The Substance of Procedure: Non-Party Disclosure in the Canadian and U.S. Online Music Sharing Litigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The music recording industry is suing Internet subscribers in Canada and the United States for alleged copyright infringement in unprecedented numbers. The procedure for obtaining non-party disclosure has taken on renewed significance in this context, as the industry requests disclosure of identifying and private information from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who provide online communicators with their Internet connections. Legislative measures adopted in the U.S. expedited the disclosure process through an administrative mechanism with low threshold requirements for issuance of a subpoena against an ISP. In Canada (and after late 2004 in the U.S.), disclosure requests proceeded under federal rules of court. Comparison of the expedited administrative and the judicially interpreted rules-based processes raises important questions about the connection between procedure and substance, and procedural justice more generally. Not only are more permissive rules for disclosure often inconsistent with protecting substantive rights, such as privacy, bin they also cannot be presumed to enhance the likelihood of achieving accurate substantive legal outcomes. If non-party disclosure rules are not contextually designed and implemented to reflect the power and resource imbalance between the plaintiff music industry and the individual defendants pursued in online music sharing litigation, the public and private interest in substantive adjudication of critical questions relating to copyright law may be foreclosed for reasons wholly unrelated to substantive legal merits.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".