Balancing conflicting rights in the digital age: the case of information privacy vs. copyright enforcement against file sharing
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The research, employing a comparative and multidisciplinary approach, aims at understanding the conflict between information privacy and copyright enforcement in the digital era. Throughout the whole study attention will be paid to the effect that technology has on these rights. The systems under scrutiny will be the European one (with particular regard to Italy) and the North American ones (US and Canada). The starting point of this analysis are a number of selected lawsuits in which copyright holders have tried to enforce their rights against Internet users suspected of illegal peer-to-peer downloading. In so doing, copyright enforcement collided with users’ information privacy. In analyzing the way in which these decisions were taken, I shall try to understand how technology affects society. Many studies have demonstrated the interaction between technology and society. Copyright and information privacy laws are themselves a product of technology and innovation. The idea behind my analysis is that technology not only affects society, but that it also affects lawmakers, and even judges (who, directly or indirectly, are lawmakers as well). Indeed, judges do not live a secluded life, but operate within a society. Therefore, it is at least plausible, if not necessary, that their decisions reflect the values of that society. In other words, technology influences society, which, in turn, affects judicial opinion. To assess if my statement is sound, I shall consider the perception of copyright, limited to file-sharing activities, in the three normative systems. The same analysis will be undertaken with regard to information privacy. As will be seen, unsurprisingly, technology has affected in many ways the substance of both privacy and copyright norms. But technology has also affected people’s lives, people’s way of behaving, and, in the end, people’s minds. This has led to a different perception of the need to protect the aforementioned rights, even if in opposite directions. Privacy concerns have been increasing, while copyright is more and more seen as something “negative”, for a variety of reasons. Given this, a plausible answer to my main line of inquiry is that courts’ decisions reflect this common sense position of prioritizing privacy over copyright. In particular, I shall examine the literature related to the way courts judge and if and how they can be influenced by the society and culture in which they operate. Importance will be given to the way that this influence could enter into judicial reasoning. If it is true that technology changes society, which in turn affects the judicial mind, then technology enters into this contextual backdrop for adjudication. Therefore, the question I would like to answer is the following: could this be a reason why, despite similar legal frameworks, the outcomes of lawsuits are quite different among the considered legal systems? This would be the goal of my research, conscious of the fact that anyway my answer would be just one of the many possible explanations.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,031 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,020 | 0,067 |
| Communication savante | 0,026 | 0,028 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,015 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,023 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
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.
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».