 Welcome. It's my pleasure to welcome Darius and Jerome here to talk about this subject, the law and ethics of digital piracy, evidence from Harvard Law School graduates. They lead off with a conundrum. Lawyers are held to the highest professional and ethical standards. And yet, when it comes to digital piracy, they overwhelmingly perceive file sharing as an acceptable social practice, as long as individuals do not derive monetary benefits from it. Few other subjects were more fundamental to consideration back at the time of the founding of the Berkman Center. I am the founder of the Berkman Center. And the idea of listening to Jerome and Darius dig into this subject. At its core, it has a legal content dealing with fair use in copyright. One conception of our Constitution is that we started in a free space, and the copyright clause created limitations upon that space by authorizing monopoly. But outside the bounds of those monopolies was free space, the zone of fair use, and a fundamental question in the evolution of this subject has been, who bears the burden of proving fair use? May the copyright holder initiate a suit and put the burden on the individual who was exercising freedom to defend in litigation their exercise of it? Or should the burden be on the copyright holder to prove that the use that a free citizen made of information was in fact a copyright violation? This is a question that has framed the subject and within which the litigation battles of this subject have been undertaken. Darius Gemielniak, Professor of Management, a Wikipedia, a Wikipedia deeply invested in this question of the boundaries of file sharing, free sharing, information sharing. Jerome Hergier, former Berkman Fellow, researcher, to me one of the brightest minds that I've seen at the Berkman Center. I welcome them both. I look forward to your analysis. So I think you have one. In the interest, there are so many approaches, but understanding how lawyers perceive copyright and perceive file sharing is fundamental. And I'm really surprised nobody did this before. Because if you think about it, yeah, lawyers do have high ethical standards of playing. Lawyers usually have purified salaries. Also, lawyers are often held for those high professional roles. So even if they do not have ethical standards, they will be held against those professional conduct. So studying this critical case analysis, taking the extreme, like lawyers from the top, world legal schools. And lawyers are also professionals. Sounds pretty silent, you know, realizing how should the copyright change. So I did a good job. I decided it would be wonderful to come to Harvard for a year, do a fieldwork. Honestly, I mean, when I was playing per ground, it makes sense to reason that I kept spending a year here. But another reason to spend a year here was that I wanted honest answers. So I wanted to spend time with people, do actual ethnographic fieldwork. And I did that. I was spending, I was socializing with Harvard and other land students. I was spending time with them. I find them really incredibly brilliant people. And also, in the end of the year, I decided that maybe it's time to start doing interviews. I did 50 interviews, one hour open, unstructured bulletin interviews. And also, there were over 100 questionnaires, all related to the perception of fairness in digital file sharing, also known as piracy. But I wasn't using the term piracy for obvious reasons. And later, Jerome was kind enough to team up and help me understand what he actually said in those questionnaires. Jerome interpreted the data, did all the study. And hopefully, now we will be able to combine those collated and collated insights in what holds. OK. Thank you very much for a very kind introduction, Charlie. There really was the one who initiated this large data collection effort. And I only joined while he was collecting the data to help with this particular instantiation of the project. So he really is the clever one behind that data collection process. But since we were being streamed live, and I'm the cute one, we both agreed that I should probably be the one doing most of the talking today, so that's what I'm going to do. OK, so let me directly dive in and give you a little bit of a sense of the broader context that's behind that particular piece of research. And to do that, I would like to take you back to the early 2000s. And the rise of peer-to-peer file sharing technology, that was a very interesting moment whereby technology basically enabled a vast increase in digital media consumption by the public, a very large increase in social welfare as a result. But that also came at a price. Industry revenue were going down drastically. And so we had those huge social welfare gain in the short run, but people were very much worried at that time that down the road in the longer run, the incentive structure that we had in place for people to come up with those creative works was basically undermined, and that we would pay the price later on with less of it, less creative works. And so this is really the time at which the issue of copyright protection for digital goods emerged as a very high-stake legal challenge. And on both sides, what I would call the industry side and what I would call the consumer side, arguments were very vivid. Now, to be fair, arguments always had been vivid on that space. I probably don't need to remind you of this famous quote by Jack Valenti addressing Congress. I say to you that the VCR video cassette recorder might not be obvious anymore, is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone, no less, right? Now, to be fair, arguments were vivid on the other side of the debate, too. Our own Larry Lessig, the war against illegal fire sharing is like the church age old war against masturbation. It's a war you just can't win. So that was a very interesting moment, but it seems like things have changed in the past decade. We've seen the rise of new market entrants who have leveraged technology to engage in bundle pricing. So they provide those cultural goods for a small fee to everyone. And there is a significant economic literature that basically demonstrates now that this has resulted in restoring industry revenue and profit while maintaining consumer surplus. So it seems like this trade-off between the short-term gains of diffusion of those creative works and the long-term cost of getting less of it down the line because the incentive structure is undermined. Why should you write a book, come up with a song, if you can't make money out of it? This is basically disappearing. I won't cite the whole economic literature on that topic. I will just point you to that report. It's a big report that was handed to the European Commission in 2015 that for some reason, on which I won't speculate about right now, didn't make a lot of noise, was put in a drawer pretty much, but concludes that there is actually no robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online corporate infringements over the past several years. So that, what has happened in terms of the economics of fissuring over the past 10 years. But there's also been some evolution in terms of the social norms, the ethicality of fissuring practices. While this was happening, people started to study piracy communities. Obviously, those guys, they're pretty much think that fissuring is acceptable on ethical grounds. The youth also thought that fissuring was acceptable on ethical grounds. But lately, surveys of the general US population have also been conducted. And guess what? Seems like the general public now also thinks that fissuring under very specific circumstances is OK on ethical grounds. Now, we have those ethical arguments and social norms. We have those economic arguments still. Seems like the law in the books hasn't changed that much. And so this is really why we're trying to think about this issue and want to move out of the general public and the youth and focus on the attitudinal divide within the legal profession. So why should one study the legal profession? There are two main reasons for that to my mind. The first one is that the legal profession, more than any other, I would argue, people usually think that economists have a huge impact on policy. But it's nowhere near what the legal profession has. The legal profession concentrates a lot of political, a lot of regulatory power if you think about all of the former US presidents, all of the members of Congress, a large fraction of those have taught not legal education. So those are all lawyers, actually. The second reason is that lawyers were actually at the forefront of the battle, the legal battle in terms of digital fissuring, because they were directly exposed to those social practices in court. Charlie knows a great deal about that. At the same time, they make a living out of protecting the law in the books. So there was this kind of interesting potential cognitive dissonance that could arise in their ethical views vis-à-vis fissuring. You make a living out of protecting the law in the books. At the same time, I'm asking you, on ethical grounds, you think that this is OK. And we were actually interested in seeing whether that disconnect would appear in the data and under which circumstances. So we're going to be concerned today with three relatively simple research questions. The first one is going to be that of the ethical acceptability of fissuring practices under which circumstances do lawyers think that sharing files is acceptable. The second and the third one are going to try to dig a little bit deeper into the heterogeneity within the legal profession in terms of their attitudes towards fissuring. The first way we're going to do that is to try and explore differences in terms of legal professionals' region of origin. You can think of it as culture, if we define it geographically. You could also think of it as level of economic development. Because one could very well think that lawyers who come from less developed countries face very different challenges in terms of IP and copyright protection. And so they could think about the problem in a very different way. The second way we're going to dig into this heterogeneity is to look at potential differences in ethical attitudes depending on lawyer's occupation. What I mean by occupation here is mostly private sector work versus public sector work. Why? Well, Charlie alluded before to the US Constitution. I think it's the first article that basically incentivizes Congress to think about striking the right balance between providing protection to the authors for limited times on the one hand so that they should be incentivized to come up with those creative works to begin with. And on the other hand, letting society benefit as widely as possible from those creative works. How do you strike that balance? You might strike a different balance if you work for the government than if you work for industry. And that's what we wanted to explore here. So this is gonna be the game plan for today. In terms of the methodology, Darius already explained quite a bit. What we have is like 109 Harvard LLM student questionnaires that Darius basically supplemented with 50 semi-structured qualitative interviews in-depth interviews with those young legal professionals. Why Harvard Law School? Well, this is where I get to make everyone happy and tell you that HLS is one of the best law schools in the world, so that's for one. Why LLM students? Because those are international students. They come from all over the world. So basically that was an incredible opportunity for us to dig into those cross-cultural differences, to look at where they come from. Developed countries, less developed countries, and ask them all those questions in one particular setting, which is HLS. All of those students also have a legal degree from their home country. Many of them have legal experience. They have professional experience, which we thought was also important. So what Darius did is that he presented those students with 17 copyright infringement scenarios, and he asked them to rate the ethical acceptability of those scenarios on a five-point Likert scale. One, that's very unacceptable. Five, that's very acceptable. So that we would cover as many possible motivations for IP infringement as possible. Now, how are we gonna analyze this data? Well, basically the first way to go is very simple. Just compute the average of answers of people over all of those 17 scenarios. Also, what I did is that I grouped relevant scenarios into five infringement categories that made sense. This is just to give you a little bit of a sense of what those categories are and the questions, the scenarios that fall under each. So we have infringing IP with a commercial purpose, infringing IP because there is actually no legal access in your country. Infringing IP because you cannot afford to pay. Infringing IP to avoid having to pay. And finally, infringing IP for educational purposes. Those are the five categories that I'm gonna look at in a second. For each respondent, we basically asked about his region of origin. We asked his current or envisioned occupation, which I used to back up his public or private sector occupation. And then we also asked people about their age and gender, which we thought of mainly as control variables to see if our results hold, if we control for those things. In the later stage of the data collection process, we actually thought of adding some more control variables, which I'm not gonna talk about here, but we could talk about that in the discussion if you like. We basically asked people about their values, right versus left-wing in economic matters, in social matters, level of religiosity, also their computer know-how, and their expertise in copyright law, which is obviously relevant. Again, those are mostly control variables and all of the results hold if we control for that, but they also sometimes have an independent effect on how people perceive copyright, and I'm not gonna talk about that today. So what do we get? Well, the first result that we get, I'm gonna illustrate with this quote that we got from the qualitative interviews that Darius conducted. Let me quote that person. So I think as long as people are like downloading or streaming stuff for private purpose, then I think we have evolved to social norms where most people find that acceptable. When you cross the line to commercial use, that's when you have an issue. This is very typical of the kind of answers we got from those young legal professionals, and this is a result that's totally striking to me, because if you look back to the qualitative studies of piracy communities, you get the exact same message. So this is a quote from a recent study from piracy communities. An act of fire sharing may be classified into one of two broad categories, the activity of professionals who seek profit and the selfless behavior of activists. The former will tend to evoke negative effect on ethical judgments. The key distinction between these two types is whether the individuals involved in piracy derive any direct material benefit from it. So it seems like HLS and Pirates have kind of the same fight. And this is something that we can back up with the quantitative results of the questionnaire. So this is basically computing the average of people's answer to the questionnaire. First, for all of the scenarios, we have a score of 3.23. Remember, that's out of a five point scale, one very unacceptable, five very acceptable. The only category that stands out is infringe IP with the commercial purposes, which is the only one which is significantly less okay than all of the others, all of the rest is relatively okay to those legal professionals. So that's really the first message that we got. Second, let's dive a little bit into the heterogeneity within the legal profession because those are just like simple averages, right? So the first way I wanted to do that is to explore potential cultural differences or geographic differences. Well, guess what? We found absolutely no statistically significant differences in legal professionals' ethical attitudes according to their region of origin, which I think of as a proxy for culture. Even more surprising, we didn't find any difference in terms of level of economic development. I would have thought that if you come from a relatively poor country, you would think about this problem in a totally different way. Actually, it seems like those legal professionals do not. So there is nothing there. But there is a little bit more action when you focus on those young professionals' sector of occupation. Public sector legal practice, private sector legal practice. So this graph is the distribution of the average of people's answer over all the scenarios they were presented with. The dark line is for legal professionals who operate in the private sector. The gray line is for legal professionals who operate in the public sector. You can see that the distribution for public sector lawyers is shifted to the right. The average reaches four out of five in terms of ethical acceptability within this group. And that's highly statistically significant. So I found that particularly remarkable. And here the question to us was, is this the result of a learning effect? For some reason, you orient yourself towards the public sector. For some other reason, other people are in themselves who are the private sector industry. They learn the organizational culture. Maybe they're exposed to different cases and so they develop those norms as they go. Or is this the result of a selection effect? Because to begin with, you lean more on the side of broad social sharing and disclosure, you're gonna choose to orient yourself as a young legal scholar towards the public sector as opposed to the private sector. In order to try and test that, what I did is that I computed this exact same graph for all of the lawyers in the sample who are under 25 years old. This is relatively young for an LLM student. And those guys are much less likely to have had significant legal experience prior to the LLM program. So if the difference replicates there, that argues for a selection effect. And that's exactly what we find. The difference is even more starking. So it really seems as if lawyers who, as I said, lean more on the side of social sharing, broad disclosure, choose to orient themselves towards public sector legal practice, which I found was interesting. So I don't wanna talk too much, so let me directly wrap up and open it up for discussion. What can we conclude from this? The first point is that the current ideological struggle over the reform of copyright is likely not fueled by the legal profession's conservatism. Or if it is, it's not gonna stay for much longer. Because a new generation is coming in that basically considers that five sharing practices is okay under many circumstances as long as you do not derive monetary benefits from it. It's ethically acceptable. Still, we found that legal professionals think of that problem differently if they orient themselves towards the public sector versus the private sector. And this is driven by a selection effect. This is not a learning effect. This is not because you end up in the public sector as opposed to industry that you develop those norms. It goes the other way around. Third, we found absolutely no geographical differences in terms of the ethical acceptability of five sharing practices, be it in terms of geography or in terms of level of economic development. Now there's a big caveat to that. This is the first study that tries to get at those cross-cultural differences or differences in terms of level of economic development. But if you really think about those LLM students, they're all part of the elite in their respective countries. So they might not accurately reflect the positions of the populations of the countries from which they're from so that more research is warranted to confirm this point. But that's an interesting first step to try and explore this issue. So I'd like to open the floor from there. Given the current states of the economic evidence that we have, that seems to suggest that there is much less of a trade-off between the short-term gains of five sharing now and the long-run costs of under incentivizing creativity and innovation in those cultural goods, given the state of the ethical debate, that this is not about the youth anymore. It's not about even the general public anymore, even legal professional themselves. Think that under certain circumstances, five sharing is acceptable. Why is it that we seem to see that the law in the books doesn't move? And what are the potential free-food avenues that we should explore in order to catch up with the established social norm? How could we do that? Neither Darius nor I are lawyers. You have an anthropologist and economist in the room. So I really much value your thoughts on those two points. And whatever other question you guys would like to ask with respect to that study. Thank you very much. And if you have a question, just give me a wave. I'll bring the mic over to you. So we can pick it up on the webcast. I haven't told it long. Still digesting. If you don't mind also saying your name in an affiliation, if that's okay. Hi, my name is Bruce Galbraith. Affiliated with the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. I have a question about, well, two questions. There's a service called, or a website called Sci Hub, which gives access to a copyrighted academic journals. It's located somewhere in Eastern Europe, but it's accessible from everywhere. Oh, okay. It's accessible from everywhere and it allows people to have access to academic journals that some of which cost a lot of money. So if I'm in the United States and I'm using a portal in another country, I'm violating the corporate holder, say in the United States. I guess my question is using that cross-national approach, who's breaking the law if anybody or are both I and the sharing service breaking the law? So maybe you wanna add to that later, I don't know. My answer would be, I don't know. This is a study that's about ethical attitudes. So I have not much to say about the legality of such an operation. Well, essentially, it's very difficult for us, I think, to comment what is ethical, what is not. We can only comment on what our respondents said. I can confirm to you that some of the people I spoke to were familiar and used Psyhub. I do not know whether they consider the specific use particularly ethical. We have not asked about this particular instance for library genesis or anything like that. But definitely for educational purposes, they consider it to be more justified than for commercial purposes. So for example, if somebody was writing a paper and was using Psyhub, in their eyes, it would be more okay than if somebody was using Psyhub to sell those to people. Could I ask you a question that goes back to my initial concerns with fair use? The matter of the burden of proof in current litigation is indeed imposed upon the copyright user simply by the bringing of a lawsuit against him. And that puts in the hands of the copyright owner control because the cost of responding to litigation is prohibitive, leading to when in doubt, take it out, philosophy. So the stagnation of the situation to reform is because the interests of copyright like it this way. They're actually in control of the border and they're armed with litigative methods that can make it absolutely prohibitive for a defendant to oppose them. So we have the copyright law that the copyright interests of our country want and they are in control of it. And a story. I can give short anecdote to address that. Recently, like one week ago, I was setting up a webpage on Facebook for a seminar about money. There was going to be a presentation at my university about money, attitudes and whatnot. So I thought it would be nice to use the cover with the Pink Floyd's money video clip. I did that. And 10 minutes later, I received a message directly from David Gilmore telling me that I'm violating copyright and that Facebook has taken steps to take it down. In my personal view, it was clearly for educational purposes, it was clearly in context, but obviously I'm not going to start a discussion. So in my view, it's not a stagnated situation. That's much worse. Code is the law. Now we have a colonization of American law imposed through AI recognition, through technologies and through code. Nobody's even going to court. It's already the model is being played on the level of portals and recognition. You want to add to that? No, I think I basically agree. Now the question is, how do you get people to mobilize so that Congress would do something about that system? I don't know how we get there. That's not my job, I think. Jerome Darius, thank you for the presentation. It's really interesting. Sebastian Diaz from the Berkman Klein. So playing off a little bit of what Charlie was talking about where you have a vested interest and from a vested interest from commercial entities within the United States that want to maintain control in this legislation, in this law and with the data that you have and you were looking at international students in the countries where there is not a commercial vested interest in maintaining the copyright law. Did you see, are you looking in those countries to see if there is reform in the copyright law in those countries? Or did you see differences specifically in the attitudes or I don't know if your sample size was kind of small. So I don't know if expanding this to those countries may be something to see if the weight of the representation for either the consumer side and the industry side may be different in other countries. So it's my understanding that five sharing practices are illegal under most legal regimes around the world. And we didn't find any any difference in terms of culture there. Like we have like relatively crude estimates but we have enough power to identify those and we didn't find much. So, you know, I'm not sure. I have to add that for, we didn't really refine it to the level of country in terms of our analysis. We used regions for one purpose. From some countries there is just one LLM student and we didn't want this to show up in the results. So we needed to obfuscate the research and as a result it's not as precise as it would like it to be. Yeah, there's a sense in which asking about precise countries would have like identified students in the study which we didn't want. But we still have like meaningful like regional. Well, basically I can show you, right? Well, this is a scary table. So I didn't want to show that one. But those are basically the regions that we consider for the cross-cultural analysis, if you will. So that's what we have. North America, South America, Middle East Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Caribbean, Africa. And the one that's left out is Europe. And there is nothing there in terms of differences. And if you look in terms of level of economic development, so you know, pick your best classification there, there is also nothing there that pops up in terms of differences. Again, this is only a first step, right? Those are top-notch Harvard LLM students. This does not necessarily represent the views of the people on the ground in those respective countries or regions. It's only a first step. And it's our hope that people will take it up from there and consider that as a teaser to follow up and dig in. Hi, I'm Anna. I'm a high school student from Medford. And when I hear the idea that you could have law students who have a pretty good understanding of copyright law and still kind of say, I don't necessarily agree with that as long as the individual isn't gaining monetary benefit. To me, that seems a lot like the idea of jury nullification, where you can say someone's not guilty, not because they didn't violate the law, but because the law wasn't fair to begin with. So I was wondering if you happened to come across any attitudes about jury nullification and how that might potentially correlate with how people view file sharing. So I have two points to make in that regard. The first one is that there is actually a few papers out there that digging precisely into that effect. Basically, the argument goes that when we have an established social norm within a country and people try to enforce a law that goes against this widely shared social norm, the law actually starts to become counterproductive because everybody knows that everybody knows that they're against it. And so it further incentivizes people to break that law. So it's even more urgent to think about how we should reform the system, because there is significant academic evidence that this is actually being counterproductive in terms of actual behavior. The more people gather around that norm, the more they think the law is unfair. Then I have a second point, but I forgot about it. You want to follow up? I just wanted to add that for obvious reasons, we were not asking about their own behavior. But we were asking about what they perceive as typical behavior. And oftentimes, what they reported was in stark contrast with what the law in their respective country said. So clearly, there is a huge widening gap between the actual behavior and what the letter of law says. Hi, Primavera from faculty at the Berkman Center. So I wanted to ask whether in your questionnaire or in the interview, did you actually ask whether the acceptance has changed with the advent of platforms like Spotify or Netflix in the sense that back in 2000, it was actually really hard and costly to actually access the content, whereas now many of the content is actually, to some extent, freely accessible on those streaming platforms. So have you asked whether the ethical and social acceptance of file sharing has actually changed when those platforms emerged? Very good question. And in the interview specifically, a recurring theme of the conversation was that if it's easy to access and if it's affordable, you should pay. So many interviews really emphasize that as long as it's easy, meaning as easy as to download from a pirate website and as long as it's affordable, meaning as long as it's within their budget, of course, the amount would vary, but clearly both Spotify and Netflix definitely tap into this particular thing. However, a recurring complaint about Netflix was about regions. And people are really frustrated and very often, a large number of people expressed huge dissatisfaction with the fact that pirates have it easier because they can watch whatever they want wherever they want. Well, with Netflix, you have only access to the shows that are available to you in a country that you're in. But definitely Spotify and Netflix changed the picture. If I may, I just remembered my second point coming back to you. Maybe that's something you can help me with. So this is the same table as this one. It's just that in those two columns in here, we added some more control variables. One I alluded to before about whether you're right-wing in economic matters, right-wing in social matters, religious, your computer experience, IP experience. And something that I was very puzzled to see is this. The more IP experience you have, the more you self-declare that you are knowledgeable of intellectual property, the more you say, infringing IP is OK. The main takeaway for me is that results hold when I control for this. But this positive correlation, I still didn't write my head around. So maybe that's something for lawyers to figure out. Is it possible that the reason the legal regime around this is so stable is because the way it's actually enforced, as opposed to what the law says, pretty much matches what the survey says? I mean, if I download a file and I send it to you, nobody's going to prosecute me. If I try to set up a website selling stuff, if I try to make my own copy of iTunes and sell stuff without paying royalties, then I'm going to get prosecuted. This is very well maybe so, although currently a lot of cloud services are trying to proactively detect whether some files are not infringing on copyright. So for example, if you put a downloaded TV series on Google Drive, on Dropbox, the chances are that you will be notified that you might be infringing copyright. So even in this context of private use or sharing with friends, it is rapidly changing, I think. Well, that just makes you far from infringing stuff. Yes, but you cannot count on people using encryption or using VPNs. I mean, Wikipedia has been blocked in Turkey for a year. Nobody jumped on VPN on a mass scale. People are not using technology. I think without the microponics. I did not. What copyright was Wikipedia allegedly violating in Turkey? I don't think Wikipedia is blocked because of alleged copyright violations. My understanding is that perhaps it's blocked because it's perceived as not representing the political reality fairly. But it's a very complicated case. But still, the point I was trying to make was that Turkish people have not massively migrated to VPN to even though it's a huge inconvenience to them. And there is a sense in which it seems like it should be with some legal engineering that I don't know about. It should be manageable to come up with a new legal regime that basically accommodates this no commercial purpose principle. Because basically what I told you about this public versus private sector difference. This is a difference in terms of the average over all the scenarios. But there are two instances where there's organizational clash of cultures between public and private sector vis-à-vis copyright. Totally vanishes. When there is no commercial purpose, everybody agrees that it's fine, basically. So this basically this divide between public and private sector lawyers vanishes. It goes to the sky when people can't afford to pay. Or when people don't want to pay. Or when people want to use that stuff for educational purposes. Here, you see that the divergence between public sector and private sector lawyers is super high. So there is something to manage with this commercial purpose thing. The rest is much more subject to debate. As you're in deep interviews, did you have a conclusion of how broad the impact of selective enforcement of law relative to the lawyers? Are there other things that they thought was OK to not quite adhere to the law with? And there was more probable ones that thought that it was OK to file share. Thought that on some other fields as well. Or did you not cover anything to get to that? Well, I was interested specifically in digital file sharing. But especially those of interviewees who were against file sharing in general were often making analogies to stealing or to violating the law. And they were making a point that the law is the law and should be followed even if we do not agree with it. While within file sharing, there was a clearly expressing a view that it very much depends on what kind of files you want to download. What is the purpose? What are your intentions? Who is the artist? If we go into details, which we couldn't really find strong correlations in the quantitative part. But a very often recurring theme was that, oh, if it's an aspiring artist, if it's not like a big shot, then maybe we should pay. If it's like a big shot, it doesn't matter. Because it's the big corporations who take the money. So this narrative was quite often repeated. Hello. I'm Eletra Bietti. I'm a doctoral student of the law school and an affiliate at Berkman. And I was actually an LLM in 2011-2012. So I don't know. Maybe I did take. No, you didn't. It was 2015-2012. Oh, OK. Otherwise, you would have had beers with Darius. Right, OK. That was the cool part of the research process. So I'm not an economist. I'm a lawyer. But I had two questions about your hypothesis. So one was at what point in the LLM did these surveys take place? Because I guess for the cross-cultural uniformity, it might be that people have spent a lot of time with Americans or have kind of picked up on practices while spending time together. And also on the IP expertise side, it might be that people have spent time at the Berkman Center and kind of their preferences changed in light of that. So that was one hypothesis. And then on the distinction between people who went to work in the public sector or private sector or previously worked in a private or public sector, I was wondering if you considered the differences in salaries that might have justified, whether people were more or less willing to pay for creation than IP protected things? Well, the last question Jerome has already mentioned that it could be that they just have more money. So they are less willing to download. It could be this pre-selection bias. I mean, if you're all for sharing, maybe you're more likely to go into the public sector. We just don't know. But regarding your first question, I think it's a very good remark. I think there could have been some influence of that. The interviews took part between February and May, more or less, some took part in June. So they definitely have spent half a year in the US. I wouldn't expect their ethical fundamental beliefs to be significantly altered after this period. However, there may have been some uniformity, which nevertheless, we see that regions vary quite significantly. So I actually tested that. I actually tested for the temporal trend because you did like two waves of that survey. One was in the fall, the other in the spring, or if I remember right. And you see absolutely no trend in their ethical attitudes. In terms of, I think it's very relevant to look at budget constraints and whether that could have influenced their attitudes. Now, I would say that when you focus on the youth, when you focus on pirates, when you focus on whatever budget constraints there, or even the broader American population should be more stringent to those guys than to Harvard Law School graduates. Because you have a lot more outside options when you're actually a student, even with a big loan. So I think that should be less of a concern here than in many other studies, but still could be relevant confound. Hi, I'm an alum student from Turkey, so I really want to interject a little about the Wikipedia debate. I would understand if there is not an increase in the VPN, but the moment that Wikipedia was then, it was a lot of information coming to us how to get to the Wikipedia. You put zero point to Wikipedia, you get an access. We downloaded Oprah instead of Google Chrome or something else because Oprah has a VPN embedded in itself, so we could use it. And what was really funny for me is that Twitter was also banned for a little while and the use of Twitter increased because people wanted to know what was banned. And I had also a question about the effect of this on creativity because to my mind, I feel like file sharing has not become an ethical issue for me because in my education, in my legal system, it was known as an IP thing, but people also assumed that you would be famous and you would somehow get money because you would somehow find your way and get the benefits of your labor in the end. So I was wondering, you mentioned a report saying that the creativity is not affected by file sharing. I was wondering if you could comment on how social media changed it because now if you're famous, you're gonna get ads, you're gonna be doing something else, you will make money and maybe that has something to do with our ethics and not being okay with file sharing. Well, regarding Wikipedia ban, I think the big picture is we know that traffic has significantly dropped, editorship traffic has dropped, but of course, some people, like probably the elites, academic elites especially, will find ways to go around it, but it's not a mass scale thing. Regarding whether the fact that somebody is an artist and will make money some other way, whether it has some influence, yeah, exactly. Just as I said, I'll just give you a question. If it's like a camp, a budding artist beginning their career, the assumption is you should support them. If it's like a big shot, the assumption is they get money from elsewhere, oftentimes. Hi, my name is Hasid. I'm a former fellow at the Berkman Center, Berkman Klein Center. You've talked about the small sample size and the fact that it took place here at the Harvard Law School, so it's not necessarily representative of the wider legal community. So as you move forward with this, what are you going to do next? That one's for you, I guess. Well, the sample size is not that small if you consider the whole population of the LLM class is below 200. So we took 50 from one cohort and 50 from another, I'll be speaking. So it's a significant part of the cohort, but of course it's not representative to the country. What should go next? I mean, Jerome and I have a paper in the pipeline, hopefully it'll go through and we'll see where we go with this next. I think it's a very exciting topic and it would be a shame if it was not continued. Now, it may be the case that this is not totally representative sample of the legal profession. I think HLS is a reasonable place to start to get the opinions of top lawyers. Now, if you take that from the statistical standpoint, it's pretty remarkable that with 109 answers you get such stark differences. Like what I talked about is super highly significant with this small sample size, especially the public versus private sector difference and the fact that on average, everybody irrespective of your occupation thinks that if you don't derive monetary benefits, basically this is fine. So that goes through even though the sample size is relatively small and that is pretty telling. Hi, I'm Toshia Kaneko, a Japanese IP scholar and now a visiting scholar at East Asian Legal Studies. I have two questions and one question is for, among the public sectors, was there any difference between government officials and others? And another question, oh sorry, is there any difference between government officials or other public sector, NGO agent or other scholars? And second question is what do you think about the casual relationship between copyright knowledge and tolerance to infringement? And does running of a copyright law make people more tolerant to copyright infringement or are people who think doubtful about the current copyright law study or copyright law? So I'm sorry, I'm not good at English. So I can speak to the first question. So I didn't actually explain what public sector or private sector actually meant. So this is something you can find here. So this is how I classify things. But then I don't have the power available to distinguish between NGOs, governments or whatever. But anything that classifies to me as public sector work is here. Local government, prosecution, courts, NGO judge, international agency, university, law school, international and governmental organization academia. Private sector is legal firm corporation, independent attorneys. And that's basically the difference I draw. We didn't have the statistical power to go much deeper than that. Unfortunately we're gonna have to cut it off there. Join me in thanking Jerome and Darius and Charlie.