Digital technology: its impact on copyright law and practice in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".