From Distribution to Dialogue: Remarks on the Concept of Balance in Copyright Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few propositions are more frequently asserted in contemporary copyright discussion than the proposition that copyright is a balance between authors and users - a balance (as some like to say) between the incentive to create and the imperative to disseminate works of authorship. This paper argues that the concept of balance cannot support the weight it is asked to bear in copyright jurisprudence, and that we should think of copyright less as a “balance” between authors and users than as a “dialogue” between authors and users. “Dialogue” is a metaphor more appropriate than “balance” to structure our interpretation of copyright law and of its purpose. The idea of dialogue presides over an interpretation of (a) copyright subject matter (i.e. the “work”) as a communicative act, (b) certain copyright exceptions as user's rights integral to the copyright system, and (c) the public domain less as a matter of values or weights to be placed on a balance, than as a site of, and condition for, a network of communicative acts in which both authors and users participate. In short, the point is that, at least in one of its fundamental determinations, the public domain is less a scope problem than a subject matter problem. Whereas the metaphor of balance orients contemporary copyright discussion towards a formulation of the public domain as a distributional scope issue, it would be more appropriate to deploy the concept of the work as a communicative act in order to characterize the public domain as a subject matter issue in dialogical terms. It is the commodification of the work, rather than the mere distribution of its commodified value, that is the fundamental obstacle in the way of a conception of the integral role of the public domain.
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 | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.045 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".