Secondary Markets for Copyrighted Works and the ‘Ownership Divide’: Reconciling Competing Intellectual and Personal Property Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The weight of precedent supports restricting the ability of copyright holders to control post-purchase modification and resale in secondary markets. To find infringement in the absence of copying disrupts clear and intentional legislative distinction between economic and moral rights. The economic rights conferred by intellectual property law do not affect the purchaser’s personal property rights to deal with the transferred tangible good, provided that any subsequent modification deals only with the tangible good and does not multiply the occurrences of the protected work. Precedent alone, however, is not a complete answer to novel legal questions. Consideration of underlying first principles upon which doctrinal rules are based is also required. From this perspective, the freedom to operate in secondary markets is consistent with the normative basis of copyright law: (a) copyright is a balance between the necessary incentives to create and the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works; and (b) in achieving the appropriate balance between these two goals, over-compensation is as much a cause for concern as undercompensation, lest the rights of copyright holders expand to the detriment of the public interest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".