MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997833079 · doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpl174

Digital technology: its impact on copyright law and practice in North America

2006· article· en· W1997833079 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalance (ability)DeferenceIntellectual propertyContext (archaeology)Supreme courtFair useLawLegislatureReservation of rightsCopyright ActFair dealingLaw and economicsDigital rights managementCopyright lawTechnological changePolitical scienceFundamental rightsEconomicsHuman rightsRight to property

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legal context. The effect of rapid technological change on copyright law in Canada and the United States, and in particular on the balance between creators' rights and users' rights. Key points. Copyright law involves a balance between the rights of both creators and users. When initially faced with fast-evolving digital technology, the courts struggled with the balancing act and tipped it in favour of users' rights. The Supreme Court of Canada elevated various exceptions to infringement to user rights, and cautioned against a low standard of originality which would favour creators' rights. The US Court of Appeals remarked that introduction of new technology is disruptive to copyright owners whose works are sold through traditional mechanisms; and others suggested that a bias in favour of owners rights may have well impeded the development of digital culture. Despite the initial struggles, legislative changes, market forces and recent deference by the courts to the balancing of various interests, have slowly restored the copyright balance, even when faced with rapid technological change. Practical significance. Copyright litigants must give careful consideration to the balance between creators' and users' rights, and be prepared to justify traditional copyright protection in fields of new technology.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.011
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it