Putting the Community in Communication: Dissolving the Conflict Between Freedom of Expression and Copyright
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the relationship between freedom of expression and copyright law — and, more specifically, with what this relationship reveals about the nature and purpose of the copyright interest. I argue that the source of the apparent conflict between copyright and free expression is the prevailing characterization of both as individual rights vested in the liberal subject. The key to dissolving the conflict lies in the recognition of the social values that these rights affirm: the value that we attach to communication, to interaction between members of society and to participation in a social dialogue. If copyright is to be justified as necessary limitation upon expression in the name of maximizing creativity, then it must embrace the values of freedom of expression, for these values are its own. Through an analysis of the Canadian case of Cie Générale des Etablissements Michélin-Michélin & Cie v. C.A.W.-Canada, I show how the private property analogy undermines the expressive function of copyright's subject matter. It therefore neglects the speech implications of the copyright system, permits intellectual property to trump the principles of free expression, and ultimately defeats copyright’s public policy goals. The vision of copyright as a private, proprietary entitlement capable of trumping free expression thus threatens the internal coherence and legitimacy of the copyright system.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".