PRIVACY AND THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS

One major issue surrounding Digital Copyright Infringement is privacy. The new media environment has shifted towards a spectrum that encourages efficiency and convenience, which are two reasons why consumers are constantly engrained with the Internet. In this space, though, individuals are obligated to be responsible for how they act online because their actions have an affect on the perception of downloading/uploading material. I plan to outline why people in a private online space, think less about taking another’s content (committing copyright infringement), compared to those who participate in face-to-face interactions and bare such a burdon.

Browsing the Internet in the convenience of one’s own home is a major luxury of personal computers and the World Wide Web. This type of privacy is very different from being in the public view of others who may have an impact on certain actions you take. Psychology literature credits Robert Zajonc for documenting the “Mere Presence Effect,” which states that the mere presence of others in a surrounding area will stimulate arousal - arousal being defined as anything that produces a specific response (Zajonc, 1968). In relation to digital copyright, I believe that an individual will be less likely to infringe upon copyright laws and illegally download another’s property, if they are being watched or observed by others. Specifically, the “mere presence of others” will trigger a personal response to an individual that their actions are illegal and go against laws set forth by our government. In an online environment, individuals lack the physical presence of others to influence their actions or thoughts regarding digital copyright. Thus, people feel less obligated to abide by copyright law because they believe that since nobody is physically watching them, they have free license to file sharing. While their online activity can be traced and documented, many individuals turn a blind eye to this.

Further psychology literature credits Cottrell (1972) with proposing the Evaluation Apprehension Theory. This theory states that performance will be enhanced or impaired only in the presence of persons who can approve/disapprove of the performance. The topic of privacy in the Digital Copyright Infringement debate relates to this theory, in that an individual’s actions (illegally downloading or not) will depend on whether another person commends or condemns the original action. Due to the possibility that others are not physically present online while someone may be illegally downloading, an individual may think less about their unjust actions. Further, being watched (and having someone disapprove of someone’s actions) while doing something illegal, may have a great affect on that individual changing his or her illegal habit. From this, it can be seen that the physical presence of others either approving or disapproving of online actions can have a major affect on whether an individual will continue his or her activity.

Janneke Joly, researcher at the Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences at the University of Groningen, makes the following proclamation: “It would appear to be self-evident that people’s behaviour is influenced by generally accepted social norms, yet this is not the case.” This statement is supported by her research which concluded that awareness of social norms is increased in ‘humanized contexts’ (Speekman, 2008). This means that individuals are “prompted by others to attach importance to a particular norm at a particular moment,” and this happens in one of three major ways: physical presence. Joly states that surrounding individuals can prompt us to comply with social norms, such that the presence of others in on non-online environment can influence an individual to stop infringing upon copyright (because it is illegal). She presents the following situations to ameliorate her argument: ‘We are more likely to be reminded of the norm ‘eat with a knife and fork’ if other people are present or we sense that people are present.’ Additionally, ‘The norm [of] ‘be[ing] quiet in the library’ […] becomes more important due to the physical presence of others.’ It is evident from Joly’s research, that the presence of others has a great affect on an individual performing a specific action. Thus, it can be derived that copyright infringement is less likely to take place if a person is in close proximity with another who can influence his or her actions. Performing illegal actions online increases privacy, but decreases the amount of care/caution one has about taking another’s content because other individuals are not there to have an affect on the infringer.

The arguments delivered above, correlate to the relationship between physical presence of others and online privacy. This is a multifaceted issue that has several theoretical roots in psychology literature, as well as ‘humanized contexts.’ Provided with this information, one can make and support the argument that the physical presence of others has a great affect on an individual’s decision to infringe upon online digital copyright. Lastly, it is important to note that this issue of privacy does indeed relate to the limited social stigma attached to infringing upon digital copyright. Not being seen by others while in the convenience of your own home, allows people to have minimal influence from outside sources; this allows for a lack of care/limited negative stigma to develop regarding this issue (because nobody is available to monitor another individual’s actions).