Droit d'auteur et ouverture de l'environnement numérique : responsabilité sociale contre législation ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of policy choices regarding copyright law on the regulation and architecture of the Internet is often underestimated. Yet Internet regulation raises important issues for a conception of justice committed to real freedom. We must therefore consider these two questions together, and confront the traditional justifications for copyright law (proprietarian, utilitarian or personalist justifications) with the arguments in favor of an Internet regulation which aims to preserve the positive potential of the digital environment for real freedom. We claim that regulation should be guided by a presumption in favor of openness, i.e. a presumption in favor of freedom to disseminate, use and reuse information. This normative approach implies namely a perspective reversal for copyright law, limiting the power of the gatekeepers of the digital environment, as well as a set of strict guidelines for the use of « code » for law enforcement purposes. Moreover, bottom-up initiatives aiming to unlock the copyright regime raise the issue of the relationship between social responsibility and legislation for advancing the openness of the digital environment. On the one hand, the open licences movement, animated by a particular vision of their social responsibility for the digital environment, constitutes an original approcach to promote openness. On the other hand, different legislative reforms could address the lack of breathing space in the copyright regime, such as an exception for user generated content, an open « fair use » style exception, or a semi-open exception, inspired by the new canadian « fair dealing ». What are the strengths and weaknesses of these two approaches ? What to think of the paradox of the open licences approach, which relies on the very same legal regime that it attempts to subvert ? What are the tensions and convergences between the social responsibility approach and the legislative approach ? These discussions will allow us to move forward in the search of a regulation of information in the digital environment that contributes to the conditions of a just society.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".