Causes and consequences of unauthorized use of books: readers, authors, and publishers' perspective

Abstract

PurposeThe current study aims to identify and explore causes and consequences of unauthorized use of books from readers', publishers', and authors' points of view. The case of Lithuania also assessed, especially historical background (banned alphabet, book smuggling, theft as the social norm in Soviet times) of the country.Design/methodology/approachAiming for more understanding why readers, authors and publishers are using or not using technology for unauthorized access of books, technology acceptance model approach was used, a total of 30 respondents (publishers, authors and readers) were interviewed in semi-structured face-to-face interviews and thematic analysis of collected qualitative data was conducted. Interviews were coded in English with coding software for further analysis.FindingsFindings indicate that the main cause for the unauthorized use of books is a lack of legal e-book titles and acquisition options. This mainly points at publishers, however, instead of using unauthorized sources as opportunities for author promotion or marketing, they rather concentrate on the causes of unauthorized use of books which they are not in control of, including access to unauthorized sources, habits and economic causes. Some publishers believe that the lack of legal e-book titles is the consequence of unauthorized use of book rather than its cause.Originality/valueThis research contributed to the body of knowledge by investigating unauthorized use of books from readers', publishers' and authors' points of view which renders to have a better understanding of the causes and consequences of such behavior, as well as differences between these roles. The authors suggest that these causes lead to the intention to use and actual use of technology which is easier to use and which gives more perceived advantages – technology for unauthorized downloading and reading of books vs legal e-book acquisition options.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-03-2021-0133.