MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052630245 · doi:10.5539/cis.v3n3p30

An Exploratory Study of Determinants and Corrective Measures for Software Piracy and Counterfeiting in the Digital Age

2010· article· en· W2052630245 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yin‐Leng Theng, Wee Teck. Tan, May O. Lwin

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftwareComputer scienceKey (lock)Test (biology)EnforcementComputer securityExploratory researchBusinessLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software piracy and counterfeiting is a global problem that has resulted in huge economic losses worldwide. This paper proposes a theory-based approach to study the key factors contributing to piracy and counterfeiting issues. We first developed a theoretical model linking the antecedents into the key factors using information acquired from an extended literature review. We then undertook a survey of thirty business professionals representing different industries, functional roles and different levels of work exposure to software usages in Singapore to investigate the issues. Specifically, the objectives of the survey were to: (1) investigate the key issues associated to software piracy and counterfeiting; (2) identify the factors that have contributed to the software piracy and counterfeiting; and (3) draw up a refined list of appropriate measures to counter software piracy and counterfeiting. Through the structural use of Non-Parametric Correlation Test, Chi-Square Test for Independence, Fisher Exact Probability Test and Phi value, our findings showed that the lack of awareness to software usage laws and regulations, the perceived lack of enforcement measures and penalties, and the lack of educational programs catering to the proper usage of software were the key factors contributing to the software piracy and counterfeiting issues. The findings are useful to managers of software companies and policy-makers in reviewing existing software protection policies, laws and regulations, such that any flaws or loopholes can be identified.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer and Information ScienceSame topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207