Controlled Digital Lending (CDL): A Panel to Discuss Legal and Practical Considerations Involved in the Implementation of CDL by Public and Post-Secondary Libraries in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) is a model under which a library would digitize physical books in its collection, including in-copyright works, and lend out the digital version to one user at a time, for a limited time, using appropriate safeguards.  We propose a panel to discuss legal and practical considerations involved in the implementation of CDL by public and post-secondary libraries in Canada.\nMany books in post-secondary and public libraries remain underutilized because they only exist in physical form sitting on the shelves. CDL can help make library collections accessible to a broader community.  Its benefits include breathing new life into older and difficult to find books, many of which are out-of-print, as well as making a breadth of information resources and knowledge available to anyone with internet access, regardless of the reader’s physical location, physical ability, or economic status.\nHowever, one of more significant perceived barriers to making physical books available in digital format through CDL is copyright law.\nThis panel will discuss the prospective legal and practical considerations arising from implementing CDL at libraries in Canada.  This discussion will include the extent to which fair dealing or other exceptions in the Copyright Act can reasonably support the digitization and controlled lending of those digitized versions of in-copyright books, as well as what safeguards and best practices might appropriately be applied to such a model to better manage risk.\nAdrian Sheppard – Director, Copyright Office, University of Alberta\nLila Bailey – Lila is Policy Counsel for Internet Archive where she advises the organization on the complex legal and policy issues associated with democratizing access to knowledge. Prior to this, Lila was a solo practitioner specializing in digital copyright and supporting individual entrepreneurs and creators, early stage start-ups, Internet platforms, and libraries. Lila began her working life in traditional publishing at Conde Nast Publications, but decided to go to law school so that “the lawyers wouldn’t break the Internet.” Since then, she has dedicated her career to public interest technology law, and has worked to increase access to knowledge at Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at Berkeley Law. Lila has a JD from Berkeley Law and a BA in Philosophy from Brown University.\nAriel Katz – Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto\nAndrea Mills – Digitization Program Manager, Internet Archive Canada\nGraeme Slaght Scholarly Communication & Copyright Outreach Librarian, University of Toronto
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».