Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 331–344 | Cite as

Copyrighted Internet material in education—teacher needs and use arrangements

  • Merja Halme
  • Outi Somervuori


Teachers are in need of mechanisms to allow them routinely reproduce and distribute digitally copyrighted material. That was the starting point in the study on teachers’ Internet material use benefits in Finnish education. The study considers the use and reproduction of Internet material like text, graphs and pictures. In the study, which took place in 2005–2006, conjoint analysis was used to measure teachers’ individual benefits for different types of Internet material and special attention was given to how teachers wanted to reproduce the material as well how the price paid affected their choices. The demand for different types of uses was simulated on the basis of the benefits measured. The study interviewed a representative sample (n = 1,146) of teachers on all the levels from primary school to universities. The study produced information for all the players in the educational copyrights field. User studies of copyrighted digital goods in education or any other field are almost non-existing. We wish to highlight the value of such studies.


Internet Education Copyrights Conjoint analysis Licensing 



We wish to thank Mr Jukka-Pekka Timonen, who was influential in the design of the study and for his evaluation of the study implications.


  1. Almekhlafi, A. G., & Almeqdadi, F. A. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in the United Arab Emirates school classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 165–175.Google Scholar
  2. Averill, D. (2003). Implications for education: copyrights. Journal of Educational Media, 28(2–3), 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey, C. W. Jr. (2007). What is open access? Accessed 5 May 2010.
  4. Bessen, J., & Maskin, E. (2004). Intellectual property on the internet: what’s wrong with conventional wisdom. Accessed 17 May 2010.
  5. Commission of the European Communities (2008). Green paper: copyrights in the knowledge economy [www document]. Accessed 23 March 2010.
  6. Crews, K. (2003). Copyright law and distance education: making sense of the TEACH Act. Change, 35(6), 34–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cunningham, C. E., Deal, K., Neville, A., Rimas, H., & Lohfeld, L. (2006). Modeling the problem-based preferences of McMaster University undergraduate medical students using a discrete choice conjoint experiment. Advances in Health Studies, 11, 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Amico Juettner, D., & Girasa, R. J. (2001). Copyright issues for the distance learning professor. International Journal of Value-Based Management, 14, 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Digital Millennium Copyright Act DMCA (1998), Accessed 9 March 2011.
  10. Eng, T. S. (2005). The impact of ICT on learning: a review of research. International Education Journal, 6(5), 635–650.Google Scholar
  11. Epstein, R. A. (2005). Liberty versus Property? Cracks in the Foundations of Copyright Law. U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 204. Accessed 17 May 2010.
  12. Gasaway, L. N. (2002). Distance learning and copyright: is there a solution in sight? In B. L. Bower, L. Foster, & L. W. Wilson (Eds.), ASHE reader distance education teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 98–101). Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  13. Green, P. E., & Wind, Y. (1975). New way to measure consumers’ judgments. Harvard Business Review, 53, 107–117.Google Scholar
  14. Heron. [Website]. Accessed 6 Jan 2011.
  15. Howard, M. W., & Sobol, M. G. (2004). Combining economic and conjoint analysis to determine optimal academic services. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2, 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehmann, D. R., Gupta, S., & Steckel, J. H., (1997). Marketing research. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  17. Lenk, P. J., Desarbo, W. S., Green, P. E., & Young, M. R. (1996). Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental design. Marketing Science, 15(2), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: how big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. Accessed 17 May 2010.
  19. Ljungberg, J. (2000). Open source movements as a model for organising. European Journal of Information Systems, 9(4), 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Long, M. (1999). The impact of new technology on journal publishing and document delivery—a publisher’s perspective. An interview with Maurice Long. Interlending & Document Supply, 27(3), 104–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  22. McGrail, J. P., & McGrail, E. (2009). Overwrought copyright: why copyright law from the analog age does not work in the digital age’s society and classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 35(2), 69–85.Google Scholar
  23. Orme, B. K. (2006). Getting started with conjoint analysis, strategies for product design and pricing research. Research Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Sawtooth Software (2008). The CBC system for choice-based conjoint analysis. . Accessed 23 March 2010.
  25. Shephard, K. (2001). Submission of student assignments on compact discs: exploring the use of audio, images and video in assessment and learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 161–170.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Soutar, G. N., & Turner, J. P. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: a conjoint analysis. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 40–45.Google Scholar
  27. Taylor, S. A., Humphreys, M., Singley, R., & Hunter, G. L. (2004). Business student preferences: exploring the relative importance of web management in course design. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(1), 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Technology and Education Copyright Harmonization TEACH act (2002). Accessed 9 March 2011.
  29. Tsiavos, P., & Latonero, M. (2006). Gowers review of intellectual property in the UK: shaping the digital future. Intermedia, 34, 1.Google Scholar
  30. Uzunboylu, H., & Tuncay, N. (2010). Divergence of digital world of teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 186–194.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalto University, School of EconomicsAaltoFinland
  2. 2.SCANCOR, Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations