MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406331495 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2021.03463

Using Subsidies, Fines, and Restitution with Budget Balance to Combat Digital Piracy

2025· article· en· W4406331495 on OpenAlexaffabout
Meysam Fereidouni, Barrie R. Nault

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidyBalance (ability)EconomicsQuality (philosophy)RestitutionInvestment (military)Budget constraintMicroeconomicsWelfarePublic economicsLegislationBalance of interestsEconomic surplusBusinessMarket economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite utilizing technical prevention methods and enacting copyright protection legislation, digital piracy has remained a persistent problem. We examine policy remedies to digital piracy whereby the policymaker has to balance its budget between fines on detected pirates, subsidies for legal purchases, and restitution to the firm. In our model, users choose whether to subscribe, copy, or not use the good, a firm decides on subscription fee and quality, and a policymaker determines subsidies, fines, and restitution. We find that the firm’s subscription fee is always increasing in subsidies, fines, and restitution under a budget balance constraint. The impact of these policy instruments on the firm’s investment in quality depends on how user marginal utility is influenced by the quality of the good and how the policymaker redistributes fines back to society, if at all. Using two specific functional forms with additive and multiplicative utility, we explain how these factors come into play. With additive utility, fines increase the firm’s investment in quality. However, with multiplicative utility the firm’s investment in quality decreases with fines if fines are used alone or alongside subsidies. In contrast to prior research, findings of our general framework illustrate that imposing fines on detected pirates “can” be socially optimal when accounting for the policymaker’s budget balance. Our specific functional forms also serve as two instances where imposing fines is always welfare maximizing. Finally, we find that although the policymaker’s optimal intervention improves social welfare and mitigates digital piracy, it leads to a reduction in consumer surplus. This paper was accepted by Hemant Bhargava, information systems. Funding: This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [Grant 435-2016-0431]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.03463 .

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207