Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) Research Confirmation Report ...

Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD) Research Confirmation Report
Thesis title:
Digital Rights Management and the Online Music Experience
Candidate: Jenine Beekhuyzen - s1208937
School of Information and Communication Technology
Institute for Integrated and Intelligent Systems
Griffith University, Nathan Campus
Principal Supervisor:
A/Prof Liisa von Hellens
Associate Supervisor:
Dr Sue Nielsen
External Supervisor:
Professor Supriya Singh
RMIT
Date of Confirmation Seminar:
Monday 16 April 2007
@ 12:00pm
Jenine Beekhuyzen, Griffith University 2007
Not to be reproduced without permission from the author.
jenine@griffith.edu.au

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION_______________________________________________________1
1.1. Background of Problem_________________________________________________2
1.2. Research Questions ____________________________________________________4
1.3. Significance of Research ________________________________________________4
1.4. Outline of Report ______________________________________________________6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW _________________________________________________8
2.1. Download Culture _____________________________________________________9
2.1.1. Music Use _________________________________________________________10
2.1.2. Personalisation _____________________________________________________12
2.2. Digital Rights Management_____________________________________________13
2.2.1. Definitions_________________________________________________________13
2.2.2. Management of rights in the online music context _________________________14
2.2.3. Online Business Models ______________________________________________16
2.3. Empirical Studies _____________________________________________________17
2.3.1. User studies ________________________________________________________17
2.3.2. Community/network studies ___________________________________________18
2.3.3. Music industry studies _______________________________________________19
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, METHODS AND SETTING__________________20
3.1. Research Methodology_________________________________________________20
3.1.1. Social Informatics___________________________________________________21
3.1.2. Research Paradigm__________________________________________________23
3.1.3. Ontological Assumptions _____________________________________________23
3.1.4. Epistemological Assumptions__________________________________________24
3.1.5. Methodological Assumptions __________________________________________25
3.1.6. Ethical Assumptions _________________________________________________25
3.2. RESEARCH METHODS ______________________________________________25
3.2.1. Ethnographic Methods _______________________________________________26
3.2.1.1. Non-participant Observations ________________________________________27
3.2.1.2. Interviews ________________________________________________________28
3.2.1.3. Focus Groups _____________________________________________________29
3.2.1.4. Key Events _______________________________________________________30
3.2.1.5. Maps ____________________________________________________________30
3.2.1.6. Document Analysis ________________________________________________31
3.2.1.7. Triangulation _____________________________________________________31
3.2.2. Ethical Considerations _______________________________________________31

3.2.3. Literature and data analysis with Nvivo__________________________________31
3.3. RESEARCH SETTING ________________________________________________32
3.3.1. Online Communities _________________________________________________32
3.3.2. Individual Participants _______________________________________________34
3.4. USE OF ACTOR NETWORK THEORY __________________________________35
3.5. Applying the Theory___________________________________________________36
4. PROJECT SCHEDULE _________________________________________________38
4.1. Research Schedule and Timeline ________________________________________39
4.2. Progress To Date _____________________________________________________41
REFERENCES ___________________________________________________________43
Appendix A – Ethics Certificate ______________________________________________49
Appendix B – Focus Group Questions _________________________________________50
Appendix C – Interview Questions for music users (working)_______________________51
Appendix D – Lauren, the legitimate consumer __________________________________53
Appendix E – Actor-network Diagram _________________________________________54
Appendix F – Empirical Studies ______________________________________________55
TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1 – Jarvinen’s (2001) Taxonomy of Research Methods ______________________21
Figure 1 – Ontological Assumptions __________________________________________23
Figure 2 – Stable Elements of ANT __________________________________________ 36
Figure 3 – Applying the Stable Elements of ANT to the music network _____________ 37
Figure 4 – Overall Research Schedule _______________________________________ 39
Figure 5 – Data Collection and Timeline _____________________________________ 40
Figure 6 – Progress to Date ________________________________________________41

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1Background of Problem
1.2.Research Questions
1.3.Significance of Research
1.4.Outline of Report
This report outlines the doctoral research ‘Digital rights management (DRM) and the online
music experience’ by investigating people’s use of online music. The evolution of the
technology has seen a move online to access digital music over the Internet, moving from the
more traditional option of compact discs (CDs) purchased from physical stores to using online
music stores, online communities and peer-to-peer networks. There are many ways for people
to purchase music through these new online mediums, as well as varying options for
accessing free music. Some of this free music is licensed for free use while other is
unauthorised for copying and sharing, thus breaching copyright law.
A result of this new music scenario is the huge growth of online music sales, paralleled by
continued reporting of music piracy reducing music sales and revenues. There is also conflict
between music users, record labels and music artists. Music users are being sued for breach of
copyright law by the recording industry associations (representing the record labels and the
music artists), record labels are employing the use of technological controls in the songs they
sell online limiting a user’s use, and music artists are unhappy at the support of the recording
industry associations in returning royalties from legal proceedings against users and the way
record labels are using technological protection measures embedded in their creations.
These relationships are fluid and transformative and the topic of online music is contentious.
A ‘download culture’ is emerging enabling users to get music from a range of online sources.
These multiple perspectives are useful in understanding this complex problem and the impact
these relationships are having on a users music experience. Important in understanding how
the current problems might shape the future of the industry, it is important to know what
people are doing with music; how are they getting music, their use of technology, if
technology is limiting their use and how they share music with friends.
Digital rights management (DRM) is a security measure to protect digital versions of (music)
content (Jonker and Mauw 2005:467). DRM covers the digital management of rights whether
the rights exist in a physical manifestation of a work (eg a book/LP) or in a digital
manifestation of a work (eg an ebook/mp3 file) (Iannella 2001). When a song is bought and
downloaded from an online store, in most instances it is protected by DRM. Now music users
are finding themselves in difficult legal situations (Remington 2006) and when trying to be
legitimate in getting their online music but they are unsure if their use of music constitutes
‘fair use’ i.e. use that is against the copyright law but considered harmless and acceptable
(Jackson, Singh, Waycott and Beekhuyzen 2005). There are also suggestions that the
technological controls imposed by the record labels are impinging on fair use (Fetscherin
2005), constraining convergence (Petkovic and Koster 2006) and placing practical restrictions
on the legitimate use of online music (Manasse 2001), thus actually changing the way that
people use music (Sandararajan 2004). This research investigates these issues.
This section discusses the background to the problem, the research questions posed and the
significance of the research. It then provides an outline of the report.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 1 of 58

1.1. Background of Problem
My interest in this topic began during a music and digital rights management research project
that I was part of in 2005. This project was part of the Smart Internet Technology Cooperative
Research Centre and finished after one year. The findings from this project suggested that a
user’s music experience is made up of many activities carried out in a multiplicity of contexts.
Disappointed that this project was not to continue through lack of funding, I began my PhD
research starting with this understanding of the online music problem.
Also being an avid music user myself, and having great memories of how music has impacted
on my life, I found this topic fascinating. I use the Internet to access, listen and share music,
and I use the computer and my Mp3 player to manage and listen to my music. For me, music
is a very important cultural influence in society and the way we use it is changing
dramatically from the times before digital technology.
Having this background, I am aware how I use music and that I use a range of modes and
mediums to access and use it. I have some understanding of how others use music in this
online space, however what I hope to explore further is the range of activities people are
engaging in with online music, how new technologies are impacting on this and how can legal
online behaviour that fairly supports artists and the record labels be encouraged, while
minimising or ultimately removing the legal action against individual users while providing a
positive user experience.
Music has always been part of people’s everyday activities, and it is often said to be a ‘diary
of your life’, often associated with special times in one’s life (North, Hargreaves and
Hargreaves 2004). Music can be personal or public, and is appropriated in many ways. We
access, listen, share and store music in a variety of ways using a variety of mediums (Singh,
Jackson, Waycott and Beekhuyzen 2005).
The Internet has opened up new opportunities for business to sell their products online, and it
is a new and convenient way for people to shop from home or work. It is also creating
significant challenges for established industry players (Premkumar 2003). Large multinational
corporations such as Apple, Sony and Microsoft, have moved into the online music space,
transferring their offline business models online to reach their customers. Apple Corporation
particularly have been successful with their online music model, partnering with the large
record labels to deliver music via their iTunes music store, which is software installed on your
computer allowing access to their online store. Songs from iTunes can then be transferred to
an iPod, Apple’s successful mobile Mp3 device for listening to music. Other corporations
such as Sony and Microsoft have also followed Apple’s lead, with multi-million dollar
partnerships, music stores and mobile devices. Some say this progression can be seen as “a
network of acquired and emerging entities that are each a shifting piece in the wealthy mosaic
of communications and entertainment conglomerates” (Rosenblatt, Trippe and Mooney
2002:9).
From a consumer perspective and a fair competition perspective, music interoperability is
important (Iannella 2001; Dufft 2005; Heileman and Jamkhedkar 2005). The European Union
has displayed unease at these corporate powers and their coupling of music content, software
and device (Reuters 2007). This coupling, laced with copy protection technology called
digital rights management (DRM) only allows music bought through iTunes to be played on a
computer through iTunes software or on an iPod, thus restricting any interoperability. Apple’s
music cannot be played on a competitors (eg Sony) device. Similarly, corporations such as
Microsoft and Sony have their own online music stores that also limit the playback of
purchased music to their specific proprietary devices (eg Sony Mp3 player, Microsoft’s Zune
device).
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 2 of 58

This business strategy resulted in Sony being sued by the French government in late 2006. As
a result, Sony France was ordered to pay France’s consumer group €10,000 (AUD$16.7
million) in damages and the courts stopped short of ruling that Sony must stop using DRM. It
did however order that Sony France “clearly state on its Net WM range of players that they
will not play files purchased on rival commercial websites” (Strauss 2007). The lawsuit also
targets Apple, whose case is expected to reach the French courts later this year. After the
Sony ruling, Apple commented that this action is “state-based piracy” (Nutall 2007)
Across Europe, consumer rights organisations from Germany, France, Finland and Norway
have agreed on a joint position in their battles against Apple’s iTunes and iPod; their coupling
and their technology. In March 2007, the EU Consumer Protection Commissioner stated, “Do
you think it's fine that a CD plays in all CD players but that an iTunes song only plays in an
iPod? I don't. Something has to change” (Reuters 2007). In January 2007, Norway (a non-EU
member) said Apple must liberalise its music download system by October 1 or face legal
action (Strauss 2007). “While protection against piracy is the publicly accepted justification
of such incompatibility between different companies’ music formats and the need for digital
rights mangement, it is also a very easy method to prevent customers from shifting to
competitor’s online music stores or portable audio machines” (Barub 2006:75). This legal
action is significant for the corporations, the music users and the artists alike, however there
has been little discussion of this coupling and its negative impact on the music industry
outside of Europe.
Being an industry leader in this sector and in the midst of this new battle, Steve Jobs, the CEO
of Apple, has urged the “four major record companies to start selling music online without
DRM copy protection software”. He argued that there appeared to be no benefit to the record
companies to continue to sell more than 90 per cent of their music without DRM on compact
discs while selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM
system” (Nutall 2007). However it is unclear if these record labels are considering this option
for their online music.
Alongside the growth of online music stores and Mp3 players has been the use of peer-to-peer
software to share unauthorised ‘illegal’ music. In most cases, this shared music does not
contain any copy protection such as DRM. Using the argument that sharing music via these
networks is moving consumers away from ‘purchasing’ music either online or on CDs, thus
reducing sales for the record labels and royalties for the music artists, users who share any
music are branded ‘pirates’; a term previously reserved for professional CD copiers and
criminal organisations monetarily benefiting from such activity (Litman 2006:76). These
individual users are now targets in massive legal proceedings bought on by the music industry
associations (such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the
Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)), which may be creating a divide between
the record labels and their best customers, young people.
There have been groundbreaking legal rulings against software companies like Napster, who
were responsible for the first large scale online music file sharing community (Alderman
2001). Australian software company Kazaa also faced strong penalties in 2005 when
convicted of encouraging piracy through their file sharing software (Jackson et al. 2005).
However it is interesting to note that Kazaa touts being one of the most downloaded pieces of
software in history (www.kazaa.com). These legal proceedings have clearly highlighted the
industry’s crucial need to improve its understanding of customer needs, and to provide
products and services that meet those needs (Premkumar 2003).
There has also been discussion that the record labels are not actually losing as much revenue
to piracy as the statistics suggest, according to a draft government report for the Australian
Attorney-General's Department, prepared by the Australian Institute of Criminology (Hayes
2006). A 2004 study by Oberholzer and Strumpf (2004) also seriously questions industry
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 3 of 58

claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the recent decline in music sales. They argue
that 5,000 downloads are required to replace one album sale. It has been argued that in the
past several technological developments have already challenged the music industry in similar
ways (Kasaras 2002).
This background to the topic of online music and downloading is contentious from all
perspectives. There is an emergence of a ‘download culture’, with users getting their music
through the many online sources available, which are driven by a range of business models.
The software industry continues to battle similar problems with software piracy (Ceruzzi
2003), the movie industry is now facing similar copyright issues (IDATE 2005) and the
history of hacking has partly set the scene for young people’s perception of the value of goods
on the Internet (Thomas 2002). These bodies of literature, as well as those on music use,
personalisation, digital rights management, and the business models that deliver online music
are useful to inform the current online music situation.
1.2. Research Questions
This research takes a user perspective, focusing on the activities of music users with
technology as an underlying component. Other stakeholder groups including music artists,
record labels, license creators and distributors, music industry associations, legal
representatives and media journalists, consumer groups and law enforcement will be
consulted as much as possible to give an accurate picture of the current situation as it relates
to music users. For this study, the following main question and sub-questions are under
investigation. Answering the sub-questions will help in answering the main question.
Question:
What are the relationships between digital rights management and the attitudes,
motivations and behaviour of people engaging in online music?
a. How do people use digital online music and what constitutes their online music
experience?
b. What are the social elements of online music and how important is sharing music?
c. Is technology protection such as digital rights management changing the user’s
music experience?
d. What are the benefits to individuals to personalise digital music in an online
environment?
This research is investigating how people use music and what elements of this are done in the
online context. As much of the music acquired online has security protections such as digital
rights management, the extent, if any, that DRM has on the way people use music is of
interest. The literature suggests that sharing and personalisation are important aspects of using
music (discussed in section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2) so the extent to which these are important will be
explored.
1.3. Significance of Research
This research is significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, the use of online music is
growing at a rapid pace and an entire industry that supports it is emerging. In the context of
this growth, there has been little research on how the online environment is changing the
user’s experience and the impact the various technologies such as digital rights management
may have. There are also unsolved issues of governance that suggest it is necessary to have a
better understanding of how people use music; part of this is developing systems that don’t
limit expected use.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 4 of 58

Growth of online music and the industry: In June 2001, research by IDC predicted that the
market for DRM technology and services, which it measured as US$96 million in 2000,
would be US$200 million in 2001 and ultimately $2.5 billion in 2005, suggesting an annual
growth rate of over 100 percent (Rosenblatt et al. 2002:x). Rosenblatt et al comment that an
entire industry is emerging of technologies that perform digital rights management (Px).
Based on an analysis of forces that drive competition, this industry fits into Porter’s (1980)
classification of ‘emerging’ industries and also has elements of his defined ‘global’ industries.
This growth is equivalent with the incredible growth of online music as a way to access, listen
and share music. In 1993, in a survey of 2515 adults in the United States, the Pew Internet &
American Life Project found that 29% of Internet users had “downloaded music files to their
computer” with 4 % doing this on a daily basis (Pew 2003). The 2004 Pew survey on Artists,
Musicians and the Internet found that “two-thirds of those in the online musician sample say
the Internet has had a big effect on improving their ability to communicate with their audience
and fans of their music” (Pew 2004). In 2005, the results of a follow up Pew survey reported
that 36 million Americans, or 27% of Internet users are downloading music or video files
over the Internet; sharing music is not uncommon as “one in five downloaders has copied
files from other people’s iPod or MP3 player” (Pew 2005). This is in line with the findings
from the Singh et al (2005) empirical study of music users in Australia. The Pew survey also
found that half of those users that download use using options other than paid online
services/stores and peer-to-peer networks (Pew 2005).
February 2006 saw an online music landmark with the billionth song downloaded through
iTunes (Hickman 2006). Two months later, the BBC reported that ‘Crazy’, by music artist
Gnarls Barkley, had made pop history as the UK's first number one song based on download
sales alone (downloaded 31,000 times) (BBC. 2006). In Australia, digital music accounts for
only 1.5 per cent of sales but is the fastest-growing segment of the music market (Sams 2006)
with downloads predicted to double in 2007; research from IBISWorld suggests Australians
will spend $60 million on digital music downloads this year and this figure will almost double
by 2010 (Hayes 2006).
Lack of research: In 2003, Fetscherin and Schmidt (2003) argued that digital rights
management systems (DRMS) were treated sparingly in the literature. Their opinion was that
there were very few empirical studies available about the current usage of DRM or DRM
technologies, and even though an extensive range of theoretical literature existed about digital
rights management, either by individual authors or DRM providers, these studies did not
provide insight into how such systems are implemented and used.
They were right in that the body of knowledge on music use and technology such as digital
rights management is limited. The research is fragmented and much research done in private
industry is not published and easily accessible. Therefore there is a limited research
foundation body of literature to guide this research.
To change (illegal) behaviour, we have to understand it. To support legal behaviour, we need
to learn more about the way they people use digital goods and the channels through which
they obtain them (Dufft 2005). It is also important to understand the implications of
implementing a DRMS as it is unclear what the effects of DRM are on consumer behaviour
(Fetscherin 2005).
New music users do not know what DRM is, do not know or do not really care about
copyright (Pew 2003) and are not well informed about the legality of their actions with
respect to digital music (Dufft 2005; Remington 2006). The number of empirical studies of
DRM is growing (such as those discussed in section 2.4) however research so far has mostly
concentrated on separate topics and tasks instead of focusing on users’ overall personal task
flows related to digital music (Nettamo, Nirhamo and Hakkila 2006).
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 5 of 58

There is, however, a gap in the research to inform music sharing technologies and individual
use, and “there is a lack of understanding about users’ actual practices surrounding music
sharing” (Voida, Grinter, Ducheneaut, Edwards and Newman 2005). So to understand the
underlying phenomena of personal music management, it is necessary to study the overall
picture of how people retrieve, manage, enjoy and share digital music content, and what are
the cultural differences with these practices (Nettamo et al. 2006).
Issues of governance and systems use: Digital media growth has brought about important
uncertainties regarding the norms that should govern the use of cultural products (Barub
2006). An alarming trend with technological protection measures such as digital rights
management systems (discussed futher in section 2.2) “is the fact that the restrictions set out
in the licence between technology developers and copyright owners are usually not expressed
as terms of the contract the consumer enters into when the purchase of the copyrighted
material is made. Rather, they simply appear as 'features' in the copyrighted items and the
consumer only discovers their existence after the purchase is completed” (Lim 2005). In the
short run, this uncertainty has negative effects on both copyright owners and end-users
(Wagner 2004 in (Barub 2006)).
As Lessig (2004) notes, “circumvention technologies, just like a knife, can be used for both
good and bad means to an end. On one hand, they can be used to break a DRM system and
make millions of unauthorized copies of copyrighted music albums and sell them in
developing markets. On the other hand, they can be used to circumvent a technology that
prevents a computer from playing a music album”. Barub agrees that DRM “tools not only
regulate current content consumption behaviour of individuals but also shape consumers’
reasonable expectations about what they are and what they are not allowed to do” (2006).
Without understaning what users do with online music, it cant be expected that the policy
preferences be an accurate representation of user needs.
Following the signing of the free trade agreement with the United States, Australia introduced
the Copyright Amendment Bill 2006 to make it legal for people to transfer their CD
collections to their iPods. Previously, this type of format shifting had been illegal (Hayes
2006). This change in legislation suggests the sheer number of people using iPods and other
Mp3 players has had an enormous impact on the legalities of digital technology in Australia.
The other problem with online music technology is its ease of use. Alderman’s book (2001)
about Napster, referred to an experience where a record executive “joked about how difficult
it had been to actually pay for and download a song, and counted thirteen steps a consumer
had to follow just in order to get one song legally”. Barub equates buying cultural products
such as software and hardware to consume cultural products (such as an MP3) increasingly
resemble going through an important security check when terror-alert is orange (2006:75).
Lauren (a pseudonum), the legitimate consumer in Appendix D also had major problems
when trying to use an online music store to purchase new music.
1.4. Outline of Report
This report is structured as follows. Section 2 draws on the relevant literature as background
to the research questions and the context under investigation presented in this section.
Literature is presented on download culture, considering music use and personalisation;
digital rights management, the many definitions and managing rights in the online context;
and online business models. This section finishes with a summary of the empirical studies in
online music, highlighting the contribution that this research makes.
Section 3 discusses the research methodology, methods and setting. Within the research
methodology, the use of social informatics, the paradigmatic influences, the philosophical and
ethical assumptions are discussed. The use of ethnographic methods is justified and
explained, as are the specific methods that will be used to collect the empirical data. These
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 6 of 58

include observations, interviews, focus groups, key events, maps, document analysis and
triangulation. The ethical considerations for this project are also listed. How Nvivo will be
used for the literature and data analysis can also be found here.
A description of the research setting of online communities and the individual participants in
the research is outlined in section 3. Section 3.4 presents the background literature on the
theory to be used in this research: actor-network theory. Following this there is an explanation
of how the theory will be applied in this research.
A project schedule listing all remaining activities in the research is in section 4, as is a
detailed register of all planned and completed data collection activities and when they will
occur. Next is a table with my progress to date over the past 14 months, and a brief chapter
outline of my final thesis document. A full reference list for this report follows.
There are six appendices with relevant information for this report. In appendix A is my ethics
approval certificate. Appendix B has the focus group questions and appendix C has a working
version of the interview questions (these are being modified based on the pilot interview
recently completed). Appendix D contains the scenario of Lauren, the legitimate consumer
and her experience while trying to access music from an online music store. An actor-network
diagram or ‘rich picture’ can be found in Appendix E. This diagram gives insight into the
various stakeholders in the research, and how they relate to others elements of the network.
Appendix F has a table of all empirical studies of music use and digital rights management.
They are listed by (publication) date, location of study, author, participant focus, focus of the
study and methods used. Although this is not a comparative study it is useful to situate this
research within previous research.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 7 of 58

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.Download Culture
2.1.1.Music Use
2.1.2.Personalisation
2.2.Digital Rights Management
2.2.1.Definitions
2.2.2.Management of rights in the online music context
2.2.3.Online Business Models
2.3.Empirical Studies
2.3.1.User studies
2.3.2.Community/network studies
2.3.3.Music industry studies
Getting our music online is now a reliable way to get new music. The process of doing this is
referred to as ‘downloading’. Downloading music is
“A process whereby a piece of music can be taken from a remote server and
copied to a PC for later access and playback. Downloading is only
constrained by time, not by bandwidth, so the file types that are access can
be larger than for [content] that is streamed and therefore the fidelity of the
[content] can be expected to be superior” (Gilbey 2000)
The definition needs some expanding in comment about the PC to include mobile devices, to
where content can now be downloaded directly to, and are regularly used for playback.
Originally developed in 1994 (Russell 2006), the piece of music (referred to in the definition
above) is most commonly found in the form of an mp3 file; one which is technically stripped
of the sound that is not usually heard by a human ear in a household music listening situation,
thus reducing the file size so that it can still be enjoyed but can also be easily distributed
(Sterne 2006). Sterne gives a detailed analysis of the mp3 as a cultural artifact, and concludes
that mp3 technology “is perfectly and lovingly shaped for the very purposes to which it is not
supposed to be put: the mp3 is perfectly designed for illegal-file sharing” (2006).
Downloading, like hacking, is not always malicious (Russell 2006) and there is often more to
the music experience than just listening to the music. The experience is based around things
music users feel are valuable; interaction with the artefacts, such as reading the lyrics on the
inside cover of a CD, reading all about the artist on their website, and playing with the
interactive component of the CD (Waycott, Jackson, Singh and Beekhuyzen 2005; Nettamo et
al. 2006) Some derive pleasure from the technical apparatus itself, as one newspaper critic
wrote in 1953 (in (Steven 2003:85):
‘there is something intrinsically pleasurable about the whole process of
selecting, buying and playing a record. Indeed the hi-fi enthusiast probably
derives as much pleasure from extracting the record from its sleeve,
carefully cleaning its surfaces, and adjusting the controls of his hi-fi, as
from listening to the music’
This part of the experience is present in the offline world (as this example shows nicely) and
continues to be relevant in the digital world (Livingstone 2002). Predominantly now, our
music is digital. We have CDs, MP3’s, DVDs and mobile phones, in replace of our LPs and
cassettes; and digital music through the Internet is growing. It is therefore not surprising that
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 8 of 58

the Internet is now starting to play an important role in our music habits (Sirotic 2005). Some
suggest it is changing the way music is used (Fetscherin and Schmid 2003; Sandararajan
2004); add to this the varying technologies thrust upon users in order to participate in this
online music space and it may be surprising to realise just how much impact the Internet is
having on our online music experience (Livingstone 2002:93).
2.1. Download Culture
Downloading music over the Internet is fast becoming the preferred way of accessing digital
music for many users (Sirotic 2005:5). Software and hardware companies have innovatively
developed a range of security protection and DRM systems for music products with record
companies and music providers rapidly moving into new business models of digital delivery
(Rosenblatt et al. 2002:20).
With downloading has emerged some clear subcultures (Cooper and Harrison 2001). Back in
2001, Cooper and Harrison identified the ‘audio piracy’ subculture. This cultural group is
connected through their values and interest in music and technology. They have high
technical literacy “having to keep up with technological advances and other changes in their
virtual environment” and they spend varying amounts of their daily lives involved in these
activities. The authors reveal the community’s nominal purpose as “the exchange of highquality
audio files between people, making it easier to locate, share and store them for later
playback and re-transmission”. They found that there are three dominant roles that a ‘pirates’
activities fall: that of leech, trader and citizen.
Cooper and Harrison give detailed descriptions of these roles. In their simplest form, the
‘leech’ receives files free of charge and without any social responsibility to the community, it
is considered to be at the bottom of the “social heap”. The ‘trader’ approach is based on pure
exchange value; a swap of files takes place in this instance. A typical trader is usually active
more regularly than a leecher in the community. The authors argue that the most respected
role in the audio piracy community is that of the ‘citizen’; “one who is willing to give files
away in order to benefit the community as a whole, sometimes trading, sometimes leeching,
sometimes providing things for the lechers to consume”. Depending on a users’ relation (eg
time, devotion and social position) to the subculture, membership status changes over time.
Cooper and Harrison further comment that it is important to compare and contrast these social
roles within the community (2001).
As this type of downloading is only one approach to acquiring new music, another is to
purchase it from online music stores. iTunes is the most successful of these stores (Silverston
2006), however stores from music giants Sony and Virgin have had success. Others such as
emusic and magantune are also having some success (they are the first to adopt creative
commons licensing into their business model – discussed below); they are differentiating
themselves through alternative business models, such as employing a sliding pricing scale,
(Ulbrich 2003). This suggests that people are willing to pay for the music they get online
(Dufft 2005) and they want to use this as a legitimate medium for accessing their new music.
Those that use this method of downloading can also be considered a subculture for the
purposes of this research. It is suggested that they may have similar motivations and attitudes
for using these channels (even if this is just that they don’t want to engage in what is
considered ‘illegal’ activity), then this is enough to bind them in terms of norms, values and
beliefs.
Please note that these sub-cultures are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, users may
regularly engage in activities from both sub-cultures (Singh et al. 2005) possibly even in the
same sitting. To give an example, they may be using iTunes to get the latest Red Hot Chilli
Peppers release, while using a peer-to-peer (p2p) network to find the song they loved from the
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 9 of 58

adio that day. Also a crossover of these two sub-cultures is that of free music. This
engagement with the music (free) can also be considered a subculture in its own right.
Free music on the Internet takes a number of forms other than in the ‘piracy’ subculture. Free
music can be found on social networking sites such as MySpace, being placed there by the
artists’ themselves (Pew 2003) for either just listening or in some cases, for downloading also
(Gershberg and Auchard 2006). Free music can also be found in p2p networks, being placed
there again by the artists themselves. Often this free music found on the Internet is in the form
of creative commons licensed content. Creative commons music is music that has been
licensed for free use by anyone for non-commercial purposes. The creative commons scheme
works for any digital content, and there is a strong movement for this licensing of music
content (http://creativecommons.org/audio), led my Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig
(Lessig 2001; 2004). Creative commons (CC) also provides tools to the average music user to
mix CC music and to find archived CC music through p2p channels. As mentioned above,
Magnatune was the first online music store to adopt creative commons into their business
model of distributing music thus proving it is an option for music distribution that needs
further consideration.
As you can see from identifying these subcultures, there is a whole language associated with
downloading and sharing music online. This use of language within these subcultures
suggests that using concepts of culture may be a useful way to look at the downloading
phenomena. The cultural artifact, the mp3, is “shaped by several electronics industries, the
recording industry and actual and idealized practices of listening” (Sterne 2006). Now it is
useful to look at the way that people use music.
2.1.1. Music Use
As discussed in the previous section, users have a number of options for acquiring digital
music: either to pirate or to purchase (Fetscherin 2005). Kasaras (2002) argues that the MP3
phenomenon should be examined as part of the cultural transformation that the Internet
‘explosion’ produces on a global scale. This view of the problem in the wider context is
useful for examining actual music use and practices.
Music users want their music, like other media, on demand (Waycott et al. 2005). About 36
million Americans, or 27% of Internet users say they download either music or video files
(Pew 2005). They listen to music on the radio, computer, television, CD player, or portable
player, choosing the technologies they used depending on the context of use (for instance,
listening to music on the radio in the car, through the computer at work, on the stereo at
home, and through a portable device while in transit). In other words, participants make use
of a number of technologies to ensure that music is available to them when they want it
(Waycott et al. 2005).
A large-scale survey in Europe of nearly 5000 Internet users identified that 69 % of all
Internet users have experience with music on a computer. Particularly, younger Internet users
frequently use their computers or mobile devices to listen to music. They found that “by far
the most important source for digital music are CDs that consumers have either purchased
themselves or CDs from family members and friends. Online music stores do not yet play a
major role as a source for digital music: 29 % of the European digital music users have
obtained music from online music stores, but only 9 % frequently use them” (Dufft 2005).
Also in 2005, the comparable Pew survey in the US reported that the “percentage of music
downloaders who have tried paid services has grown from 24% in 2004 to 43% in 2005”
however they argue that current file downloaders are now more likely to say they use online
music services like iTunes than they are to report using p2p services “due to the stigma
associated with the networks” (Pew 2005). Confirming these figures, Sirotic’s 2005 study of
15-17 year olds in Australia highlight how filesharing is a small, but important part of daily
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 10 of 58

outines and music use. “Teenagers use filesharing networks as an informational, educational
tool in music consumption, as well as it contributing to knowledge and dialogue in social
encounters with friends” (Sirotic 2005:2).
Consistent with their 2001 findings, the Pew survey in 2003 found that “more than half of all
Internet users between the ages of 18 and 29 have ever downloaded music and almost 10% of
those in that age group are online downloading music on any given day”. At the same time,
“Americans between ages 30 and 49 are also downloading regularly, with more than a quarter
(27%) of Internet users in that age cohort reporting that they have downloaded music to their
computers” (Pew 2003). Sirotic argues that filesharing supplements the way young audiences
engage with music while also redefining the motivations and meanings of music.
The home domain functions as the central point when operating music devices, and the home
PC acts as a music hub (Nettamo et al. 2006). Nettamo et al found that content editing,
ripping and transferring between platforms, as well as online downloading and sharing,
happens at home. In general, music users see themselves as honest consumers: their role is to
purchase the music and use it in a way they considered to be fair (Waycott et al. 2005).
The European INDICARE project found that device interoperability is the key demand of
consumers (Dufft 2005). The same survey found that consumers frequently burn, share, and
store music files and that they are unlikely to accept digital music offerings that do not
support this behaviour. Fetscherin also agrees that there are some “technological
requirements as well as user rights restrictions which consumers might not accept when
downloading legal content” (Fetscherin 2005). Thus he argues that “implementing control
systems like digital rights management systems may make purchasing less attractive than
copying for consumers as the legal products restrict them in their usage” (Fetscherin 2005).
Sharing is an important consideration. The Pew survey of 2005 reported, “one in five
downloaders have copied files from other people’s iPods or MP3 player. One in four gets files
via email or instant messaging”. The 2003 results suggested that “two-thirds of those who
download music files or share files online say they don’t care whether the files are
copyrighted or not (Pew 2003). However they do seem to want to do the right thing. The
INDICARE project found that “P2P users who have discovered new music on the Internet,
subsequently buy CDs or purchase music from online music stores almost as often as the
average digital music user does” (Dufft 2005).
The European survey also confirmed that consumers “don’t want all for free but they want
value for money” (Dufft 2005). The majority of users are willing to pay for music files that
offer them more flexible usage rights, the ability to transfer files between devices, and the
ability to share. Studies by Nettamo et al (2006) and Singh et al also found that users are
willing to pay for music they believe is valuable to them. Dufft (2005) believes that users are
not willing to give up their flexibility in the use of digital music, even if restricted content
were offered at half the price.
Music users enjoy personalising their music, organising the tracks according to their own lists
which is made possible with digital media (particularly with an iPod) (Waycott et al. 2005).
As mentioned above, in the US “one in five downloaders has copied files from other people’s
iPods or MP3 player. One in four gets files via email or instant messaging” (Pew 2005). 40%
of Internet users own an MP3 player (Dufft 2005) and owning an iPod has a strong influence
on the tools chosen to retrieve, manage and share music (Nettamo et al. 2006). However until
recently, it was illegal to copy purchased songs from a CD to an iPod in Australia (Hayes
2006).
Although listening to music is largely an individual activity, sharing music among friends is
an important way for people to find out about new music (Waycott et al. 2005). Voida et al
(2005) present a descriptive account of the social practices surrounding iTunes music and
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 11 of 58

sharing and argue that “the technical innovations pull the opportunities of design forward
while political, legal and ethical considerations push those opportunities back”. They believe
that one of the greatest challenges for technical innovation in music sharing may be in
allowing designers to make the leap between treating music sharing technologies as personal
music listening utilities and treating music sharing technologies as online communities”
(Voida et al. 2005).
Certain technologies made it easier to share music (for instance, by burning copies of CDs),
although copying music is not seen to replace buying; rather it was viewed as a
complementary activity (a way of finding out about new music so that people could be
selective about what they bought). The accessibility of music makes a difference to how
people use technologies and share music (Waycott et al. 2005).
Of considerable concern though is that “the majority of digital music users do not have the
basic knowledge that seems necessary to make informed decisions” in their music buying
activities (Dufft 2005). “The majority of users is not well informed about the legality of their
actions with respect to digital music” (Dufft 2005). Consistent with the 2003 Pew survey
“more than half of the digital music users either do not care whether the music they download
onto their computers is copyrighted or do not know exactly what copyright means”. This is
said to hold true particularly for young Internet users who are at the same time the most
frequent users of digital music (Dufft 2005).
In Europe, 63 % of users of digital music have never heard of Digital Rights Management, an
additional 23 % does not exactly know what DRM is (Dufft 2005). Further to this, 79 % of
the users of digital music stores did not know whether the music they purchased was DRMprotected
or not or whether any usage restrictions applied. Of those that knew about usage
restrictions, the majority did not know the details of the restrictions (Dufft 2005).
Something also important to note about music use, is that students are more likely to be music
downloaders than non- students. “Fifty-six percent of full-time students and 40% of part-time
students report downloading music files to their computer. Only a quarter of non-students
report downloading files” (Pew 2005). It is particularly important because this group of
downloaders are perceived to have little understanding of the risks and consequences of their
actions (Remington 2006).
As identified by the Pew survey (2005) there is possible stigma associated with admitting to
engaging in illegal downloading, thus it is important to note Cooper and Harrison’s
foundation 2001 paper presenting the results of the “first sociological analysis” on audio
piracy subcultures. Taking a community perspective, they found that “audio pirates operate in
complex and highly structured social and economic environment that has its own particular
matrix of roles and norms”. They found that audio pirates “utilize multiple (and often
simultaneous) modes of communication and speak in a dialect heavily laden with
technological jargon”. They give a good description of the programs, networking protocols
software, hardware and file formats that make up an audio pirates technical environment.
The following section further expands this discussion by talking about the personalisation of
music, then the discussion looks at the technology that underlies much of the music found
online, digital rights management.
2.1.2. Personalisation
Those delivering music services and products need to be competitive; and to do this they must
providevalue. Personalisation is a way to add value to music content. Personalisation
shouldn’t be confused with customisation. Customisation is about the ‘express wishes of the
user’, with personalisation taking the initiative without the user’s input; it implies preferences
on the basis of past conduct (Ganley 2002:261).
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 12 of 58

In Satchell and Singh’s study on young people, mobile phones and personalisation, they argue
that personalisation is important for young people. They found that personalisation occurs for
aesthetics (look and feel – changing phone covers and ringtones) and also for creating profiles
and categories of profiles for contacts in their network (Singh and Satchell 2003).
The web has embraced personalisation very well in some instances. Amazon.com is provides
a good example with its ‘suggested reading’ lists, which are based on your previous searches
and stored personal history. It also suggests that ‘others that have purchased this (particular)
book have also purchased ....’ which many users find useful. Online newspapers are also
applying personalisation options to their growing audiences (Kreuger 2006).
Some online music services are also using personalisation services rather effectively.
Pandora.com comes from the Music Genome Project in which the self-named ‘personal DJ’s’
“set out to capture the essence of music at the most fundamental level - everything from
melody, harmony and rhythm, to instrumentation, orchestration, arrangement, lyrics, and of
course the rich world of singing and vocal harmony. It's not about what a band looks like, or
what genre they supposedly belong to, or about who buys their records - it's about what each
individual song sounds like” (www.pandora.com). Some other music web services offer
levels of personalisation but this is rarely more than remembering your preferences and
personal details from your previous visit to the site. According to Kreuger’s (2006:183)
study, 10% of respondents (range of stakeholders) reported offering music personalisation
services, mostly for free. But many companies still don’t offer personalisation services. In
fact she reports that personalisation is not popular with the music labels with 85.1% offering
no personalised products or services at all (p167).
2.2. Digital Rights Management
Digital rights management (DRM) is a security measure to protect digital versions of (music)
content (Jonker and Mauw 2005). Although there is an overlap in the definitions presented
below, they are based on protection technologies such as encryption, passwords,
watermarking and fingerprinting etc (Fetscherin and Schmid 2003). Even though there is no
unique or standard definition for DRM, those definitions that do exist can generally be
regarded as either rights-based or technology based.
Jonker and Mauw (2005) discuss how “content is bound to a license, and the content is only
accessible under the terms stated by the license”. DRM differs from traditional rights
management by being proactive instead of reactive; “it needs to be explicit and
comprehensive instead of letting the medium determine the rights” (Rosenblatt et al. 2002:ix)
(ie the hard copy of a book is difficult to copy so therefore copying will be limited). However
it is becoming increasingly hard to distinguish between access and use, as these two types of
systems begin to merge into one single system (Fetscherin and Schmid 2003).
2.2.1. Definitions
The rights based view of DRM is defined as a “collection of technologies that provides
content protection by enforcing the use of digital content according to granted rights. It
enables content owners and content providers to protect their copyrights and maintain control
over distribution of and access to content” (Conrado, Petkovic, van der Veen and van der
Velde 2006). Others refer to rights management as “business processes that for legal and
commercial purposes track rights, rightsholders, licenses, sales, agents, royalties, and
associated terms and conditions” (p4) and “controlling and managing rights to digital
intellectual property” (Rosenblatt et al. 2002:xiii).
DRM covers the digital management of rights whether the rights exist in a physical
manifestation of a work (eg a book/LP) or in a digital manifestation of a work (eg an
ebook/mp3 file) (Iannella 2001). Anderson and Lotspiech (1995) argue that DRM is “the
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 13 of 58

process of honouring copyright provisions, license terms and usage agreements established by
the owners of the intellectual property”. Taking a broad view of the meaning and scope of
DRM, Rosenblatt et al (2002:vii) describe creating content (information), and inherently
control a set of rights to that content – “to see it, to change it, print it, play it, copy it, excerpt
it, translate it into another language and so on”. They view rights as accruing from three
sources:
− Legal: rights that you get either automatically under law (such as inherent copyright) or
by some legal procedure (such as applying for a patent)
− Transactional: rights that you get or give up by buying or selling them, such as buying a
book or selling a manuscript to a publisher
− Implicit: rights defined by the medium that the information is on
Because of the changes in the medium (to online), the rights previously implicit in the
medium no longer exist (eg copying an entire book is not easy, compared to reproducing a
digital file) thus changing the nature of rights management.
In line with these defintions, the role of a digital rights manamgenet system is to “protect and
manage intellectual property ownership as content travels through the value chain from the
content creators to consumers and even from consumer to consumer (C2C)” (Fetscherin
2002). Along this “chain of hardware and software services and technologies” digital content
is managed for its full life time (Serrao, Neves, Barker, Balestri and Kudamakis 2003).
Record companies have a significant influence on the demand chain as well as the supply
chain (Premkumar 2003) and that content, in this case music, has DRM embedded, usually by
encryption, to protect and manage the rights of digital content owners and creators by
controlling how the content can be used (Laidler 2003). This definition by Laidler brings the
technical view of DRM into the discussion.
In the technical sense, digital rights management systems are the technological measures built
into the hardware or software of home computers, digital televisions, stereo equipment, and
portable devices in order to manage the relationships between users and protected expression
(Berkeley Center for Law and Technology 2003). It is a technological protection measure
(using the terminology of the Copyright Act) that digitally protects copyright owners against
infringements of their works. They are generally defined in two categories: systems that
control access to the works and systems that control the use of the works (Fetscherin and
Schmid 2003).
Some say DRM technologies “establish a trust relationship among the parties involved in
digital asset creation and transaction” (Wang, Zhu and Li 2006). From an organisational
perspective, DRM involves the “description, layering, analysis, valuation, trading and
monitoring of the rights over an enterprise’s assets; both in physical and digital form; and
tangible and intangible value” (Iannella 2001).
2.2.2. Management of rights in the online music context
DRM can be an important component of an organisation’s business strategy (Serrao et al.
2003). Jonker and Mauw (2005) stress that “security is an enabling factor of DRM”, and it
“persistently protects and governs content based on usage rules specified by the content
owner and rights held by the consumer” (Zhu, Yang and Chen 2005).
Creators, owners, distributors and consumers have rights. In an example of a music value
chain, the creator is the Beatles, the owner is Sony, the distributor is Apple (via iTunes), and
the consumer is the purchaser. Premkumar (2003) presents three major participants in the
supply chain; the content creators or artists, record companies and retailers. He argues, “apart
from technological issues, multiple marketing and sociological issues must be addressed to
ensure digital distribution is successful”. The role and separation of record companies and
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 14 of 58

etailers is often blurred in the online context, with this in mind Jonker and Mauw (2005)
have identified three core participating roles in digital rights management and the incentives
each role has for participating: the content creator, who creates content; the license creator,
who binds the content to a license (equivalent to the distributor in the example above); and
the user, who wants access to content..
As discussed in the previous section, rights stem from three sources: legal, transactional and
implicit (Rosenblatt et al. 2002). The legal and transactional rights have changed little over
time, however the implicit rights have changed dramatically with the new medium of digital
technology. “Most implicit rights derive from what’s easy and what’s hard to do with the
technology” (Rosenblatt et al. 2002), and ease of copying has changed significantly in the
case of the digital music file.
From a business perspective, DRM is useful in controlling and tracking authorised access to
content, and using these statistics for marketing, sales, royalties and accountability reasons
(Serrao et al. 2003). Selling music online has changed the transaction of music in some
obvious ways, such as using e-commerce. There is also now the choice of who to partner with
for distribution (Manasse 2001) an what type of licensing to use to manage the rights implicit
in the music content.
There are a number of licensing options for a record label; generally a “licence is
individualized and encrypted with a key that is bound to the hardware of a user’s player, so
the license cannot be illegally shared with others” (Zhu et al. 2005). The other option is to
embed it into the software (such as an Mp3 file) as is done with stores like iTunes (Voida et
al. 2005); for example Apple’s DRM is used on all content from their iTunes online store and
on the iPod; Microsoft’s DRM is used on Zune (their new mp3 player) and associated online
music store; however Magnatune, an online store that boasts paying their artists 50% of sales,
using Creative Commons licensing models.
Petkovic and Koster (2006) propose an alternative method of user-attributed rights, allowing
users to have some control over the rights they have on the content. Zhu et al (2005) argue
that control of content consumption rather than distribution is much more efficient in
protecting digital assets in the digital world. These varied and non-standard approaches to
music rights are said to be transforming users’ music experience (Petkovic and Koster 2006)
and taking away their expected rights (Jonker and Mauw 2005).
For these reasons, there has been strong encouragement for open digital rights management
(ODRM). ODRM aims to enable interoperability and support for fair-use doctrines (Iannella
2001), which are some of the biggest rights management issues in music DRM. In everyday
life, there is a strong move to technology convergence (Jenkins 2006) i.e. having seamless use
of content across music devices and platforms, but rights management technology is forcing
users to adapt their music experience to suit their chosen technology. Rather than enforcing
and mandating policies for DRM, open DRM provides the mechanisms to express such
policies (Iannella 2001).
There is also debate about music artists’ rights. Artists, due to the threat of copyright
violations, have generally supported the position of the record companies in the digital
distribution debate (Premkumar 2003). However, there are signs of dissatisfaction. The RIAA
claim to be campaigning for artists’ rights, however no funds recovered from individuals in
the legal cases won by the RIAA have ever reached individual artists
(www.defectivebydesign.org). Despite this, some artists and bands such as Metallica, have
been very vocal about their support of DRM and the music industry’s strategy (Alderman
2001:8). Others feel strongly that the music industry associations have never supported their
needs, and that DRM continues this trend. At a conference on music and piracy, Courtney
Love stated:
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 15 of 58

“Story after story gets told about artists – some of them in their 60s and 70s, some
of them authors of huge successful songs that we all enjoy, use, and sing, - living
in total poverty, never having been paid anything. Not even having access to a
union or to basic healthcare. Artists who have generated billions of dollars for an
industry die broke and uncared-for. And they’re not actors or participators.
They’re the rightful owners, originators, and performers of original compositions.
This is piracy. Technology is not piracy” (Alderman 2001:126).
Additional evidence of this contentious debate are the results of the (first large-scale) 2004
Pew Internet survey of the impact of the Internet on artists and musicians (Pew 2004). It
revealed that artists and musicians are “embracing the Web as a tool to improve how they
make, market, and sell their creative works. They eagerly welcome new opportunities that are
provided by digital technology and the Internet. At the same time, they believe that
unauthorized online file sharing is wrong and that current copyright laws are appropriate,
though there are some major divisions among them about what constitutes appropriate
copying and sharing of digital files”.
As this debate shows, there is no clear answer to rights management in the online music
environment. The argument so far suggests that DRM technology plays an important role in
the context of content rights protection and management (Serrao et al. 2003), however it is
impinging on users’ activities (Sandararajan 2004). DRM is growing in use by the record
industry and distributors, with music downloaded through peer-to-peer torrent networks
(often illegal content) being free of any DRM and any restrictions. To date, DRM systems
have generally been effective in their approach to protecting digital information and enforcing
the content rights of creators, however they place some practical restrictions on legitimate
users of online music (Manasse 2001; Fetscherin 2005; Jackson, Singh, Waycott and
Beekhuyzen 2005) (See Appendix C for Lauren’s story).
DRM’s main limitation is that “they don’t do a great job of modelling the actual uses of
content” (Rosenblatt et al. 2002). Much of the DRM literature is focused on the technical
aspects of DRM, looking at technologies such as watermarking (Chung, Kim, Jung and Moon
2005; Liu, Shao and Huang 2005) and digital fingerprinting (Mizuki, Nounin, Sone and
Toyotame 2005; Yong and Lee 2005) as a means to the ‘perfect’ secure system. However
many of these approaches give little regard to actual user behaviour (Arnab and Hutchinson
2005).
Recent research suggests that music downloading is becoming a daily activity (Sirotic 2005),
people have complex motivations for downloading (Singh et al, 2005), and current DRM
technology doesn’t necessarily support the spectrum of activities that users engage in
(Petkovic and Koster 2006). In fact in many cases, it goes against the consumer experience of
music (Duncan, Barker, Douglas, Morrey and Waelde 2004; Sandararajan 2004; Fetscherin
2005) and actually restricts legitimate users. These issues need further investigation within the
user context and the wider societal context.
2.2.3. Online Business Models
Digital rights management has become a pressing concern for the online music business
(Kwok 2002). DRM concerns the management of copies of virtual goods; the associated
rights management systems “attempt to make a faithful digital copy harder to produce, or
harder to use, but with limited success. Instead, personalized licenses to content can be
unique, and can serve as a practical method for establishing a user’s rights to digital goods”
(Manasse 2001).
According to Rosenblatt et al (2002:xi), the specification of who can do what to or with a file
a rights model. They believe that “developers of rights models for DRM took their inspiration
from file permission schemes for multiuser operating systems”. Zhu et al (2005) suggest
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 16 of 58

essential parts of DRM, they are “rights expression language to describe rights to be
managed, encryption and key generation and management to protect the content from
unauthorized access and usage, and tamper-proof trusted DRM modules on the client side to
ensure and manage the rights exactly as acquired”.
Premkumar (2003) presents six digital distribution strategies to distribute music through the
supply chain. He argues that focusing on supply chain efficiency may provide a solution that
cannot be implemented due to other constraints. He presents the pros and cons of each
distribution strategy for the identified stakeholders: customers, retailers, record companies,
and artists. He believes that while “educating the public on copyrights and the impact of
illegal copying on the music industry is critical to ensuring the music industry remains
healthy, and incentives exist for artists to create new music” (Premkumar 2003).
An alternative approach to some of the more restrictive models of managing rights is the
open digital rights management framework (ODRM). The ODRM framework is different in
that it considers technical, business, social and legal streams in its implementation and also
encourages interoperability (Iannella 2001).
2.3. Empirical Studies
This research project being presented in this document is empirical, so it is helpful to put it in
the context of other empirical studies. By doing this, it is possible to see the contribution this
research makes. Empirical studies on music and downloading are discussed briefly here and
can be referred to in Appendix F where they are organised and presented in a table.
This research adds to the body of literature in a number of ways (see below for further
explanation of these studies). Firstly there has been no study found that combines user, music
artist and industry stakeholder empirical perspectives in the one study. Secondly, other than
the New Zealand study on music information retrieval (Cunningham, Jones and Jones 2004),
there is no identified study of digital music use combining methods of observations,
interviews and focus groups. Thirdly, there are only two studies identified that explicitly state
‘students’ as all or some of their participants (Fetscherin 2005; Singh et al. 2005).
Additionally, there seem to be few studies that analyse actual online behaviour in a p2p
network/community environment (Adar and Huberman 2000; Cooper and Harrison 2001;
Oberholzer and Strumpf 2004). Lastly, only two empirical studies have been found that
specifically look at the activities of users and their online music activities in Australia (Singh
et al. 2005; Sirotic 2005).
Although the list of studies discussed here (and tabulated in Appendix F) is not exhaustive,
these are those identified from the literature to date. Continuing to look for empirical studies
completed is an important task of this research. Keeping in mind this is not a comparative
study; the studies here do however provide an overview of the different foci, locations and
methods of empirical research into online music.
2.3.1. User studies
Eleven studies focusing on music users and their music activities have been identified from
the literature. These span the past 5 years from 2002. They have been carried out in a range
of disciplines and using a range of methods. Surveys and interviews are the most common
form of data collection. The studies stem primarily from the US and Europe, with only two
studies located in Australia and one in New Zealand. Some of the large-scale surveys reach a
large group of participants, up to 5000 in some cases.
Three large-scale surveys on Internet and music use and consumer issues of DRM have been
conducted. The Pew survey in the US, conducted in 2003 and again in 2005, surveyed 1421
and 2515 adult Internet users respectively. These studies found that the use of the Internet is
growing as is engagement in varying levels of music downloading and sharing, and that a
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 17 of 58

large number of people either do not know or care about music copyright issues (Pew 2003,
2005).
The European INDICARE (The INformed DIalogue about Consumer Acceptability of DRM
Solutions in Europe) project aims to “raise awareness, help to reconcile heterogeneous
interests of multiple stakeholders, and to support the emergence of a common European
position with regard to consumer and user issues of Digital Rights Management (DRM)
solutions” (Dufft 2005). The large-scale survey reached 4852 Internet users and had similar
results as the US Pew survey. Dufft (2005) presented results suggesting that consumers have
very little understanding of DRM and how they impact on their music use.
Within the mobile music space, Vlachos, Vrenchopoulos and Pateli (2006) interviewed 25
consumers in Greece and the UK (as well as executives, discussed in section 2.4.3). Their
interest is in the task of moving traditional business models to mobile markets. Nettamo,
Nirhamo and Hakkila (2006) also interviewed their 12 participants from New York and Hong
Kong. This occurred after the users had spent time keeping a mobile photo diary and
description of their mobile music activities.
Two studies identified have specifically considered young people and their use of new media.
In the UK, Livingstone conducted an extensive study on 160 children, parents and heads of IT
teaching in schools. She found that the activities don’t change with new media; it is the
activities to engage in them that change (Livingstone 2002:89). Sirotic’s Australian study of
11 teenagers between 15-17 years of age, highlights that file sharing is a small, but important
part of daily routines and music use (Sirotic 2005:2).
Fetscherin’s 2005 study is the only identified empirical work that focuses on students
specifically. He argues that even though students don’t represent the entire consumer
segment, they do represent a significant target group of these products. From the 174
responses to the survey, he suggests that there are a number of technological and usage
restrictions placed by DRM that may be unacceptable to music users (Fetscherin 2005). The
other study that includes some students in the sample found similar results. Singh, Jackson,
Waycott and Beekhuyzen (2005) found that music users exist on a continuum of purchase and
downloading; i.e. in some instances a user purchases music and in other cases they may use
file sharing networks. They found that there is no clear ‘norm’ of music activities, and that
there are contradictions between DRM technologies and music consumers’ activities
(Waycott et al. 2005).
The remaining two studies identified from the literature are focused around specific music
activities. Cunningham, Jones and Jones’ study of ‘browsing’ music in New Zealand employs
mostly observations to understand the process of choosing new music (2004). Their music
information retrieval study also uses focus groups and interviews to gather user data. The
final study identified focuses on the use of iTunes in an office environment (Voida et al.
2005). Voida et al’s study of 13 participants was particularly interested in the sharing
capabilities of iTunes made possible through Apple’s rendezvous technology.
2.3.2. Community/network studies
Useful for this research, there are three identified empirical studies on music sharing
communities and networks in the literature. These studies generally employ observations
where the researcher attempts to become immersed in the file-sharing network. Observations
in the different studies range from 24 hours to 17 weeks. These studies have been
concentrated in the US.
Adar and Huberman’s study (2000) examined the gnutella p2p network for 24 hours. They
found that this network had few aspects of community, rather, it was felt to be an ‘impersonal
network’. Cooper and Harrison presented the observations of Mp3 sharers in an IRC chat
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 18 of 58

environment in 2001. Their focus on one particular ‘subculture’ of audio piracy over a few
months attempts to advance the concept of virtual communities (Cooper and Harrison 2001).
More recently, Oberholzer and Strumpf (2004) observed a p2p network for 17 weeks. From
this, they argue that these networks are having limited impact on music sales.
2.3.3. Music industry studies
There are also a number of studies exploring the attitudes and business practices of others
along the creator to consumer continuum (Cope and Freeman 2001), with participants from
music companies, record labels, DRM providers and music artists. These have all been
conducted in Europe, except the notable Pew survey, through a mix of both surveys and
interviews. Some of studies have interviewed a substantial number of participants, over 100 in
some cases. The Pew survey has nearly 3000 participants.
In Europe in 2000, Kretschmer, Klimis and Wallis (2001) interviewed 100 music companies.
In their interest of changing business models, they used multi-national and independent
companies in their study. Still in Europe and as part of the INDICARE project, Fetscherin and
Schmid surveyed 10 DRM providers in the film, print and music industries about how their
use of DRM technologies change the usage rights of the content (Fetscherin and Schmid
2003).
Alongside Vlachos, Vrenchopoulos and Pateli’s (2006) interviews with consumers (discussed
in section 2.4.1), they also interviewed 19 executives from music content providers in Greece
and the UK about their transition to mobile music markets. Swatman, Kreuger and van der
Beek’s study in Germany also focused on the changing business models of music providers
(2006). They conducted 340 surveys and 112 interviews. There have also been recent surveys
conducted by Jupiter Research in Europe about attitudes to DRM, however as a consulting
firm conducts them, access to their research results is expensive and difficult to find without
paying large sums of money. This is being investigated further.
The 2004 study by Kretschmer (2004) and the 2004 Pew survey on Artists, musicians and the
Internet are the only studies located that consider artists’ views. Kretschmer’s study asks
artists about the effect online piracy is having on their ability to make money from their music
career. In this study, 8 artists were asked to comment on their earnings and the state of online
music. In the Pew survey of 2755 musicians, they found that they “have embraced the internet
as a tool that helps them create, promote, and sell their work. However, they are divided about
the impact and importance of free file- sharing and other copyright issues”. This is the largest
study of its kind.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 19 of 58

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, METHODS AND SETTING
3.1. Research Methodology
3.1.1. Social Informatics
3.1.2. Research Paradigm
3.1.3. Ontological Assumptions
3.1.4. Epistemological Assumptions
3.1.5. Methodological Assumptions
3.1.6. Ethical Assumptions
3.2. RESEARCH METHODS
3.2.1. Ethnographic Methods
3.2.2. Ethical Considerations
3.2.3. Literature and data analysis with Nvivo
3.3. RESEARCH SETTING
3.3.1. Online Communities
3.3.2. Individual Participants
3.4. USE OF ACTOR NETWORK THEORY
3.5. Applying the Theory
Many argue methodology is much more than method; it is the theory of how inquiry should
proceed (Schwandt 1997:93)(p93). Shoib, Nandhakumar and Jones (2006) suggest it is about
“the philosophy and assumptions that underlie the conduct of a research endeavour and thus
pertains to the structure as well as content of the study”. They also believe that “the choice of
methodology defines the pool of choices for later decisions in the study” (Shoib et al. 2006).
This section discusses the research approach and the use of social informatics at the societal
level of analysis, focusing on the relationships between information, information systems, the
people who use them and the context of use. It briefly discusses the concept of paradigms in
information systems research, and the inherent ontological assumptions that will guide this
research. Benbasat, Goldstein and Mead (1987) believe the goals of the research and the
nature of the research topic can influence the selection of a strategy, thus the epistemological
and methodological assumptions that ‘fit’ with the chosen ontology are discussed. The role
and values of information systems research are also important to note, these are discussed as
ethical assumptions.
3.1. Research Methodology
Jarvinen (2001) presents a taxonomy of research methods, distinguishing at the top level
between approaches studying reality and mathematical approaches. In studying reality,
empirical approaches are divided between theory-testing approaches and theory creating, as
show in the diagram below (figure 1).
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 20 of 58

Researchers stressing what is
reality
Conceptualanalytical
approaches
Theorytesting
approaches
Approaches studying
reality
Approaches
for empirical
studies
Theorycreating
approaches
Research approaches
Figure 1 Jarvinen’s (2001) taxonomy of research methods (p10)
Mathematical approaches
Researchers stressing utility of innovations
Innovationbuilding
approaches
Innovationevaluating
approaches
Jarvinen (2001) suggests the decision about theory-testing or theory creating approaches lies
in whether there is a theory, model or framework guiding our research, or whether a new
theory grounded on the gathered raw data is being developed (p10). Ethnographic methods
are a theory-creating approach, as is grounded theory and phenomenonology (p11). This
research fits into the theory-creating approach, as there is no model, framework or theory
guiding the research. Actor-network theory will be used but more as a methodological theory
rather than as a theory to guide the research; it will help to explain what is going on but it is
not a construct guiding specific questions like “why did A happen?”
From the perspective of this adopted research approach of theory-creating, the field of
research that this research fits in, and the research assumptions that will guide it can be
discussed.
3.1.1. Social Informatics
Social Informatics is "the interdisciplinary study of the design, uses and consequences of
information technologies that takes into account their interaction with institutional and
cultural contexts" (Kling 1999). Kling explains the research focus on the relationships
between information and communications technologies and the larger social context in which
these information and communication technologies (ICTs) exist.
Social informatics research is emerging as a transdiscipline (Lamb and Sawyer 2005) across
the social sciences, information science, computer science and information systems.
Contemporary social informatics work spans issues of design, implementation, and use of
ICTs in a wide range of social and organizational settings (Sawyer and Eschenfelder 2002)
and has produced some useful ideas and findings that are applicable to many kinds of
information technologies and shed interesting light on these dilemmas of Internet use (Kling
1999). Sawyer and Eschenfelder (2002) present a comprehensive discussion of this body of
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 21 of 58

esearch, framing social informatics research as “exploring, explaining, and theorizing about
the socio-technical contexts of ICTs”.
Like the Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Computer Supported Cooperative Work
(CSCW) fields of research, social informatics is best viewed as a large and growing
federation of scholars focused on common problems (Sawyer and Eschenfelder 2002). Like
many other fields of research, social informatics draws on a range of social theories to explain
phenomena. There is no single theory of social informatics and there is no claim being made
that the research in this field is pursuing one particular theoretical notion (Sawyer and
Eschenfelder 2002). However, this body of research has developed theories and findings that
are pertinent to understanding the design, development, and operation of usable information
systems, including intranets, electronic forums, digital libraries and electronic journals (Kling
1999).
The social informatics approach is appropriate to use in studying information technology use
and social change in any sort of social setting, not just organisations; it is generally empirical
and contributes to a body of reliable knowledge about information technology and social
change (Kling 1999). The concept of the ‘social context’ is essential in understanding what
role information technology development and use plays in influencing the ways that people
use information and technologies (Sawyer and Eschenfelder 2002). Additionally, social
informatics’ emphasis on the empirical contextual analysis of ICTs and people in social
settings is increasingly useful for researchers who are also concerned with the physical
properties and design issues in support of people’s uses of information and contemporary
information systems (Sawyer and Rosenbaum 2000).
Social informatics approaches have been applied to a variety of issues of concern to designers
and users, and Kling (1999) believes “researchers have developed some fundamental ideas
that can help improve professional practice and that pertain to a diverse array of information
systems”. Putting the principles of social informatics into practice he believes “the design and
configuration of information systems that work well for people and help support their work,
rather than make it more complicated, is a subtle craft”.
Social informatics research investigates intriguing new social phenomena that emerge when
people use information technology (Sawyer and Eschenfelder 2002). Walsham and Sahay’s
study (1999) investigated the implementation and use of a new technology, a geographic
information system (GIS). The longitudinal study was situated in a government department
and within this research approach; they found actor-network theory useful for their analysis.
Davis (1997) investigated digital libraries and found social informatics useful in highlighting
“the wide range of actors and relationships that define system usability and use”. Kling (1999)
expanded on this and other studies of digital documentary systems. (Sawyer and Eschenfelder
2002) draw on the Etzioni and Etzioni (1999) study of computer-mediated communication
(CMC) in which they report that the creation of sustainable (stable) communities of
participants (stakeholders) is critical to a CMC system.
The social informatics approach is useful in this study as it encourages the view of specific
information technologies as ‘socio-technical systems’ (Kling 1999), with digital rights
management systems being a complex, interdependent system comprised of:
o people in various roles and relationships with each other and with other system
elements;
o hardware (computer mainframes, workstations, peripherals, telecommunications
equipment);
o software (operating systems, utilities and application programs);
o techniques (management science models, voting schemes);
o support resources (training/support/help); and
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 22 of 58

o information structures (content and content providers, rules/norms/regulations, such as
those that authorize people to use systems and information in specific ways, access
controls).
Kling argues that these elements are not simply a static list, but are interrelated within a
matrix of social and technical dependencies (Kling 1999). These aspects of the sociotechnical
system are also useful in identifying those present in the actor-network (discussed in
section 3.5).
3.1.2. Research Paradigm
Talking of a paradigm as “an accepted model or pattern”, Kuhn began the discussion of
paradigms decades ago in his influential book on scientific revolutions (Kuhn 1970:23).
Regardless of its controversial nature and its focus on natural sciences, Burrell and Morgan
(1979:23) first proposed four mutually-exclusive paradigmatic stances applying them to the
nature of social science and the nature of society, termed functionalist, interpretive, radical
humanist and radical structuralist. They use the term ‘paradigm’ to describe the basic
assumptions underlying co-existent theories. Over the past two decades, these four paradigms
have been explained, expanded and criticised.
Hirschheim and Klein (1989) argue that investigating computer-based information systems
involves making a number of implicit and explicit assumptions. They advocate a framework
(based on Burrell and Morgan's (1979:23) four paradigms of social theory) to classify the four
paradigmatic approaches to information systems development; functionalism, social
relativism, neo-humanism and radical structuralism. Hirschheim and Klein are not as stern in
discussing the mutual exclusivity of paradigms; they believe that “in practice information
system development approaches are influenced by assumptions from more than one
paradigm, however one paradigm’s influence is dominant” (p20).
In line with Chua’s (1986) criticism of the paradigms, structuration theory is advocated by a
number of researchers as an alternative (Walsham and Han 1991; Orlikowski 1992; Weaver
and Gioia 1994) proclaiming that it intends to move beyond the apparent opposition between
perspectives. Although structuration theory is an option, this research adopts a widely
supported paradigm for IS research. This research is situated in the social relativist paradigm
of Hirschheim and Klein's (1989), which corresponds to Burrell and Morgan’s ‘interpretive’
paradigm of social inquiry.
In 1991, Iivari proposed a framework based on the four major paradigmatic constituents;
ontology, epistemology, methodology and ethics of research (Iivari 1991). Choices about
these assumptions within this chosen paradigm for this research are discussed in the following
sections.
3.1.3. Ontological Assumptions
Ontology refers to the assumptions made about the phenomena under investigation (Iivari
1991) and the nature of reality (Morgan and Smircich 1980). The subjective ontology views
reality as a social construction (Hirschheim and Klein 1989); the social world is a pattern of
symbolic relationships and meanings sustained through a process of human action and
interaction (Morgan and Smircich 1980). With a subjective view, researchers seek to
understand “what people do to create their worlds and how they make sense of them
(McMurray, Pace and Scott 2004:10).
In this research the nature of reality of the online music phenomena can be understood
through the following objects and chosen perspectives:
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 23 of 58

View of
information/data
View of
information/data
system
View of human
beings
Constitutive meanings (rather than descriptive)
A subjective reality consists of subjective meanings and thereby
constructs reality (Iivari 1991)
Social system (rather than technical system), institutional view
The view that systems are primarily social, but technically
implemented (Goldkuhl and Lyytinen 1982).
Voluntarism (rather than technological determinism)
The subjective view places human beings in a proactive role (Iivari
1991) in that they can determine their own participation.
View of technology Human choice (rather than determinism)
View of organisations
and society
Table 1 Ontological Assumptions
Technology is flexible, possibly controlled by humans who are
responsible for its development and consequences (Iivari 1991)
Nominalism (rather than realism)
Socially constructed systems (Iivari, Hirschheim and Klein 1998),
“the social world external to individual cognition is made of nothing
more than names, concepts and labels which are used to structure
reality” (Iivari 1991)
3.1.4. Epistemological Assumptions
The interaction between ontology and epistemology is said to be very complex and is
typically not made explicit (Iivari et al. 1998). Epistemology is concerned with ‘what is
human knowledge and how it can be acquired’ (Iivari et al. 1998) and the limits of that
knowledge (Iivari 1991). An anti-positivist epistemological assumption is taken in this
research, which maintains, “the social world can only be understood from the point of view of
the individuals who are directly involved in the activities to be studied” (Burrell and Morgan
1979). According to Burrell and Morgan’s (1979) classification, this research will is a
subjective approach to understand the patterns of symbolic discourse (Morgan and Smircich
1980). This assumption maintains that “one can only ‘understand’ by occupying the frame of
reference of the participant in action“ (Iivari et al. 1998) and assumes the researcher is a
participator in the action of the scenario (discussed further in section 3.2 research methods).
It is expected that the findings of this research will not be universally generalisable, however
they will provide ‘thick’ descriptions of how people use online music (Geertz 1973) (see
section 3.2 for the methods). These descriptions and interpretations of the ‘download culture’
will contribute insightful knowledge about the nature of the social world (Iivari 1991). Such
knowledge is seen as being relative and specific to the immediate context and situation from
which it is generated (Morgan and Smircich 1980).
Neuman (1997) suggests the interpretive approach notes that human action alone has little
inherent meaning. Pliskin et al. (1993) states that the purpose of the interpretive approach is to
understand how culture is represented. “The specific meaning the approach expresses depends
on the cultural meaning system that the social actors share” (Neuman, 1997). The interpretive
approach has been associated with the symbolic interactionist approach (Neuman 1997),
which is a qualitative method and is a useful reference for this research. Communication is
symbolic because we communicate through language and other symbols and in
communicating, we create significant symbols (Schwandt 1997:149).
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 24 of 58

3.1.5. Methodological Assumptions
Research methodology in this context refers to the procedures used to acquire knowledge
about IS development approaches and related IS development methods and tools (Iivari et al.
1998). Burrell and Morgan first identified the two extremes of nomothetic and ideographic
research methods, then Iivari (1991) added the constructive category. The nomothetic
approach emphasises systematic protocol and technique as a basis for research, the
ideographic approach has the view that “one can only understand the social world by
obtaining first-hand knowledge of the subject under investigation” (Jarvinen 2001:9). Iivari’s
additional constructive category takes into account “the special character of IS and computer
science” (1991).
Franz and Robey (1984) suggest the use of ideographic rather than nomothetic research
strategies to understand a phenomenon in its context. Neuman (1997) argues that the
interpretive approach is ideographic by nature and Iivari et al. (1998) are of the belief that
ideographic methods appear most closely associated with the idealist ontological position.
This research will adopt an ideographic methodology. Jarvinen (2001) does not regard
interviews and observations as research methods but as techniques to gather data, suggesting
the same data gathering technique can be used in different methods. Some propose that every
researcher should collect data using one or more method/technique (Benbasat et al. 1987;
Neuman 1997).
3.1.6. Ethical Assumptions
The ethics of research are the assumptions about the responsibility of a researcher for the
consequences of his/her research and its results; specifically, ethical assumptions are
concerned with the roles of IS science and the values of IS research (Iivari 1991). Adapting
Chua’s work (1986:615), Iivari distinguishes three roles of IS science: means-end oriented,
interpretive and critical. Chua (1986:615) suggests the interpretive scientist enriches people’s
understanding of their action of “how social order is produced and reproduced” (p615). Iivari
et al. (1998) suggest that the basic values of research should be expressed as explicitly as
possible.
With regard to IS research values, anti-positivists deny the possibility of value free research
(Iivari et al. 1998). The main ethical concerns in this research are privacy and confidentiality.
The ethical issues are discussed further in section 3.2.2.
3.2. RESEARCH METHODS
There has been a growth in the use of non-traditional research methods, away from
conventional forms (McMurray et al. 2004:187). Research falls into two camps at its basic
level; that of qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative refers to measuring the quality of the
subject under investigation, with quantitative being more focused on measuring quantities.
Qualitative research is an approach to research rather than a set of techniques (Morgan and
Smircich 1980) and will be used in this research to investigate the online music phenomena.
Within the range of suitable qualitative methods which are appropriate for interpretive
research (Myers 1999), ethnography has been selected as the main data collection approach.
Ethnography is a methodology with a long history, and it touts particular usefulness for this
project as it emphasises meanings, details, understanding and openness (Shoib et al. 2006),
and it stresses the centrality of culture as the analytical concept that informs the study
(Schwandt 1997:44).
Ethnography is a multi-data approach compatible with the social construction view of society
and technology. This view stems from the social constructivist perspective, which holds that
“knowledge of the world is not a simple reflection of what is there, but a set of social
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 25 of 58

artefacts; a reflection of what we make is there” (Schwandt 1997:20). Although this study is
not a full ethnography (discussed further below), it is in spirit. And taking the view of the
constructors of this meaning in this study, this interpretive epistemology rooted in a
subjective ontology (Latour, B. 1993), fits with the research assumptions, interest in multiple
perspectives, context, social process, and everyday life (Schwandt 1994).
3.2.1. Ethnographic Methods
This study is not a full ethnography however it will make use of ethnographic methods to
collect the data. As mentioned above, this is an ethnography in spirit because it is
investigating culture, and the researcher is immersed in the research setting, however it cannot
completely be considered an ethnography because the use of participant observation in
ethnographies focuses on a context-specific group of participants and this research is based on
two groups of participants. Because of ethical reasons and the (il)legality of the contexts
being studied, participant observation is not an option (see section 3.2.1.1 for more discussion
of non-participant observation). The activities occurring in four communities will be observed
in the online community space, and participants will be sought to participate in the focus
groups and interviews. These participants may or may not be members of the studied online
communities, thus the data collected from them is not context-specific. However in essence,
this is an ethnographic study and although it can’t be labeled as such, ethnographic methods
will be used to gather the data; these are methods that are tried and tested approaches to data
collection in a traditional ethnography.
This research is also not considered a virtual ethnography, as the observation of online
communities is the only data that will be collected online. All interactions with participants
will be done face-to-face in interviews and focus groups; and there will be no online
interactions with the non-participant observations. This research is a qualitative interpretive
study using ethnographic methods to study the use of online music.
Within the ethnographic approach, the interview is the ethnographers most important data
gathering technique (Fetterman 1998:37) and it will be used to its fullest in this research to
enact a “conversation between interviewer and respondent with the purpose of eliciting
certain information from the respondent(s)” (Jarvinen 2001:130): music users, music artists,
record labels, license providers and distributors, music industry associations, legal
representatives and media journalists, consumer groups and law enforcement (see section
3.2.2 for more information). Interviews explain and put into a larger context what the
ethnographer sees and experiences (Fetterman 1998:37).
Direct observation may be more reliable than what people say in many instances (Jarvinen
2001:137). Using observations as a research method can be fruitful (Jick 1979), particularly in
a study of culture, where observations of manifestations such as artifacts and behaviours can
be used as sources of data to “triangulate” with information obtained about cognitive
components (Sackmann 1992). A way to understand culture through observations is for the
researcher to interpret signs to gain their meaning within the culture itself (Geertz 1973).
Using these two methods qualitatively as primary tools for data collection will enable the
creation of ‘thick descriptions’ (Geertz 1973) of the ‘download culture’. These methods are
complemented by other methods generally used in ethnographic studies; particularly focus
groups, key events, maps, document analysis, and triangulation.
There will be a pilot phase to each of the data collection methods. This will enable feedback
and changes to the interview, focus group and observation tools prior to using them for the
full study. Any problems, ambiguities or clarity issues will be identified during the pilot
phases.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 26 of 58

3.2.1.1. Non-participant Observations
Observation is a flexible technique, and complements most other data gathering techniques
(McMurray et al. 2004:188). Four online communities will be observed for 90 days each, with
one of them being part of a pilot study for 30 days prior. The purpose of observations in this
research is to understand the types of content being downloaded, the frequency, the language
used and other relevant aspects of the community environment. It is regular practice for
members of an online community to use a ‘screen name’ or pseudonym to identify
themselves; thus as a researcher I will have no access to the ‘real’ identity of the participants
(participants are not be able to be identified – discussed further in section 3.3).
In order to observe, I have joined as a member of each of the public communities however for
ethical reasons (discussed further in section 3.2.2), I will not be participating in any
community activities. The public Internet communities chosen for this study are well
established and highly populated, so regular and continued access should continue
uninterrupted throughout the research period. After the pilot phase of 30 days, the music
activities in all four communities will be monitored and recorded (in a spreadsheet) over a 12week
period. Happening in the first half of 2007, this length of time will be enough time to
see the quality of the experience (McMurray et al. 2004:188).
The online communities will be revisited in the final stage of data collection. This is to allow
a comparison of the community activities at two different points in time (first half of 2007
and first half of 2008). This will highlight any major changes in activities, frequencies,
language used and any other relevant community aspects over that year period. As this is an
industry sector that is changing very quickly, this will provide insight into the changes that
are occurring in a short space of time.
Rutter and Smith (2005) discuss the ethics of online discourse and the researchers
responsibility to those creating it. They argue, “just because talk takes place in public it does
not mean that that talk is public”. They believe even though those involved have recognition
that their words and actions are viewable by others, this does not mean that the discourse is
necessarily ethically available to online researchers. And Jarvinen warns of the danger of
“lies, deceptions, evasions, conjectures”, which could be presented by the participants, in both
the online environment and the offline space. The possibility of talking or be seen to be
engaging in illegal practices may also encourage participant to give false and misleading
information. Jarvinen (2001) comments, “this information is exceedingly valuable to the
fieldworker when it is recognized as false” (p84)
Marx (1998) encourages the application of traditional ethical research practice to the virtual
arena promoting the basic rights to respect, dignity and privacy of contributors however the
ethics of covert non-participant observation through the Internet has been debated vigorously
since the mid-1990s and continues to be an unsolved issue for researchers (Sanders 2005:71).
Sanders (in line with Rutter and Smith (2005)) argues that even though “the web is a public
domain and those who post information realize that it is not private in the traditional sense of
a personal conversation but accessible for anyone to read”, non-participatory observation as a
method to understand social interactions may not be as ethically controversial as actually
taking data (that is, quotations) from computer-mediated communications without permission
of the individual.
To treat the online observation data sensitively in this research, only data about traffic, rules
and types of users will be recorded about the online communities. Individual online forum
posts will not be collected or analysed. In line with Sanders’ approach where “no information
can be personally identified” (2005), using online observation data for research without direct
permission meets Marx’s (1998) criteria of protecting individuals from harm.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 27 of 58

3.2.1.2. Interviews
Avison, Fitzgerald and Powell (2001) refer to interviews as in-depth surveys that attempt to
obtain in-depth evidence from a relatively small number of informants. They advocate that
such an approach allows the researcher “to seek new insights” so that the phenomena can be
explored whilst gathering explanatory and descriptive material (Avison et al. 2001).
Jarvinen (2001:131) (p131) distinguishes between opposing extremes of structured interviews
and informalised interviews. This research will use an approach in the middle of these
extremes, that of semi-structured interviews which serve as comparative and representative
purposes, comparing responses and putting them in the context of common group beliefs and
themes (Fetterman 1998:38) (p38). Open-ended interview questions are exploratory and allow
participants to interpret them (Fetterman 1998:44) (p44), and will be used as opposed to
close-ended questions which are more confirmatory. See Appendix C for the interview guide
for music users. This guide has been used in the pilot study and is being revised based on
what worked and what didn’t.
It has been stressed (Fetterman 1998:40) (p40) that planning and executing properly placed
questions while maintaining a flexible format is the essence of good ethnography. Bell (1993
p99 in Jarvinen 2001, p131) provides a detailed interview checklist to use when preparing for
the interview process. Regardless of how prepared you may be, creating a positive interview
experience for the participant can be a challenge when trying to ensure the quality of the data
and maintain the participant’s right to privacy (Fetterman 1998:40) (p40) (discussed more in
section 3.2.2).
The interviews are conducted in phase 2 and 3 of the research (see the research schedule in
section 4.1). Music users, music artists and a range of industry stakeholders such as
representatives from the record labels, media, law enforcement will be asked to give their
opinions on online music in interviews. All participants will be assigned a pseudonym.
Music users: Students make up the sample of music users to be interviewed (justification for
this is outlined in section 3.3.2). The interviews of music users will include both Australian
and German participants; the German student was included to add richness to the dataset, not
for a comparison. The pilot phase of interviews with music users consists of one interview in
Germany (complete) and two interviews in Australia. There will be 30 exploratory interviews
with music users in phase 2 (see section 4.1 for the research timeline). The German interview
was used as a pilot interview, to test the interview questions and to gain some insight into the
music culture of another country.
The student participants come from a range of age groups and disciplines (undergraduate or
postgraduate degree) in the student population. People who do download music over the
Internet and some who don’t will be included in the study to serve as reference point. Those
who don’t will share why they don’t engage in online music giving further insight to the
motivations of downloading and sharing music. They will be asked to volunteer to participate
in the interviews and no reward will be offered for their participation.
Each interview with music users will occur at Griffith University or in the local Brisbane
area. The German interview has already taken place at the Fachhochschule Hanover -
University of Applied Sciences and Arts in Hanover, Germany in February 2007. I was
teaching an unrelated course and took the opportunity to talk to local students.
The interviews are and will continue to be open-ended and semi-structured, and between 30
and 90 minutes long. They will be digitally recorded with the participants’ permission; each
participant will complete a consent form to indicate this. The interviews will be conducted in
person without any reference as to the actual identity of the participant. This was a
requirement of gaining ethical approval for this research. How the participants are sampled
and sourced is discussed in section 3.3.2. There are important ethical considerations that must
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 28 of 58

e addressed when arranging the interviews. These methods of contact used will ensure
participants anonymity to the researcher. The interviews will later be transcribed for analysis
and pseudonyms will be the only reference to the participants’ identity.
Industry stakeholders: Representatives from the record labels, media and law enforcement
will make up the participants in these interviews. There will be 10 interviews conducted from
across these industries to give a professional and legal perspective on the issues of online
music. The pilot phase of the interviews of music stakeholders will consist of two interviews
in Australia. The participants come from a range of industries and may be located in other
states of Australia. How they will be sourced is discussed in section 3.3.2. I intend to travel to
meet and interview those that are deemed suitable, based on their current position,
background experience (if available) and their willingness to participate in this research void
of any incentive.
Industry stakeholders will be asked their views on the current online music phenomena, and
where they see digital online music going in the future. Depending on their role, they will be
asked questions around their expertise. This suggests that the interviews will more flexible in
structure than the interviews with music users.
The interviews are and will continue to be open-ended and semi-structured, and will last for
30 to 90 minutes. They will be digitally recorded with the participants’ permission; each
participant will complete a consent form to indicate this. The interviews will be conducted in
person without any reference as to the actual identity of the participant. The interviews will
later be transcribed for analysis and pseudonyms will be the only reference to the participants’
identity.
Music artists: For this research, 10 music artists will be interviewed. Music artists are not
included in the pilot phase of the interview. The music artists to be interviewed will be from
across the spectrum of those that are established in the industry and those that are considered
new artists. As Brisbane has a good representation of Australian artists from across this
spectrum, it is anticipated that most if not all music artists can be sourced locally. However if
the music artists are located in other parts of Australia, I intend to travel to meet and interview
those that are deemed suitable, providing they are willing to participate in this research
without receiving any incentive. How they will be sourced is discussed in section 3.3.2.
Music artists will be asked their views on the current online music phenomena, and where
they see digital online music going in the future. They will be asked about their own personal
experiences in the online space, and the issues associated with being a musician in this online
environment. This suggests that the interviews and their structure will be similar to those of
the industry stakeholders; more flexible in structure than the interviews with music users.
The interviews are and will continue to be open-ended and semi-structured, and will last for
30 to 90 minutes. They will be digitally recorded with the participants’ permission; each
participant will complete a consent form to indicate this. The interviews will be conducted in
person without any reference as to the actual identity of the participant. The interviews will
later be transcribed for analysis and pseudonyms will be the only reference to the participants’
identity.
3.2.1.3. Focus Groups
Focus groups can be useful in helping to explore, define and generate ideas (McMurray et al.
2004:203). The aim of the focus groups in this research is to encourage some group
discussions talking about the issues of online music (see appendix B for the focus group
questions). These discussions will help to shape the interview questions. The focus groups are
conducted in phase 2 of the research (see the research schedule in section 4.1). Music users
will be asked to give their opinions on online music in focus groups, as a group of 6-10
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 29 of 58

participants. All participants will be assigned a pseudonym.
Students make up the sample of music users participating in the focus groups (justification for
this is outlined in section 3.3.2). The pilot phase of focus groups with music users consists of
two focus groups of four users in Germany (complete). Following this, 6 focus groups will be
run with 6-10 users in Australia. The focus groups of music users will include both Australian
and German participants; the German groups were included to add richness to the dataset, not
for a comparison. The German focus groups were used as a pilot, to test the focus groups
questions and add to the descriptions given in the pilot interview, thus gaining some insight
into the music culture of another country.
The student participants in the focus groups come from a similar sample as the interviews
with students; from a range of age groups and disciplines (undergraduate or postgraduate
degree) in the student population. People who do download music over the Internet and some
who don’t will be included in the study to serve as reference point. As with the interviews,
those who don’t will share why they don’t engage in online music giving further insight to the
motivations of downloading and sharing music. They will be asked to volunteer to participate
in the focus groups and no reward will be offered for their participation.
The participants for the focus groups will be sourced in the same way as in the interviews
(discussed in section 3.3). Each focus group with music users in the main study will occur at
Griffith University or in the local Brisbane area. The pilot German focus groups have already
taken place at the Fachhochschule Hanover - University of Applied Sciences and Arts in
Hanover, Germany in February 2007. I was teaching an unrelated course and took the
opportunity to talk to local students.
The focus groups are semi-structured, guided by some brief questions, and will last between
30 and 90 minutes depending upon the interaction between participants within the group.
They will be digitally recorded with the participants’ permission; each participant will
complete a consent form to indicate this. The focus groups will be conducted in person
without any reference as to the actual identity of the participant. How the participants are
sampled and sourced is discussed in section 3.3.2. There are important ethical considerations
that must be addressed when arranging the focus groups (see section 3.2.2). These methods of
contact used will ensure participants anonymity to the researcher. The focus groups will later
be transcribed for analysis and pseudonyms will be the only reference to the participants’
identity.
The focus group question guide for music users can be found in Appendix B. It will be
slightly modified for future focus groups based on the responses and time taken to respond to
questions in the pilot study.
3.2.1.4. Key Events
One important consideration in this research is its novelty. Online music, social networking
communities (such as MySpace), corporate partnerships, music copyright cases and various
legal proceedings are in the technology news almost on a daily basis. One challenge this
research poses is to include the key events that are taking place in the wider music and
Internet community and also to draw on key events in the recent history (Fetterman 1998:98).
This has become a rapidly changing industry and it is important to acknowledge this in the
wider context of the research. To do this, events reported in various news sources are being
regularly recorded as part of the literature review and will be analysed within this wider
context.
3.2.1.5. Maps
Maps are a useful tool to identify the stakeholders in the research setting (Fetterman 1998:98).
In using maps with actor-network theory (see section 3.4), it is possible to identify the many
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 30 of 58

actors (stakeholders that are human and non-human), and their complex relationships as they
exist. This is not a conceptual mapping, but rather a map of the research setting and problem
situation. The diagram illustrated in Appendix E gives a reasonably clear picture of the messy
situation under investigation. This map has been through much iteration already in this
research, and it is anticipated it will go through much more.
3.2.1.6. Document Analysis
The community news, user information, file listings and other documents from the
communities will form the documentary analysis aspect of this case. They will be used to
support and help understand the download information, the current activities, the language,
and cultural and political nature of the communities under investigation. Industry reports will
also be used to inform the problem being studied.
3.2.1.7. Triangulation
Triangulation is based in ethnographic research and is at the heart of ethnographic validity
(Fetterman 1998:93). Triangulation refers to the “use of several different research techniques
in a study to confirm and verify data gathered in different ways” (McMurray et al. 2004:263).
Jick argues that the “effectiveness of triangulation rests on the premise that the weaknesses in
each single method will be compensated by the counter-balancing strengths of another; it
purports to exploit the assets and neutralise the liabilities” (1979).
Although the term has scientific roots, it is also a useful way for an ethnographer to ”compare
information sources to test the quality of the information (and the person sharing it), to
understand more completely the part an actor plays in the social drama and ultimately to put
the whole situation into perspective” (Fetterman 1998:93). As this research is employing
multiple methods of data collection, it will be useful to use triangulation to compare the
various sources for validity and consistency. Triangulation will be used as a technique
between methods to validate the interview and observation data collected.
3.2.2. Ethical Considerations
The ethics approval process was very useful for the development of the methodology for this
research. Because of collecting sensitive data (possibly about illegal activities) from my
participants, I had to be very clear in how I would treat my participants’ personal information.
It is important that no identifying information is kept about participants, either in hard copy or
electronic form. This does pose some challenges for contacting potential participants (as
email is not an option for contact) and also for following up with participants for clarification
of interview or focus group data, however it was important to find solutions to these issues.
The means to identify and contact participants is discussed further in section 3.3.2.
3.2.3. Literature and data analysis with Nvivo
Qualitative researchers have asked: why bother to use software for qualitative data analysis?
(Barry 1998) Even though these concerns are somewhat outdated, it is important to discuss
them and how they relate to this research.
A qualitative research software tool is being used to help with analysis of the literature and
the data collected. Nvivo (and its predecessors) and its competitors (Atlas, Leximancer etc)
has been used for all types of research across disciplines. Traditionally it has been used
mostly for data collected in the field (Caldeira and Ward 2003; Bhattacharyya 2004;
Patashnick and Rich 2004) but now it is being used more regularly for reviewing literature
(Bandara 2006) (except for the notable paper from di Gregorio (2000)). Some papers on how
to use the software for research have been published, and are useful in providing advice to
researchers (Dean and Sharp 2006; Woods and Wickam 2006).
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 31 of 58

I have been using Nvivo (and its predecessors) for seven years in different projects. It is a
useful tool for coding text and for supporting theory generation through identifying patterns
(Fetterman 1998:82&96). I have found it to be a good project management tool for organising
nearly all aspects of my PhD research project and I find it easy to analogise how I would
manage the research project without technology. However, the software allows me to manage
documents such as research papers and interview transcripts, and also manage links to
external sources such as websites, books and audio-recordings. It is limited in its platform
dependency (on Windows) and its occasional instability (service packs are released regularly),
however the benefits are not outweighed. Having literature research and empirical research in
the one accessible place has its advantages: direct links between the literature and the
empirical data can be identified and substantiated.
3.3. RESEARCH SETTING
This research is situated around people’s online music activities. These activities will occur in
the online space and offline also. They are intertwined and one cannot be considered without
the other. As mentioned in section 3.2.1, this research will include observations of four online
communities. Participants in the observations will be members of four identified online
communities (discussed in section 3.3.1.) The real identities and demographics of these
participants are unknown to the researcher (and other members of the community). The only
way they are personally identifiable on the communities is through a nickname or pseudonym
to represent themselves so their real identity is not disclosed.
In this research, online community members will be given a further pseudonym to be sure that
their identity is concealed. Consistent with Paccagnella (1997) and Rutter and Smith (2005), I
believe it is important to “change not only the real names, but also aliases or pseudonyms
(which) proves the respect of the researchers for the social reality of cyberspace”. This is to
be done when recording the first of any data from the online communities. Any revealed
demographic-type information reported in this research will come from details about their
frequency of participation in the community, their status and/or ranking, their share ratios and
anything else that identifies them as part of the network.
Participants in the interviews and focus groups are university students and may or may not be
part of the online communities being studied. No connection is assumed although it is
predicted that at least some users are or have been part of the online communities studied, as
some of the communities are very large (eg MySpace and iTunes). Students were chosen as
the focus as they are easily accessible to the researcher, and they present an interesting and
diverse group for the study of online behaviour. Although students do not represent the entire
consumer segment, they account for a considerable proportion of all consumers of music
products and are part of a consumer group in which copying and sharing of digital content is
prevalent (Remington 2006). Students are part of the group which has been identified as being
more prone to copyright violations and piracy (Fetscherin 2005). Volunteer sampling will be
used to gain access to participants, Jupp (2006:322) argues that this type of sampling is
especially useful in sensitive research when it is necessary to rely on those who are willing to
answer requests to provide data.
3.3.1. Online Communities
Phase 1 and 4 will explore the activities within online music communities. Four diverse
online music communities are included in the non-participant observations in order to provide
information on music downloading activities across the digital delivery services spectrum (as
shown in Appendix E). The activities within each online community will be observed as will
any publicly viewed communications posted in the community, except the community forums
(these are not being observed because the observation is covert – discussed more in section
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 32 of 58

3.2.1.1). Additionally, these particular communities were chosen because the content within
each of them has varying levels of DRM. These are represented in the diagram in appendix E.
All four communities are free to join. Three of the communities are completely public and can
be joined by anyone, with the fourth community being accessible by invitation only (I have
received an invitation to join). All four communities are moderated by a third party thus
participants must abide by agreed set rules to continue to participate. All communities will be
accessed from a single computer which at all times will be located (and thus connecting to the
communities from) outside of the university network. This particular computer will be cleared
by re-formatting at the end of the data collection to ensure all data concerning the
communities and participants are not available should it be requested that I provide it at a later
date. This was an ethical concern of the university in getting clearance, and will form part of
the research protocol for this study.
Community 1 is A1. A1 is an invitation only semi-public community that specialises in
making available the latest possible online content for download. A1 was chosen as it is a
local network of around 1200 people in Australia using BitTorrent peer-to-peer technology to
download and share content. The content is free and not stored on the site, rather torrents
(information files) are uploaded to the site by a limited number of users, these are then
downloaded by other users who can use free third party software to download/share music at
any time. There is no DRM technology used at all on the community.
Community 2 is MySpace. MySpace is a public, open-access social networking
site/community consisting of an interactive, user-submitted network of friends, personal
profiles, blogs, groups, photos, music and videos (Wikipedia 2/1/07). MySpace was chosen as
it represents a fully public global community with free content available for download
(anyone can join and access available music). Independent bands that have not signed with a
record label sell their music on the site. According to MySpace, there are nearly three million
bands showcasing their music. The bands will decide how much to charge for each song after
accounting for MySpace’s distribution fee. Snocap provides digital licensing and copyright
management services and was started by the founder of Napster, Shawn Fanning. EMI, the
Universal Music Group, the Warner Music Group and Sony BMG own about 75 percent of
mainstream popular music. Most of this music is available only on MySpace for live
streaming as a promotion, not for sale. Once on a page that has music, it plays automatically.
In strong support of artists’ rights, only artists who own the rights to their content can upload
it. MySpace claim that if you upload songs you do not own, you account will be deleted.
MySpace has recently adopted DRM technology to ensure that users do not upload
copyrighted music to their MySpace page. They use Acoustic Fingerprinting (from
Gracenote) DRM technology. At present, mySpace does not have direct links with record
labels to distribute content through their site. MySpace is owned by Rupert Murdoch who
owns Fox Network. He recently bought the site for ~US$60 million.
Community 3 is iTunes. The iTunes Store is the most successful online music store with
millions of downloads for US0.99c or AUD$1.69. iTunes was chosen for this study as it is
more than just an online store on a website, access to the iTunes music store is explicitly
connected to the iTunes software on your computer, and users are encouraged to shift their
downloaded content to their iPods. The iTunes Music Store (which enables sharing) is
country specific (you can only download from the store in the country where you live) and
each country’s store has different content (including local content). Apple Computer’s iTunes
allows users to preview a 30 second snippet of any song and uses FairPlay’s DRM technology
(built into QuickTime’s multimedia technology) to digitally encrypt AAC audio files. The
DRM prevents users from playing these files on "unauthorized" computers. Some restrictions
are also placed on users as to how many times the song can be copied and space-shifted.
Community 4 is Magnatune. Magnatune was chosen for this study as it is the first ‘Internet-
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 33 of 58

era record label’, and they use a shareware type model to allow users to “try before you buy”.
Magnatune signs artists directly and streams the music to your computer like a radio. They
provide dynamic pricing (pricing changing on demand) for content and ‘suggest’ a cost price
to the user to download (to play and burn later). They say their average return on a song is
more than the suggested price. Unlike most record labels, artists keep half of every purchase
and they keep all of the rights to their music. They have embraced open source technology
and creative commons licensing (discussed in section 2.1) and create a community by
allowing users to remix, change and share music content. Magnatune has no major record
label connections and they are proud of using no DRM technology. Their slogan is “we are
not evil”.
3.3.2. Individual Participants
One group of participants in the research are students. Their participation in the interviews
and focus groups is based on their willingness to volunteer to take part in the research. The
interviews and focus groups have the specific purpose of eliciting information from them
about their online music activities. In sourcing the students, volunteer sampling (Jupp
2006:322) will be used. This form of case selection is purposive rather than based on the
principles of random or probability sampling and useful in situations where these other
approaches are not appropriate (Jupp 2006:322).
Students will be sourced through physical (on campus) notices on message boards and in
lectures, and through electronic (hosted off campus) notices on bulletin boards and blogs. I
will also seek to contact the participants through notices in newsletters and websites in the
local university and community. When sourcing interview participants, details of the meeting
time and place will be included in the public ‘advertised’ notices. To take part in the study,
participants will meet the researcher at the advertised public location, then they will go on to
the interview/focus group room. These details will be provided to participants with three
weeks of notice, thus allowing them to approach the researcher in an anonymous fashion, and
enabling them to maintain their anonymity.
In sourcing industry stakeholders, I will use my current networks of former students and
established networks of industry associations to contact possible participants. I will also
contact radio stations, media organisations, legal professors and law enforcement groups such
as the ‘computer crime’ department of the local police. I will primarily use email for this
process, with phone calls used where necessary. In the first contact, I will outline my project
and the aims of the data collection and offer them an opportunity to participate. The aim of
these interviews is to get some different perspectives about the current state of the DRM,
copyright and associated legalities, and the music industry in Australia. I will also ask about
the future of DRM and the impact DRM is having on the music industry.
The music artists will be sourced through personal networks and connections to the local
music industry. Youth focused radio stations such as national Triple J and local 4ZZZ will be
contacted to ask for contacts to music artists and bands. I will primarily use email for this
process, with phone calls used where necessary. In the same way as the interviews, the first
contact will be when I outline my project and the aims of the data collection and offer them an
opportunity to participate. The aim of these interviews is to get an a creators perspective of
their music within the online context and how they fell about the different modes that their
music is accessed and used. They will also be asked to comment on the current state of the
DRM, copyright and the music industry in Australia. I will also ask about the future of DRM
and the impact DRM is having on the music industry.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 34 of 58

3.4. USE OF ACTOR NETWORK THEORY
This research is investigating the way that people use music. As well as observing actual use
through online communities, people from a range of perspectives will be asked about online
music in Australia. As discussed so far, this is a complex problem with many competing
interests at stake. The user perspective is the one of most interest here, however others will
provide useful information to help in assessing the online music environment. Consistent with
the assumptions underlying the use social informatics, actor-network theory (ANT) is the
suggested theory to be used for this study because it has the ability to view people and
technology equally in the music network. It is also useful as it helps to identify and discuss
the relationships of the many participants in the complex network.
Actor-network theory is an interdisciplinary approach to studying issues of technology and
society. It is an established social theory for investigating information systems (Walsham
1997) and social informatics (Walsham and Sahay 1999) research. It is a constructivist theory,
originally developed by two leading French scholars Michel Callon and Bruno Latour, and
British anthropologist John Law (Callon 1986; Latour, Bruno 1999; Law 1999). They argue
that an ANT investigation of society and technology is complementary to the socio-technical
perspective discussed by Mumford (1981) and countless others since.
Related to actor-network theory and its role, there has been a long-standing debate in the
information systems literature between technology and organisation (highlighted in a special
issue in the Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 2005): does technology cause
effects in organisations, or is it humans that determine how technology is used? (Rose et al.
2005).
There have been many criticisms of ANT; the main argument is against the assumption that
actors can be human or non-human; however this is also the main feature of the theory. Other
arguments are against using the same conceptual apparatus to analyse humans and nonhumans
in the heterogenous network (Shoib et al. 2006), and that it treats technological and
social elements as inseparable. Regardless, many information systems studies have used ANT
in their studies, some authors have used the theory to develop theoretical foundations
(Walsham 1997; Latour, Bruno 1999; Rose, Jones and Truex 2005) while others use it to
present their empirical data (Lanzara and Morner 2005; Beekhuyzen and von Hellens 2006;
Shoib et al. 2006). Shoib et al. (2006) believe its usefulness and applicability to practice has
been visited only briefly.
In ANT terms, all contributors to the formation of the network are treated in the same way.
Thus "the term actant is symmetrical, it applies indifferently to both humans and nonhumans"
(Latour 1991, p179). ANT differs from other theories in that "technology is an actor
because it has been endowed with the ability to act through its position in the network"
(Holmstrom and Stalder 2001) and here action is defined in the context of one particular type
of consequence: a role in a socio-technical network and particularly the historical
development of those networks (Rose et al. 2005). In technology development, it is
impossible for designers of the machines of the future to foresee, or in many cases even
understand all the sets of conditions that a piece of technology will be used under, or the
decisions of the humans who supervise and work with them; this implies machine agency.
According to Rose et al. (2005), agency cannot be understood in isolation from the
situational conditions which both make it possible, and frame its subsequent interpretation.
They concur with Giddens (1984) that social structures made up of individuals' personal
experiences are important.
Social theories and their assumptions can help researchers to construct a variety of
worldviews, enabling a focus on the everyday experience (Shoib et al. 2006). Adopting actornetwork
theory as a meta-theory to test, it is possible to represent the online digital music
environment, considering these various worldviews. Actor-network theory provides the tools
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 35 of 58

to investigate the sensitive balance between the technical and social aspects of digital eights
management. This is done by recognising each of the actors, as well as clarifying the actions
of each of those present in the network. ANT also examines the motivations of group actors;
Shoib et al. (2006) argue this makes it suitable for high-context, collective environments and
it provides the ability to be specific about the technology (Monteiro and Hanseth 1996). By
investigating these interactions and understanding the motivations and attitudes to music
downloads, it is possible to gain an understanding of the unintended consequences of
technology on the user experience.
Based on Latour’s ‘Rules of Method’ (1987), this study follows Shoib et al’s (2006) advice to
adopt a processural approach, avoid determinism, be relationist in our viewpoints, adapt
multiple perspectives, and follow inscriptions and their effects. This can be done by defining
and following the points of view, interests and enrolment processes of the actors and actants
involved. Consistent with Hanseth and Braa’s experience, Monteiro and Hanseth (1996:83)
argue that large systems like the Internet ‘appear as independent living actors’. Thus using
this approach allows an understanding of the interactions between the various agents involved
in the music experience.
3.5. Applying the Theory
An important criticism of actor-network theory is that it does not represent a stable body of
knowledge that can be drawn on unproblematically. In acknowledging this, Walsham (1997)
recommends researchers concentrate on the stable part of the theory, presented in table 2.
Concept Description
Actor (or actant) Both human beings and nonhuman (sic) actors such as
technological artefacts
Actor-Network Heterogenous network of aligned interests, including people,
organizations and standards
Enrolment and translation Creating a body of allies, human and non-human, through a
process of translating their interests to be aligned with the
actor-network
Delegates and inscription Delegates are actors who “stand in and speak for” particular
viewpoints which have been inscribed in them
Irreversibility The degree to which it is subsequently impossible to go back to
a point where alternative possibilities exist
Black box A frozen network element, often with properties of
irreversibility, eg legal requirements
Immutable mobile Network element with strong properties of irreversibility and
effects which transcend time and place, eg software standards.
Table 2 Stable Elements of ANT (Walsham 1997:468)
Walsham states that the stable elements of the theory focus on formation of aligned networks
of interest and processes that translate these interests into stable networks. Applied to this
study of DRM, the stable elements include those listed in table 3. This is only a general list,
but it allows a preliminary analysis of the music network.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 36 of 58

Concept Description
Actor (or actant) Technical artefacts (non-human): PC (primary non-human),
physical part of online community (servers), music devices
(iPod, mobile phone, PDA, CD player, stereo)
Humans: users, artists, record labels, vendors, industry
organisations, consumer groups, legal reps, media, law
enforcement
Actor-Network Users, industry organisations, consumer groups, standards
(legality, content format)
Enrolment and translation Avid music users, tech geeks, average music users; technically
competent or not
Delegates and inscription Online communities
Irreversibility To be investigated
Black box To be investigated
Immutable mobile Legality, contribution/sharing, anonymity, level of technical
competence, ‘downloading culture’
Table 3 Applying the stable elements of ANT to the music network (derived from (Walsham
1997:468))
Even though this is a useful start, Shoib et al. (2006) add to this general list of Walsham’s
(1997) which then further enables the use of the theory for the analysis of empirical data.
Although Latour (1987) provides some rules of method to trace knowledge claims, Shoib et
al. (2006) suggest that “these may be seen as the only set of explicit methodological
guidelines available”. To build on Latour and Walsham’s work, Shoib et al. (2006) provide a
useful set of questions derived through translation of the theoretical ANT methodology:
o Who am I following? (Who are the actors?)
o Who are the “others”?
o What are the interests involved?
o Who is engaged in enrolment? (spokesperson)
o How do spokespersons go about persuading “others and building a network of aligned
interests? (enrolment)
o How are these interests translated into social arrangements and inscriptions in the
technology? (translation & inscription)
o How do the social arrangements and technical inscriptions enable/constrain behaviour
and thereby constitute a certain order of things?
o How easy is it to change these arrangements and inscriptions (immutable mobiles)
o Who is being excluded by this stable network? (the silent voices)
These questions will not be asked of the participants, but they will be helpful to scope the
problem situation and its elements. Those that can be answered at this point in the study are
outlined in the actor-network diagram (found in appendix E). These and the remainder require
further investigation; this can be gained through an understanding of the participants’
attitudes, motivations and behaviour.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 37 of 58

4. PROJECT SCHEDULE
4.1. Research Schedule and Timeline
4.2. Progress To Date
Table 4 presents the research schedule for the remainder of the research and table 5
summarised the associated data collection activities (also discussed below). Following this,
the progress in the study so far is presented, as is the brief outline of the final thesis
document.
Phase 1 focuses on the activities (through observations) and communication (through
documentary analysis) that exists within four separate online communities. The pilot study in
this phase (one of the communities in the full study) has helped to identify which other online
communities are most relevant to study, and what aspects of them give the most insight into
the research topic.
Phase 2 uses focus groups and interviews to gather relevant background information about the
topic from groups of music users and individual industry stakeholders. The pilot activities in
this phase provide guidance on how best to frame the focus groups for maximum
participation, and the questions most useful for industry stakeholders. The pilot interviews in
this phase will also help to identify what industry stakeholders should/will be interviewed
later in this phase.
Phase 3 focuses on individual music users and music artists. The pilot interviews give insight
into which questions are most appropriate and useful to ask in the allocated interview time.
The interview questions for the full study use information gathered in all pilot activities and
will build upon the knowledge gathered from the literature, including other empirical studies
conducted in the field.
Phase 4 is a follow-up on the activities of the online communities. Each community will be
revisited through observations of activities and documentary analysis of their online
communications. With the introduction of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States in
January 2007, it is hoped this follow-up study will give insight into any impact this might
have on user behaviour and attitudes in this online music environment.
Data analysis will occur throughout the data collection phases as much as possible, with all
data analysis to be complete by August 2008. Interpretation of the data, revisiting the
literature, finalising the review and writing up of the thesis will happen in the latter of 2008.
The thesis will be ready for submission in February 2009.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 38 of 58

4.1. Research Schedule and Timeline
Year Month Activities
2007 March Initial analysis of pilot study data
Continue review of literature
Prepare first draft of confirmation report
April Finalise confirmation report and organise distribution
Confirmation seminar and defence
Data collection
Arrange pilot interviews and focus groups
May Data collection
Working on theory
Prepare conference paper for QualIT
Arrange focus groups with music users and interviews with industry
stakeholders
June Data collection
Continue literature review
First draft chapter 3
July Data collection
Continue review of literature
August Data collection
Analysis of focus groups
Develop interview questions for each participant group
Arrange interviews with music artists and music users
First draft chapter 4
September-November Data collection
Continue review of literature
December Data collection
Analysis of community data
First draft chapter 2
2008 January Data analysis
Continue review of literature
February Data collection
First draft chapter 1
March - April Data collection
Continue review of literature
May - June Data analysis and interpretation
July First draft chapter 5
First draft chapter 6
August Begin full thesis development
Continue data analysis
September Thesis production – drafts of Chapters 2 and 3
Continue review of literature
October - November Thesis production – final draft of chapter 4 and 5
Continue review of literature
December Thesis production – drafts of Chapters 1 and 6
Continue review of literature
2009 January Finalise thesis production – review and finalise all drafts
February Distribution of thesis to markers
March – June Revisions and resubmission
Table 4 Overall research schedule
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 39 of 58

PHASE PARTICIPANT FOCUS WHEN ACTIVITIES
Observations and documentary analysis of online communities
1
(Pilot)
1
(Full)
1
(Full)
1
(Full)
1
(Full)
Community 2
A1
Community 1
mySpace
Community 2
A1
Community 3
iTunes
Community 4
Magnatune
2007
25 January – 25 Feb
2007
1 April – 30 June
2007
1 April – 30 June
2007
1 July – 30 September
2007
1 July – 30 September
Focus groups with music users/exploratory interviews with industry stakeholders
2
(Pilot)
2
(Pilot)
2
(Full)
2
(Full)
Music users 2007
1 February– 20 February
Industry stakeholders 2007
1 April – 30 May
Music users 2007
1 June– 30 July
Industry stakeholders 2007
15 July– 15 October
Interviews with music users/interviews with music artists
3
(Pilot)
3
(Pilot)
3
(Full)
3
(Full)
Online Communities
4
(Followup)
4
(Followup)
4
(Followup)
4
(Followup)
Music users 2007
20 January – 20 February
Music users 2007
1 May– 30 May
Music artists 2007
1 September – 30
December
Music users 2007
1 September – 30
December
Community 1
mySpace
Community 2
A1
Community 3
iTunes
Community 4
Magnatune
Table 5 Data Collection Timeline
2008
1 January – 30 March
2008
1 January – 30 March
2008
1 February – 30 April
2008
1 February – 30 April
Observations, Documentary analysis
COMPLETED
Observations, Documentary analysis
Observations, Documentary analysis
Observations, Documentary analysis
Observations, Documentary analysis
Focus groups with 2 groups of 4 users of
online music in Germany
COMPLETED
Exploratory interviews with 2 industry
stakeholders in Australia
6 groups of 6-10 users of online music in
Australia,
10 exploratory interviews with people in
recording industry, government, third party
distribution service in Australia
1 exploratory interview with users of online
music in Germany
COMPLETED
2 In-depth interviews with users of online
music in Australia
10 exploratory interviews with music artists
30 exploratory interviews with users of
online music in Australia
Observations, Documentary analysis
Observations, Documentary analysis
Observations, Documentary analysis
Observations, Documentary analysis
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 40 of 58

4.2. Progress To Date
Area Progress
RhD induction Face-to-face and online completed
Ethical clearance Obtained
Full ethical clearance has been granted for this study by Griffith
University. Prior to each interview or focus group, participants are asked
to sign a consent form agreeing to participate and to be audiotaped, and
that their identity will remain anonymous. See Appendix A for the
ethical clearance document and section 3.2.2 for more information.
Research design Peer-reviewed and published at QualIT2006
Draft chapter almost complete
Literature review In progress – supported by Nvivo
Data collection Pilot phases almost complete
- Observation and documentary analysis of one online community for
one month
- Two focus groups of four music users in Germany
- One interview with a music user in Germany
Development of research Revisions to be made when necessary
question
Peer reviewed publications
related to research area
Table 6 Progress to date
1 doctoral consortium paper
Beekhuyzen, J. (2006) Digital Rights Management and the Online Music
Experience, Doctoral Consortium. Proceedings of QualIT 2006,
Brisbane, Australia, 27-29 November
1 journal paper in production ‘Online music: Moral distancing to
justify our actions’
1 conference paper in production ‘Using Nvivo for a literature review
in information systems research’
Related publications (before commencement of PhD)
Singh, S., Jackson, M., Waycott, J. & Beekhuyzen, J. (2006)
Downloading vs Purchase: Music industry vs consumers, Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin / Heidelberg (reprinted from the
First International Conference on Digital Rights Management
Waycott, J., Jackson, M., Singh, S. (2005) Digital Rights Management
and consumers’ use of music: An activity theory perspective,
Proceedings of QualIT 2005, Brisbane, Australia, 25-27 November
Jackson, M., Singh, S., Waycott, J. & Beekhuyzen, J. (2005) DRMs, Fair
Use and Users’ Experience of Sharing Music, DRM 2005 - Fifth ACM
Workshop on Digital Rights Management, Virginia, US, 7 Nov 2005
Singh, S., Jackson, M., Waycott, J. & Beekhuyzen, J. (2005)
Downloading vs Purchase: Music industry vs consumers, First
International Conference on Digital Rights Management: Technology,
Issues, Challenges and Systems, Sydney, Australia, 31 Oct - 2 Nov
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 41 of 58

4.3. Thesis Outline
Chapter 1 – Introduction
- Introduces the thesis, the research question and the background to
the project
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
- Presents a complete review of the relevant literature
Chapter 3 – Theory
- Outlines the theory used for the study
Chapter 4 - Research Design and Methodology
- Discusses the chosen methodology, the underlying philosophical
assumptions and how the research will be conducted
Chapter 5 – Discussion and findings
- Includes a discussion arising from the data collected, related to the
literature. Findings of the study are identified and elaborated.
Chapter 6 – Conclusion
- Concludes the thesis, identifies any limitations, reiterates the main
findings and the practical and theoretical contributions of the study.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 42 of 58

REFERENCES
Adar, E. and B. A. Huberman (2000). "Free riding on Gnutella." First Monday 5(10).
Alderman, J. (2001). Sonic boom: Napster, MP3, and the new pioneers of music. London, Fourth
Estate.
Arnab, A. and A. Hutchinson (2005). Fairer usage contracts for DRM. DRM'05, Alexandria, Virginia,
USA, 7 November, ACM.
Avison, D., B. Fitzgerald and P. Powell (2001). "Reflections on information systems practice,
education and research: 10 years of the information systems journal." Information Systems
Journal 22: 3-22.
Bandara, W. (2006). Using Nvivo as a research management tool: A case narrative. Proceedings of
QualIT2006: Quality and Impact of Qualitative Research, Brisbane, Australia, 27-29
November, Griffith University.
Barry, C. A. (1998). "Choosing qualitative data analysis software: Atlas/ti and Nudist compared."
Sociological Research Online 3(3): 4.
Barub, L. (2006). Music of my own? The transformation from usage rights to usage privileges in
digital media. Digital media: transformations in human communication. in P. Messaris and L.
Humphreys. New York, Peter Lang: 67-78.
BBC., (2006), Crazy song makes musical history, BBC News, London, 2 April 2006,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4870150.stm, Date Accessed: 2 April 2006.
Beekhuyzen, J. and L. von Hellens (2006). An actor-network theory perspective of online banking in
Australia. AMCIS American Conference on Information Systems, Acapulco, Mexico, 4-6
August, Association for Information Systems.
Benbasat, I., D. K. Goldstein and M. Mead (1987). "The case strategy in studies of information
systems." MIS Quarterly 11(September): 369-386.
Berkeley Center for Law and Technology (2003). The law & technology DRM conference. California.
2007.
Bhattacharyya, S. (2004). If You Build It They Will Come: Creating a Field for Project Based
Approach in Learning Science through Qualitative Inquiry and Technology Integration
Proceedings of QualIT2004: The Way Forward, Brisbane, Australia, 24-26 November,
Griffith University.
Burrell, G. and G. Morgan (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London,
Heineman.
Caldeira, M. M. and J. M. Ward (2003). "Using resource-based theory to interpret the successful
adoption and use of information systems and technology in manufacturing small and mediumsized
enterprises." European Journal of Information Systems 12: 127-141.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and
fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? in J.
Law. London, Routledge: 196-233.
Ceruzzi, P. E. (2003). A history of modern computing. Cambridge, London, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Chua, W. F. (1986). "Radical developments in accounting thought." The Accounting Review LXI(5):
583-598.
Chung, Y., T. Kim, S. Jung and D. Moon (2005). Secure remote fingerprint verification using dual
watermarks. DRMtics 2005 - First International Conference on Digital Rights Management:
Technology, Issues, Challenges and Systems, Sydney, Australia, 31 Oct - 2 Nov, Springer,
http://www.titr.uow.edu.au/DRMTICS2005/.
Conrado, C., M. Petkovic, M. van der Veen and W. van der Velde (2006). "Controlled sharing of
personal content using digital rights management." Journal of Research and Practice in
Information Technology 38(1): 173-185.
Cooper, J. and D. Harrison (2001). "The social organisation of audio piracy on the Internet." Media,
Culture and Society 23: 71-89.
Cope, B. and R. Freeman, Eds. (2001). Digital rights management and content development:
Technology drivers across the book production supply chain. C2C Series. Altona, Vic, RMIT
University.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 43 of 58

Cunningham, S. J., M. Jones and S. Jones (2004). Organizing digital music for use: an examination of
personal music collections. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Music
Information Retrieval (ISMIR04), Barcelona, Spain, October 2004.
Davis, C. (1997). "Organizational influences on the university electronic library." Information
Processing & Management 22: 377-392.
Dean, A. and J. Sharp (2006). "Getting the most from NUD*IST/NVivo." The Electronic Journal of
Business Research Methods 4(1): 11-22.
di Gregorio, S. (2000). Using Nvivo for your literature review. Strategies in Qualitatitive Research:
Issues and Results from Analysis using QSR Nvivo and Nud*ist, London, 29-30 September,
Institute of Education.
Dufft, N. (2005). "Digital music usage and DRM." INDICARE Monitor 2(3): 67-70.
Duncan, C., E. Barker, P. Douglas, M. Morrey and C. Waelde (2004). Digital rights management:
final report. Secondary Digital rights management: final report. Secondary Duncan, C., E.
Barker, P. Douglas, M. Morrey and C. Waelde. Place Published, Publisher.
Fetscherin, M. (2002). "Present state and emerging scenarios of digital rights management systems."
International Journal of Media Management 4(3): 164-171.
Fetscherin, M. (2005). "Consumer acceptance of digital rights management systems." INDICARE
Monitor 2(3): 83-86.
Fetscherin, M. and M. Schmid (2003). Comparing the usage of digital rights management systems in
the music, film and print industry. Second International Conference on Entertainment
Computing (ICEC), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., 8-10 May,
http://www.dbresearch.de/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_DE-
PROD/PROD0000000000067023.pdf.
Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography: Second edition: Step-by-step. London, SAGE Publications.
Frank, C. R. and D. Robey (1984). "An investigation of user-led system design: rational and political
perspectives." Communications of the ACM 27(2): 797-799.
Ganley, P. (2002). "Access to the individual: Digital rights management systems and the intersection
of informational and decisional privacy interests." International Journal of Law and
Information Technology 10(3): 241-293.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. The interpretation of
cultures. in. New York, Basic Books.
Gershberg, M. and E. Auchard, (2006), Yahoo needs to get sociable, The Australian IT, Sydney, 19
October 2006,
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20607667%5e16123%5e%5enbv%5e,00.html,
Date Accessed: 19 October 2006.
Gilbey, C. (2000). The infinite digital jukebox. South Yarra, Hardie Grant Books.
Goldkuhl, G. and K. Lyytinen (1982). A language action view of information system. Proceedings of
the Third Conference on Information Systems, Ann Arbour, Michigan.
Hayes, S., (2006), 'iPod' law passed, The Australian IT, Sydney, 6 December 2006,
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20880773%5e16123%5e%5enbv%5e,00.html,
Date Accessed: 6 December 2006.
Hayes, S., (2006), Piracy stats don't add up, The Australian IT, Sydney, 7 November 2006,
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20713160%5e16123%5e%5enbv%5e,00.html,
Date Accessed: 7 November 2006.
Hayes, S., (2006), Recorded music retailing in Australia, The Australian IT, Sydney, 27 October 2006,
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20654199%5e16123%5e%5enbv%5e,00.html,
Date Accessed: 27 October 2006.
Heileman, G. L. and P. A. Jamkhedkar (2005). DRM Interoperability analysis from the perspective of
a layered framework. DRM 2005 - Fifth ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management,
Alexandria, Virginia, Association for Computing Machinery.
Hickman, M., (2006), Music landmark as billionth download is sold, The Independent, London, 25
February, http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/music/news/article347578.ece, Date Accessed:
25 February.
Hirschheim, R. and H. K. Klein (1989). "Four paradigms of information systems development."
Communications of the ACM 32(10): 1199-1216.
Holmstrom, J. and F. Stalder (2001). "Drifting technologies and multi-purpose networks: the case of
the Swedish cashcard." Information & Organization 11: 187-206.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 44 of 58

Iannella, R. (2001). Open Digital Rights Management. Workshop on Digital Rights Management for
the World Wide Web Consortium, Sophia-Antipolis, France, 20 December, IPR Systems,
http://www.w3.org/2000/12/drm-ws/.
IDATE (2005). Digital rights management. Secondary Digital rights management. Secondary IDATE.
Place Published, Publisher. Industry Research Report. July 2005,
http://www.mindbranch.com/products/R221-110_toc.html, July 2005 Accessed:18/09/06.
Iivari, J. (1991). "A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of IS development." European
Journal of Information Systems 1(4): 249-272.
Iivari, J., R. Hirschheim and H. K. Klein (1998). "A paradigmatic analysis contrasting information
systems development approaches and methodologies." Information Systems Research 9(2):
164-193.
Jackson, M., S. Singh, J. Waycott and J. Beekhuyzen (2005). DRMs, fair use and users’ experience of
sharing music. Fifth ACM Workshop on Digital Rights Management, , Virginia, US, 7
November 2005.
Jackson, M., S. Singh, J. Waycott and J. Beekhuyzen (2005). DRMs, fair user and users' experience of
sharing music. DRM'05, Alexandria, Virginia, 7 November, Association for Computing
Machinery.
Jarvinen, P. (2001). On research methods. Tampere, Finland, Juvenes-Print.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, New York
University Press.
Jick, T. D. (1979). "Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action."
Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4): 602-611.
Jonker, H. L. and S. Mauw (2005). Core security requirements of DRM systems. Secondary Core
security requirements of DRM systems. Secondary Jonker, H. L. and S. Mauw. Place
Published, Publisher. CS-Report,
http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra1/wskrap/publichtml/200524.pdf.
Jupp, V., Ed. (2006). The SAGE dictionary of social research methods. London, SAGE.
Kasaras, K. (2002). "Music in the age of free distribution: MP3 and society." First Monday 7(1).
Kling, R. (1999). "What is social informatics and why does it matter?" D-Lib Magazine 5(1).
Kretschmer, M. (2004). "Artists' earnings and copyright: A review of British and German music
industry data in the context of digital technologies." First Monday 10(1).
Kretschmer, M., G. M. Klimis and R. Wallis (2001). "Music in electronic markets: An empirical
study." New media & society 3(4): 417-441.
Kreuger, C. (2006). The impact of the Internet on business model evolution within the news and music
sectors. School of Computer and Information Science. Adelaide, University of South
Australia: 397.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Kwok, S. H. (2002). "Digital Rights Management for the Online Music Business." ACM SIGecom
Exchanges 3(3): 17-24.
Laidler, T. (2003). Digital rights management systems (DRMS). Digital rights management and
content development. in B. Cope and R. Freeman. Melbourne, RMIT Publishing.
Lamb, R. and S. Sawyer (2005). "On extending social informatics from a rich legacy of networks and
conceptual resources." Information Technology & People 18(1): 9-21.
Lanzara, G. F. and M. Morner (2005). Artifacts rule! How organizing happens in open source software
projects. Actor-Network Theory and Organizing. in B. Czarniawska and T. Hernes. Malmo,
Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press: 67-90.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society.
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press
.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1999). On Recalling ANT. Actor Network Theory and After. in J. Law and J. Hassard.
Oxford, Blackwell Publishers / The Sociological Review: 15-25.
Law, J. (1999). After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. Actor Network Theory and After. in J.
Law and J. Hassard. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers / The Sociological Review: 1-14.
Lessig, L. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York,
Vintage Books.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 45 of 58

Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: how big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and
control creativity. New York, NY, Penguin Press.
Lim, Y. F. (2005). Digital rights management: merging contract, copyright and criminal law. DRMtics
2005 - First International Conference on Digital Rights Management: Technology, Issues,
Challenges and Systems, Sydney, Australia, Springer.
Litman, J. (2006). Digital copyright. New York, Prometheus Books.
Liu, H., F. Shao and J. Huang (2005). A MPEG-2 watermarking algorithm with compensation in bit
stream. DRMtics 2005 - First International Conference on Digital Rights Management:
Technology, Issues, Challenges and Systems, Sydney, Australia, 31 Oct - 2 Nov, Springer,
http://www.titr.uow.edu.au/DRMTICS2005/.
Livingstone, S. (2002). Young people and new media. London, SAGE publications.
Manasse, M. S. (2001). Why rights management is wrong (and what to do instead). Workshop on
Digital Rights Management for the Web, Sophia-Antipolis, France, World Wide Web
Consortium, http://www.w3.org/2000/12/drm-ws/.
Marx, G. (1998). "An ethics for the new surveillance." Information Society 14(3): 171-185.
McMurray, A., J., R. W. Pace and D. Scott (2004). Research: a commonsense approach. Southbank,
Victoria, Thomson: Social Science Press.
Mizuki, T., S. Nounin, H. Sone and Y. Toyotame (2005). Worst-case optimal fingerprinting codes for
non-threshold collusion. DRMtics 2005 - First International Conference on Digital Rights
Management: Technology, Issues, Challenges and Systems, Sydney, Australia, 31 Oct - 2
Nov, Springer, http://www.titr.uow.edu.au/DRMTICS2005/.
Monteiro, E. and O. Hanseth (1996). Social shaping of information infrastructure: On being specific
about the technology. London, Chapman and Hall.
Morgan, G. and L. Smircich (1980). "The case for qualitative research." Academy of Management
Review 5(4): 491-500.
Mumford, E. (1981). "Participative systems design: Structure and method." Systems, Objectives,
Solutions 1: 5-19.
Myers, M. D. (1999). "Investigating information systems with ethnographic research."
Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2(23): 20.
Nettamo, E., M. Nirhamo and J. Hakkila (2006). Personal music retrieval, management and
consumption - A cross-cultural study. Computer Human Interaction Workshop, Montreal,
Canada.
Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Needlam
Heights, MA, Allyn & Bacon.
North, A. C., D. J. Hargreaves and J. J. Hargreaves (2004). "Uses of music in everyday life." Music
Perception 22(1): 41-77.
Nutall, C., (2007), Apple urges end to online copy protection, Financial Times, London, 6 February,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5469e6ea-b632-11db-9eea-0000779e2340.html, Date Accessed: 6
February.
Oberholzer, F. and K. Strumpf (2004). The effect of file sharing on record sales: An empirical
analysis. Chapel Hill, Harvard Business School, UNC.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). "The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in
organizations." Organization Science 3(3): 398-427.
Paccagnella, L. (1997). "Getting the seats of your pants dirty: Strategies for ethnographic research on
virtual communities." Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(1).
Patashnick, J. and M. Rich (2004). "Researching human experience: Video intervention/prevention
assessment (VIA)." Australian Journal of Information Systems 12(2): 103-111.
Petkovic, M. and P. Koster, Eds. (2006). User-attributed rights in DRM. Digital Rights Management:
Technologies, Issues, Challenges and Systems. Berlin Heidelberg Germany, Springer-Verlag
Petkovic, M. and P. Koster (2006). User-attributed rights in DRM. Digital Rights Management:
Technologies, Issues, Challenges and Systems. in R. Safavi-Naini and M. Yung. New York,
Springer. LNCS3919.
Pew (2003). Music downloading, file sharing and copyright. Secondary Music downloading, file
sharing and copyright. Secondary Pew. Place Published, Publisher. report. July 2003, July
2003.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 46 of 58

Pew (2004). Artists, Musicians and the Internet. Secondary Artists, Musicians and the Internet.
Secondary Pew. Place Published, Publisher. report. 12 May 2004,
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/142/report_display.asp, 12 May 2004.
Pew (2005). Music and video downloading moves beyond P2P. Secondary Music and video
downloading moves beyond P2P. Secondary Pew. Place Published, Publisher.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York, Free Press.
Premkumar, G. P. (2003). "Alternate distribution strategies for digital music." Communications of the
ACM 46(9): 89-95.
Remington, M. J. (2006). Background discussion of copyright law and potential liability for students
engaged in P2P file sharing on university networks. Secondary Background discussion of
copyright law and potential liability for students engaged in P2P file sharing on university
networks. Secondary Remington, M. J. Place Published, Publisher. 2006 19, 2006.
Reuters, (2007), EU attacks Apple over iTunes, The Australian IT, Sydney, 12 March 2007,
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,21365289%5E16123%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
, Date Accessed: 12 March 2007.
Rose, J., M. Jones and D. Truex (2005). "Socio-Theoretic Accounts of IS: The Problem of Agency."
Scandinavian Journal of lnformation Systems 17(1): 133-152.
Rosenblatt, B., B. Trippe and S. Mooney (2002). Digital rights management: Business and technology.
New York, M&T Books.
Russell, A. (2006). "Covering music file-sharing and the future of innovation." First Monday 11(9).
Rutter, J. and G. W. H. Smith, Eds. (2005). Ethnographic presence in a nebulous setting. Virtual
Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet. Oxford, Berg.
Sackmann, S. A. (1992). "Culture and subcultures: An analysis of organizational knowledge."
Administrative Science Quarterly 37(1): 140-161.
Sams, C., (2006), Download sales hit the charts, Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney, 2 April 2006,
http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/download-sales-hit-thecharts/2006/04/01/1143441378392.html,
Date Accessed: 2 April 2006.
Sandararajan, A. (2004). "Managing digital piracy: pricing and protection." Information Systems
Research 15(3): 287-308.
Sanders, T., Ed. (2005). Researching the online sex work community. Virtual Methods: Issues in
Social Research on the Internet. Oxford, Berg.
Sawyer, S. and K. Eschenfelder, R. (2002). "Social informatics: Perspectives, examples and trends."
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 36: 427-465.
Sawyer, S. and H. Rosenbaum (2000). "Social informatics in the information sciences: Current
activities and emerging directions." Informing Science: Special Issue on Information Science
Research 3(2): 89-95.
Schwandt, T. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. Thousand Oaks, Sage
Publications.
Schwandt, T. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry: A Dictionary of Terms. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
Serrao, C., D. Neves, T. Barker, M. Balestri and P. Kudamakis (2003). Open SDRM - An open and
secure digital rights management solution. IADIS International Conference on e-society,
Lisbon, Portugal, 3-6 June,
http://atlantis.tilab.com/projects/moses/Public/docs/IADIS03No74.pdf.
Shoib, G., J. Nandhakumar and M. Jones (2006). Using social theory in information systems research:
A reflexive account, in quality and impact of qualitative research. Proceedings of QualIT2006:
Quality and Impact of Qualitative Research, Brisbane, Australia, Griffith University.
Silverston, J. (2006). iTunes: 1 billion served. New York, ABC News. 2006.
Singh, S., M. Jackson, J. Waycott and J. Beekhuyzen (2005). Downloading vs Purchase: Music
Industry vs Consumers. Digital Rights Management: Technologies, Issues, Challenges and
Systems, New York, LNCS3919.
Singh, S. and C. Satchell (2003). Trust, control and design: A study of computer scientists Twelfth
International Conference on Information Systems Development: Methods, Tools, Theory and
Practice, Melbourne, Australia, 25-27 August 2003.
Sirotic, D. (2005). Striking a 'digital' chord: How teenagers use online filesharing networks as part of
music and internet consumption. School of Applied Communication. Melbourne, Australia,
RMIT University.
Sterne, J. (2006). "The mp3 as cultural artifact." New media & society 8(5): 825-842.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 47 of 58

Steven, P. (2003). The no-nonsense guide to global media. Oxford, Ul, New Internationalist
Publishing.
Strauss, D., (2007), Sony out of the tune in download court case, The Australian, Sydney, Australia, 8
January 2007, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21024185-36375,00.html,
Date Accessed: 8 January 2007.
Swatman, P. M. C., C. Kreuger and K. van der Beek (2006). "The changing digital content landscape:
An evaluation of e-business model development in European online news and music." Internet
Research 16(1): 53-80.
Thomas, D. (2002). Hacker culture. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Ulbrich, C. (2003). Music label cashes in by sharing, Wired news. 2007.
Vlachos, P., A. Vrenchopoulos and A. Pateli (2006). "Drawing emerging business models for the
mobile music industry." Electronic Markets 16(2): 154-168.
Voida, A., R. E. Grinter, N. Ducheneaut, W. K. Edwards and M. W. Newman (2005). Listening in:
Practices surrounding iTunes music sharing. CHI 2005, Portland, Oregan, 2-7 April,
Association for Computing Machinery.
Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: Current status and future prospects.
Information systems and qualitative research. in A. S. Lee, J. Liebenau and J. I. DeGross.
London, Chapman and Hall: 466-480.
Walsham, G. and C. K. Han (1991). "Structuration theory and information systems research." Journal
of Applied Systems Analysis 15: 77-85.
Walsham, G. and S. Sahay (1999). "GIS for district-level administration in India: Problems and
opportunities." MIS Quarterly 23(1): 39-65.
Wang, X., B. Zhu and S. Li (2006). A novel privacy and copyright protection enforced peer-to-peer
network. Digital Rights Management: Technologies, Issues, Challenges and Systems. in R.
Safavi-Naini and M. Yung. Wollongong, Springer: 298-310.
Waycott, J., M. Jackson, S. Singh and J. Beekhuyzen (2005). Digital rights management and
consumers' use of music: An activity theory perspective. Proceedings of QualIT2005:
Challenges for Qualitative Research, Brisbane, Australia, 25-27 November, Griffith
University.
Weaver, G. and D. Gioia (1994). "Paradigms lost: Incommensurability vs structuration inquiry."
Organization Studies 15(4): 565-590.
Woods, M. and M. Wickam (2006). Methodological implications of software use: an empirical
investigation of software programs on literature analysis using n6 and nvivo. Proceedings of
QualIT2006: Quality and Impact of Qualitative Research, Brisbane, Australia, 27-29
November, Griffith University.
Yong, S. and S.-H. Lee (2005). An efficient fingerprinting scheme with secret sharing. DRMtics 2005
- First International Conference on Digital Rights Management: Technology, Issues,
Challenges and Systems, Sydney, Australia, 31 Oct - 2 Nov, Springer,
http://www.titr.uow.edu.au/DRMTICS2005/.
Zhu, B. B., Y. Yang and T. Chen (2005). A DRM system supporting what you see is what you pay.
DRMtics 2005 - First International Conference on Digital Rights Management: Technology,
Issues, Challenges and Systems, Sydney, Australia, 31 Oct - 2 Nov, Springer,
http://www.titr.uow.edu.au/DRMTICS2005/.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 48 of 58

Appendix A – Ethics Certificate
To Dr Liisa von Hellens
Associate Professor
School of Information and Communication
Technology (ICT)
From
Copy
Date
Subject
Manager, Research Ethics
Jenine Beekhuyzen
18 January 2007
Status – ICT/20/06/HREC
I write further to the protocol " Digital Rights Management (DRM) and the Online Music
Experience" (GU Protocol Number ICT/20/06/HREC).
This is to confirm that this protocol was reviewed and approved by the Griffith
University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). This protocol received ethical
clearance and authorisation for the commencement of this research was issued.
The Griffith University HREC is constituted and operates in accordance with the National
Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries about this matter.
Regards
Gary Allen
Manager, Research Ethics
Office for Research
Telephone: 07 3875 5585
Facsimile: 07 3875 7994
Email: g.allen@griffith.edu.au
URL: www.griffith.edu.au/or/ethics
Room 2.39
Level 2
Building Bray Centre
Campus Nathan
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 49 of 58

Appendix B – Focus Group Questions
Digital Rights Management: Young People and Online Music
Focus Group Question Guide
We are conducting focus groups with students to find out how people access and listen to
music – what technologies they use, how they share music with family and friends, and how
they feel about downloading music from the Internet. The ultimate aim of our research is to
be able to recommend guidelines for the development of Digital Rights Management systems
(DRMs) that support, rather than hinder, peoples’ music activities. The research is exploratory,
so the discussion will be fairly open with only a few questions to guide us.
• What type of music do you like? How do you access and listen to this music? Why do
you do it that way?
• What role do computers and the Internet play in your music experience? What tools
and technologies do you use?
• Do you share music with friends, family; how do you find out about new music?
• Do you download music (and other media) from the Internet? If so, how – what sites
do you use? If you don’t pay, what would encourage you to pay?
• What does the term music pirate mean to you? What makes a music pirate? Is being a
music pirate a bad or good thing to you and your peers?
• How do you use other digital entertainment media – DVDs, movies, music videos,
books, etc?
• How do you feel about digital rights management systems – that is, technologies that
control access to digital content on the Internet, and help preserve the copyright
holders’ rights? Do you think artists’ get a their equal share?
• How do you feel about privacy and the Internet? What is your reaction to the privacy
statements on music download sites? How do you feel about revealing personal
information to subscribe to Internet sites?
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 50 of 58

Appendix C – Interview Questions for music users (working)
1. General music practices and computer use
How do you find new music? Offline and online?
What is your experience with digital music?
Online stores
o CDs
o Radio
o MP3 player
o Mobile phone
o P2P
o Social networking sites like MySpace
o From friends in emails, P2P?
Do you have any experience with music on a PC?
o To access, store or copy music.
Do you frequently do the following with music files?
- Access
- Burn
- Share
- Store
- transfer
do you require flexibility in these actions?
How often do you access online music?
o Download through P2P
o Purchase through online store
o Music in emails from friends
o Through MSN or other instant messaging
o Music websites?
Do you think your (or the) music experience has changed with the introduction of the Internet (older users)?
How important is music to you?
Do you think the way you use music is different to those older/younger than yourself?
Do you see live bands/acts? How frequently?
How important is live music for you?
What is important in a music song to you:
o Quality?
o Ease of use?
o Interoperability?
What are the reasons you download:
o Legally?
o Illegally (filesharing)?
Do you believe your technical competence skills are related to the tech tools you choose to use to access music?
Ie you use a certain access method because you feel most comfortable with that technology?
2. Technologies to access online music
Using online stores
a. Buying from online stores
b. Using P2P
c. Using other access methods
Have you
o bought from an online store in the past 6 months? The past week?
o used a service that hosts unauthorised content in the past 6 months? The past week?
Prefer subscription model or pay-per-use?
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 51 of 58

3. Music devices
Is device interoperability important?
How often do you use a portable device?
If you don’t use one know, do you envisage you will in the future?
4. Pirates and digital music
Legality of downloading actions
- Do you care if music you use online is copyrighted?
- What does copyright of music mean?
Do you ever discover new music online and then go and buy the CD?
Do you know what the following terms mean?
Bittorent, copyright, fair use, intellectual property, DRM, creative commons, DMCA
Do previous publicised court cases against users in the US and software companies such as Kazaa here in
Australia deter you downloading, or affect how much/often you download?
Do you think it affects others?
How do you think governments/record labels should combat piracy?
o Educate people?
o Enforce DRM in content?
o Sue offenders?
If you download music through filesharing, how do you feel about being called a pirate?
Do you feel downloading unauthorised content is ripping off music artists?
Do you think the media blows the piracy issue out, as having a worse effect than it really does?
What do you think about professional pirates?
5. Use of other entertainment media
6. Digital Rights Management
Have you heard of digital rights management? Do you know what it is or what it does?
Do you know if music you buy/download is DRM protected?
Do you know if usage restrictions apply? If so, do you know the details of what you can do with your purchased
content?
Do you have any difficulties using/playing/sharing music you got online?
With music that you have bought online, how do you feel about:
o Restrictions on playability?
o Restrictions on transfer?
o Restrictions on burning?
Online music stores with DRM content re like the model of video shots that rent, so do you feel it is fair that you
appear to buy music online but you can only use it like it is rented (well fewer restrictions often)?
Do you think DRM restricts legitimate users?
7. Privacy, personalisation and online music
Is personalisation of online music sites and services important to you?
o Do you think it will be in the future?
o What appeals to you in personalising your online content????
How do you feel about giving your personal details to music sites in order to download content?
What do you think the future of music will look like?
8. Music artists
How do music artists fit into the picture of music downloading for you? I.e. their royalties
Do you know how much they get paid from CDs and online purchases?
Do you think filesharing (P2P) helps new artists?
9. TV downloads
Do you download TV episodes off the Internet either from a store or through filesharing?
Do you feel it is less wrong to download TV shows than music and or movies?
Does it matter if they are from free-to-air or paid-for on cable?
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 52 of 58

Appendix D – Lauren, the legitimate consumer
In the very early hours of Sunday morning in Australia, the Eurovision Song Contest winners
are being announced. The winner is Finland! The first time in 40 years. Lauren, being a
Finnish-born Australian, wanted to immediately download the winning song. Lauren went to
iTunes Australia, searched for the song but couldn’t find it for sale. Determined, she went to
the iTunes Finland and found the song available for purchase. Happy, she proceeded to
purchase the song only to be told she needed a residential address in Finland in order to make
the purchase. As her daughter’s family live in Finland, she contacted her to ask if she could
use their address for the transaction. On talking to her son-in-law, he said she could use his
Finnish iTunes account and gave his credit card details to her over the phone to use for the
transaction (the iTunes ID is usually linked to a credit card that has been used with the
account).
She then proceeded to iTunes Finland, logged in with her son in law’s ID, used his credit card
for the purchase and downloaded the song to her Mac much to her delight. On attempting to
play the song through iTunes on her Mac, she was greeted with a message saying that her
computer was unauthorised to play the song.
Frustration setting in, she contacted her son-in-law to be told that he had previously
downloaded that particular song just minutes before she called, possibly being the reason she
could not play it on computer. She was at a loss to understand what had just happened, and
why she couldn’t play the song she just legitimately purchased.
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 53 of 58

Appendix E – Actor-network Diagram
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 54 of 58

Appendix F – Empirical Studies
Empirical user studies
Date Location Authors Participants Focus of study Methods
2006 Europe Vlachos, Vrenchopoulos, 25 consumers (and music Moving traditional Interviews
(Greece &
UK)
Pateli
execs below)
business models to mobile
2006 New York & Nettamo, Nirhamo, Hakkila 12 music users Mobile music use Interviews
Hong Kong
Mobile diaries
2005 US Voida, Grinter, Ducheneaut, 13 iTunes users iTunes use and sharing Interviews
Edwards, Newman
aspects
2005 New Zealand Cunningham, Jones, Jones 15 hrs obs in 8 music stores Music information Observations
of music consumers retrieval
Interviews
5 participant observations
1 focus group (4 users)
9 interviews (8 adult 1 child)
Focus groups
2005 Australia Singh, Jackson, Waycott, 23 consumers Music use and activities Interviews
Beekhuyzen
Focus groups
2005 7 European Dufft
4852 Internet users Consumer issues on DRM Survey
countries (Indicare project)
2005 US Fetscherin 174 students Consumer acceptance of
DRM
Survey
2005 Australia Sirotic 11 x 15-17 year olds User experiences in online
filesharing networks
interviews
2003 US Pew 1421 adult Internet users Internet and music use Survey
2003 US Pew 2515 adult Internet users Internet and music use Survey
2002 12 European Livingstone 160 children
Young people and media Interviews
countries (UK)
Parents
Heads of IT teaching
use
Survey
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 55 of 58

Empirical community/network studies
Date Location Authors Participants Focus of study Methods
2004 US Oberholzer & Strumpf P2p network for 17 weeks Music sharing, Impact on
sales, network use
Observations
2003 US Adar & Huberman Gnutella p2p network for 24 Music sharing, impersonal Observations
hours
networks
2001 US Cooper & Harrison Mp3 sharers in IRC chat Subcultures, assumed Observations
environment
persona of ‘pirate’
Empirical music industry studies (music companies, record labels, DRM providers)
Date Location Authors Participants Focus of study Methods
2007 Europe Mulligan & Burstein
(Jupiter study)
Unknown, investigating Attitudes to DRM Survey
2006 Europe Vlachos, Vrenchopoulos, 19 executives from music Moving traditional Interviews
(Greece & Pateli
content providers (and music business models to mobile
UK)
users below)
2006 Europe Swatman, Kreuger, van der Music and news providers Changing business models Survey
(Germany) Beek
340 surveys
112 interviews
Interviews
2003 Europe Fetscherin 10 DRM providers – film, Changing usage rights of Survey
print and music industries DRM
Emails
2001 Europe Kretschmer, Klimis, Wallis 100 interviews with music Multi-national and Interviews
companies
independent companies
Business models
© Jenine Beekhuyzen Page 56 of 58