Locke, Labour, and Limiting the Author’s Right: A Warning Against a Lockean Approach to Copyright Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper criticizes a Lockean approach to copyright, which sees an author’s right as the natural entitlement to the fruits of her labour. The author’s contention is that the Lockean account mistakenly finds the justification for copyright in the relationship between an author and her work, rather than the persistent presence of this labour-desert rationale in Canadian copyright rhetoric necessarily privileges the interests of the private rights-bearer over the public interest, and so threatens the public policy goals that copyright is intended to further. The author attacks the Lockean copyright theory from two directions. First, she examines the extent to which Locke’s theory of acquisition can offer a sound account of the shape and scope of the copyright system. The discussion questions the coherence of Locke’s theory in the realm of intangibles, and the ability of the copyright system to meet the essential Lockean focus upon the rights-bearer is inappropriate in the copyright context, as it adds ideological legitimacy to the economic goals of copyright holders and favours commodification over communication. Ultimately, the author maintains that there must be a departure from the Lockean view of property in the intellectual property context to permit a paradigm shift from a rights-based to a public interest approach.
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 | 0.021 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".