MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000015519 · doi:10.1093/ijlit/eai030

Copyright Infringement in a Borderless World - Does Territoriality Matter? Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Association of Internet Providers [2004] 2 SCR 427

2006· article· en· W2000015519 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Susanna H.S. Leong, Cheng Lim Saw

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Law and Information Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtTest (biology)The InternetDigital Millennium Copyright ActLawJurisdictionCopyright infringementLiabilityPolitical scienceElement (criminal law)Service (business)Intellectual propertyBusinessCopyright lawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Association of Internet Providers [2004] 2 SCR 427 is significant for two reasons: (a) the Canadian Supreme Court held that Internet Service Providers should be exempted from copyright liability as long as they provide only a conduit service in transmitting copyright materials between Internet users (a point which is consistent with many national copyright laws); (b) the majority of the Canadian Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that the appropriate test to determine whether an infringement for the unauthorized transmission of online copyright material has occurred within the Canadian jurisdiction is the ‘real and substantial connection’ test (LeBel J, however, dissented and was of the view that the correct test to apply is the ‘host server’ test). This paper studies these two tests as propounded by the Canadian Supreme Court and assesses their strengths and weaknesses, especially in light of the territoriality principle in copyright law.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.023
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0100.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Law and Information TechnologySame topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207