printed and distributed to software users. Responses were input manually into online questionnaire. 3.3 Research instrument In this study, questionnaire is the main instrument for data collection. The questionnaire is divided into three parts: Background information collecting information for demographic factors User perception of software piracy and copyright in general Factors affecting perception of software piracy including moral factors, behavior factors, pricing perceptions and perceived risks. Answers to these surveys were converted into numbers to analyze. The information helped to decide whether we should accept or reject the hypotheses stated in the beginning of the study. 3.4 Data analysis Data were put in the PSPP program, a free alternative of SPSS program. Statistical tools for data analysis that were used for this study are:
27 Descriptive Statistics: are used to describe the basic features of customers of Vietnamese users in this study. T-test: assesses whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other. Pearson’s Correlation: is a technique for examining the relationship between two variables and also the strength of the relationships. ANOVA analysis: is a statistical technique used to test a hypothesis concerning the means of three or more groups.
28 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 4.1 General information Part 1: Background information Table 4.1: Number of respondents and percentage of Gender Number of respondents Percent Male 286 55.9 Female 226 44.1 Total 512 100.0 Figure 4.1: Percentage of Gender From this table, there were 286 males (55.9 percent) and 226 females (41.1 percent) participated in the survey. 55.9% 44.1% Gender Male Female
29 Table 4.2: Number of respondents and percentage of Marital Status Number of respondent Percent Single 409 79.9 Married 103 20.1 Total 512 100.0 Figure 4.2: Percentage of Marital Status According to table 4.2, there are 409 participants (20.1 percent) who are single and 103 participants (79.9 percent) who are married. Table 4.3: Number of respondents and percentage of Age Number of respondent Percent Less than 15 1 .2 15 - 19 38 7.4 20 - 29 366 71.5 30 - 39 88 17.2 40 - 49 11 2.1 More than 50 8 1.6 Total 512 100.0 79.9% 20.1% Marital Status Single Married
30 Figure 4.3: Percentage of Age In this table, participants in the age group of 20 to 29 occupied the biggest percentage – 71.5 percent, the second biggest percentage belonged to the age group of 30 to 39 – 17. 2 percent, and the percentage of age group of less than 15, 40 to 49 and greater than 50 are 0.2 percent, 7.4 percent, 2.1 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively. Table 4.4: Number of respondents and percentage of Education Number of respondent Percent Less than High School 2 .4 High School 26 5.1 Bachelor Degree or Diploma 449 87.7 Master Degree or Doctorate Degree 35 6.8 Total 512 100.0 0.2% 7.4% 71.5% 17.2% 2.1% 1.6% Age Less than 15 15 - 19 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 More than 50
31 Figure 4.4: Percentage of Education Table 4.4 shows that the majority of participants (87.7 percent) have education of bachelor or Diploma. The second majority of participants (6.8 percent) have education of Master Degree or Doctorate. The number of participants in education group of High School is 5.1 percent less than the education group of Master Degree or Doctorate. Only 2 participants (0.4 percent) have education less than High School. It shows that most of participants are well educated. Table 4.5: Number of respondents and percentage of Occupation Number of respondent Percent Student 318 62.1 Company's employee 158 30.9 Self-employed 30 5.9 Others 6 1.2 Total 512 100.0 0.4% 5.1% 87.7% 6.8% Education Less than High School High School Bachelor Degree or Diploma Master Degree or Doctorate Degree
32 Figure 4.5: Percentage of Occupation Table 4.5 shows that the majority of the participants (62.1 percent) are students. The second majority of participants (30.9 percent) are company’s employees. Self-employed participants occupy 5.9 percent. ‘Other’ group, which has included mostly retired people from different occupations, only takes 1.2 percent. Table 4.6: Number of respondents and percentage of Income Number of respondent Percent Less than 5,000,000 VND 343 67.0 5,000,000 - 10,000,000 VND 86 16.8 10,000,000 - 15,000,000 VND 33 6.4 More than 25,000,000 VND 50 9.8 Total 512 100.0 62.1% 30.9% 5.9% 1.2% Occupation Student Company's employee Self-employed Others
33 Figure 4.6: Percentage of Income This table shows that the majority of the participants (67.0 percent) have income less than 5 million VND. The second majority income group (16.8 percent) is 5 million to 10 million. The income group ‘more than 25 million VND’ has greater percentage (9.8 percent) than the income group 10 million to 15 million VND. Part 2: User perception of software piracy and copyrights Statement 1: Copyright protects the legal rights and benefits of developers. Table 4.7: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 1 Number of respondents Percent Strongly disagree 18 3.5 Disagree 9 1.8 Average 69 13.5 Agree 145 28.3 Strongly agree 271 52.9 Total 512 100.0 67.0% 16.8% 6.4% 9.8% Income Less than 5,000,000 VND 5,000,000 - 10,000,000 VND 10,000,000 - 15,000,000 VND More than 25,000,000 VND
34 Figure 4.7: Number of respondents of Statement 1 According to the results in Figure 4.7, it shows that most of participants (81.3 percent) agreed and strongly agreed that copyright protects the legal rights and benefits of developers, only 3.5 percent strongly disagreed and 1.8 percent disagreed. The rest of participants (13.5 percent) had no idea for the statement. Statement 2: Software piracy is a violation of copyright. Table 4.8: Number of respondents of Statement 2 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 23 4.5 Disagree 18 3.5 Average 51 10.0 Agree 135 26.4 Strongly agree 285 55.7 Total 512 100.0 18 9 69 145 271 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
35 Figure 4.8: Number of respondents of Statement 2 The results from Figure 4.8 indicates that the number of participants who agreed and strongly agreed that software piracy is a violation of copyright occupy the biggest proportion with 82.0 percent. 8 percent of participants disagreed and strongly disagreed with the statement. The rest 10 percent were participants undecided. Statement 3: Using or sharing pirated software is software piracy. Table 4.9: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 3 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 19 3.7 Disagree 29 5.7 Average 119 23.2 Agree 145 28.3 Strongly agree 200 39.1 Total 512 100.0 23 18 51 135 285 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
36 Figure 4.9: Number of respondents of Statement 3 The outcomes from Figure 4.9 reflects that over half (67.4 percent) of participants agreed and strongly agreed that using or sharing pirated software is software piracy while 9.4 percent disagreed and strongly disagreed. The number of participants who are in neutral attitude occupy high proportion with 23.2 percent. Statement 4: Software piracy has bad effects on the development of information technology. Table 4.10: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 4 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 20 3.9 Disagree 43 8.4 Average 125 24.4 Agree 137 26.8 Strongly agree 187 36.5 Total 512 100.0 19 29 119 145 200 0 50 100 150 200 250 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
37 Figure 4.10: Number of respondents of Statement 4 From Figure 4.10, 36.5 percent of participants strongly agreed that software piracy has bad effects on the development of information technology, 26.8 percent agreed, 8.4 percent disagreed and only 3.9 percent strongly disagreed. However, the number of participants had no idea is also high. It takes 24.4 percent of participants. Statement 5: Software piracy is harmful to no one. Table 4.11: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 5 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 185 36.1 Disagree 161 31.4 Average 100 19.5 Agree 44 8.6 Strongly agree 22 4.3 Total 512 100.0 20 43 125 137 187 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
38 Figure 4.11: Number of respondents of Statement 5 From the result figure, the percentages of five answers decrease gradually. Most of participants strongly disagreed and disagreed that software piracy is harmful to no one, 36.1 percent and 31.4 percent respectively. 19.5 percent of participants were in neutral state. Only 8.6 percent and 4.3 percent of participants agreed and strongly agreed respectively. Statement 6: Software piracy is acceptable. Table 4.12: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 6 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 124 24.2 Disagree 136 26.6 Average 156 30.5 Agree 71 13.9 Strongly agree 25 4.9 Total 512 100.0 185 161 100 44 22 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
39 Figure 4.12: Number of respondents of Statement 6 For statement 6, the biggest proportion with 30.5 percent belongs to participant group that couldn’t make decision between agreement side and disagreement side. The number of participants who disagreed and strongly disagreed that software piracy is acceptable (26.6 percent and 24.2 percent, respective) is higher than the number of who agreed and strongly agreed with 13.9 percent and 4.9 percent respectively. Statement 7: Users can get full supports from developers with licensed software. Table 4.13: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 7 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 12 2.3 Disagree 12 2.3 Average 73 14.3 Agree 135 26.4 Strongly agree 280 54.7 Total 512 100.0 124 136 156 71 25 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
40 Figure 4.13: Number of respondents of Statement 7 Figure 4.13 appears that the number of participants who strongly disagreed and disagreed that users can get full supports from developers with licensed software is very low with 2.3 percent for each. 14.3 percent of participants is in neutral state. The proportion of ‘strongly agree’ group is the highest with 54.7 percent and about double time ‘agree’ group with 26.4 percent. Statement 8: I use pirated software when it is necessary. Table 4.14: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 8 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 25 4.9 Disagree 50 9.8 Average 153 29.9 Agree 151 29.5 Strongly agree 133 26.0 Total 512 100.0 12 12 73 135 280 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
41 Figure 4.14: Number of respondents of Statement 8 For this statement, most of participants strongly agreed and agreed with 26 percent and 29.5 percent. While the proportions of participants who disagreed and strongly disagreed are lower with 9.8 percent and 4.9 percent respectively. However, ‘average’ participants who cannot answer clearly between disagreement and agreement occupy the biggest percentage with 29.9 percent. Statement 9: I’m willing to pay money for licensed software. Table 4.15: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 9 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 20 3.9 Disagree 48 9.4 Average 166 32.4 Agree 153 29.9 Strongly agree 125 24.4 Total 512 100.0 25 50 153 151 133 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
42 Figure 4.15: Number of respondents Statement 9 The result shows that the ‘average’ group of participants occupies the highest proportion with 32.4 percent. The percentages for ‘agree’ group and ‘strongly agree’ group are 29.9 percent and 24.4 percent. If sum up 2 group ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’, the agreement side occupies over half of total with 54.3 percent. The rest 2 groups ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’ occupy lower percentages with 3.9 percent and 9.4 percent respectively. Part 3: Factor affecting perception of software piracy Moral factors Statement 10: Software piracy is not a serious problem because it’s popular now. 20 48 166 153 125 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
43 Table 4.16: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 10 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 44 15.4 Disagree 108 25.4 Average 151 29.5 Agree 130 21.1 Strongly agree 79 8.6 Total 512 100.0 Figure 4.16: Number of respondents of Statement 10 The aim of this statement is to test whether software users are impacted by crowd effect. The statistic result shows that major of participants were in disagreement side (25.4 percent for ‘disagree’ and 15.4 percent for ‘strongly disagree’). The number of participants in the agreement side is slightly smaller with 8.6 percent and 21.1 percent for ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ respectively. One third of participants (29.5 percent) had no idea about this statement. 79 130 151 108 44 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
44 Statement 11: Crackers have to be responsible with software piracy. Table 4.17: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 11 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 16 3.1 Disagree 59 11.5 Average 160 31.3 Agree 159 31.1 Strongly agree 118 23.0 Total 512 100.0 Figure 4.17: Number of respondents of Statement 11 The result from Figure 4.17 displays that 31.3 percent of participants agreed and 23 percent strongly agree that crackers are responsible for software piracy. Only 3.1 percent strongly disagreed and 11.5 percent disagreed with this statement. About one third (31.3 percent) could not make decision. 16 59 160 159 118 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
45 Statement 12: Users have to be responsible with software piracy. Table 4.18: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 12 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 51 10.0 Disagree 92 18.0 Average 178 34.8 Agree 113 22.1 Strongly agree 78 15.2 Total 512 100.0 Figure 4.18: Number of respondents of Statement 12 The result shows that 22.1 percent of participants agreed and 15.2 percent strongly agree that users are responsible for software piracy. While 10 percent strongly disagreed and 18 percent disagreed with this statement. The rest participants who were in neutral state occupy the highest proportion with 34.8 percent. 51 92 178 113 78 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
46 Statement 13: I feel guilty when using pirated software. Table 4.19: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 13 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 50 9.8 Disagree 92 18.0 Average 218 42.6 Agree 88 17.2 Strongly agree 64 12.5 Total 512 100.0 Figure 4.19: Number of respondents of Statement 13 The result shows that most of participants (42.6 percent) seemed to be careful, they could not give an exact answer about their guilty feelings. Number of participants in agreement side (‘agree’ 17.2 percent and ‘strongly agree’ 12.5 percent) is slightly higher than disagreement side (‘disagree’ 18 percent and ‘strongly disagree’ 9.8 percent). 50 92 218 88 64 0 50 100 150 200 250 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
47 Payment behaviors and previous behaviors Statement 14: I prefer cash payment for buying software. Table 4.20: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 14 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 46 9.0 Disagree 71 13.9 Average 194 37.9 Agree 112 21.9 Strongly agree 89 17.4 Total 512 100.0 Figure 4.20: Number of respondents of Statement 14 The aim of this statement is try to specify if cash payment for buying software is the preference of users. However, most of participants (37.9 percent) picked ‘average’ answer that means they seem to be unable to confirm their preferences or not to care what mean they prefer to use for buying software. The 46 71 194 112 89
48 results also shows that the number of participants who agreed (21.9 percent) and strongly agreed (17.4 percent) is higher than disagreement group (13.9 percent for ‘disagree’ and 9 percent for ‘strongly disagree’. Statement 15: I’m familiar with e-payment. Table 4.21: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 15 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 63 12.3 Disagree 95 18.6 Average 181 35.4 Agree 99 19.3 Strongly agree 74 14.5 Total 512 100.0 Figure 4.21: Number of respondents of Statement 15 The result from Figure 4.21 indicates that most of participants picked ‘average’ answer for this statement; that means they were struggling to give a clear answer between agreement and disagreement or they didn’t care or didn’t know about 63 95 181 99 74 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
49 e-payment. According to the results, proportion of participants who agreed (19.3 percent) and strongly agreed (14.5 percent) is slightly higher than who disagreed (18.6 percent) and strongly disagreed (12.3 percent). Statement 16: I go to stores for software. Table 4.22: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 16 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 73 14.3 Disagree 71 13.9 Average 165 32.2 Agree 139 27.1 Strongly agree 64 12.5 Total 512 100.0 Figure 4.22: Number of respondents of Statement 16 73 71 165 139 64 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree
50 According to the result, the proportion of agreement group occupies 39.6 percent (27.1 percent for ‘agree’ and 12.5 percent for ‘strongly agree’). It’s higher than the proportion of disagreement group with 28.2 percent in total (13.9 percent for ‘disagree’ and 14.3 percent for ‘strongly disagree’). The number of participants who were in neutral state occupy 32.2 percent. Statement 17: I buy software via internet. Table 4.23: Number of respondents and percentage of Statement 17 Number of respondent Percent Strongly disagree 58 11.3 Disagree 90 17.6 Average 164 32.0 Agree 121 23.6 Strongly agree 79 15.4 Total 512 100.0 Figure 4.23: Number of respondents of Statement 17 58 90 164 121 79 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Strongly disagree Disagree Average Agree Strongly agree