Birth, Retreat and Renaissance: The Lifecycle of Balance under the Canadian Copyright Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, Canadian copyright law is not merely the law of authors. It acknowledges the rights of copyright holders and users as a means to a more valuable end, which is the public interest. The principle correlating such values is the principle of “balance”, which the Supreme Court of Canada has frequently endorsed as a purpose of the Copyright Act in many leading cases, namely Théberge, CCH, SOCAN and, very recently, Robertson. Because none of the mentioned cases discussed the origin or evolvement of balance, this article focuses on the lifecycle of this principle and the circumstances that have impacted its evolution. The article concludes that balance is not merely a contemporary judicial policy, but a doctrine rooted in Canadian copyright law that has gone through a lifecycle of birth, retreat and renaissance. Therefore, any prospective reform to the Canadian Copyright Act ought to consider articulating this principle explicitly as a legislative purpose. The article further concludes that legal reasons as well as a matrix of historical, economic, social, cultural and technological reasons are behind the recent emphasis on balance.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".