MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2060600872 · doi:10.1353/bh.2013.0010

Copyright and Intellectual Property: The State of the Discipline

2013· article· en· W2060600872 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueBook history · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueCopyright and Intellectual Property
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIntellectual propertySociologyLawFair useLaw and economicsPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Copyright and Intellectual PropertyThe State of the Discipline Meredith L. McGill (bio) Twenty-first-century scholars have grown accustomed to having their research and teaching hedged about by concerns over intellectual property. Signing onto a library gateway web page or course-management software, clicking through a digital licensing agreement for an upgrade to an operating system or application, scanning a book chapter to circulate to a class, downloading a podcast, or simply linking to an image on a personal blog, we are vaguely aware that there are property rights at stake in our actions. While in many cases we thoughtlessly consent to sharp restrictions to our rights as the price of access, scholars also often disregard the letter of the law, either through ignorance or on the assumption that the nonprofit, educational circulation of texts ought be exempt from strict adherence to copyright (under a generous, if inaccurate, definition of fair use). Our everyday experience of the opportunities and confusion produced by media shift, and our awareness of the imposition but limited traction of the law ought to raise questions about how we think about the historical nexus of media, cultural practices, and legal regimes. What is the relationship of popular discourse about intellectual property to our everyday practices, and our practices to the laws that ostensibly govern them? Is it law, social custom, or professional norms that set the parameters of our behavior as authors, readers, and teachers? Is it the economy of prestige, conditions of labor, ignorance, inertia, or the inverse relationship of scarcity to value that keeps scholars from exploiting digital media's radical potential for the global circulation of our ideas? In this essay, I survey recent book history scholarship on copyright and intellectual property with an eye to the difficulty of describing the relations between law and culture at any one point in time. For historical as well as theoretical reasons, I discuss scholarship on copyright and intellectual property alongside one another, without assimilating the first term to the second. [End Page 387] Whereas copyright emerged in the early eighteenth century as an instrument for regulating the print trades, intellectual property, an umbrella term encompassing copyright, patent law, trademarks, trade secrets, and industrial design, did not come into common use until the mid-twentieth century.1 Until then, copyright, patent, and trademark law were considered distinct and even incompatible bodies of law, with differing rationales, doctrines, procedures, and bureaucracies. While the generalization of copyright to cover nonprint objects and its subsumption into the larger category of intellectual property is a relatively recent historical phenomenon, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century writers gestured to some of the territory currently covered by intellectual property through the use of the term "literary property." Literary property could refer to rights claims and violations that fell outside the formal copyright system (such as plagiarism or trade courtesy); to rights that advocates hoped would ultimately be embraced by the statutes and defended by the courts (such as rights of translation or dramatic performance); or to the general and controversial concept of property in ideas. Opening up space between copyright and intellectual property can help us resist reading legal history as a prelude to or anticipation of contemporary norms, while also acknowledging the range of extralegal practices that have been used to stake out and defend property in printed texts under narrower definitions of copyright. As scholarship on copyright and intellectual property abundantly shows, the history of print has been powerfully shaped by the law and by what the law fails or refuses to protect as property. Copyright, Authors' Rights, and the History of the Book A brief overview of the history of copyright should provide cardinal points for newcomers to use in navigating this relatively new interdisciplinary field. Copyright law is not coincident with the introduction of printing, but rather emerges at the beginning of the eighteenth century as a tool for governments to use to limit the power of print monopolies. In early modern Europe, monarchs regulated the print trades through prepublication censorship and monopoly grants or "privileges" designed to align the technology of print with state interests. The first copyright law, the British Statute of Anne (1710), marks the beginning...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,664
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,991

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,170
Écart entre enseignants0,152 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle