Intellectual Property and Cultural Diversity: Two Views on the Relationship Between Market and Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article scrutinizes the two main approaches to the role of intellectual property as a means of protection and promotion of cultural diversity in order to check their efficiency and impact on cultural diversity on the local, regional and global level. On the one side, the group of countries led by the United States advocates a free market approach without any state intervention. On the other side, the remaining countries, among them France and Canada, search for some form of protecting their domestic cultural industries against the dominance of foreign multinational enterprises in their national markets. The main aim of this Article is to draw attention to the sometimes overlooked drawbacks of each currently advocated solution. By identifying the weak points of both approaches, the Article attempts to point out their innate shortcomings and the necessity of preventing their negative consequences in order to efficiently achieve the adequate protection and promotion of cultural diversity. The Article concludes by stressing the importance of striking an appropriate and adequate balance between granting individual intellectual property rights on the one side and state interventions, such as screen quotas, taxes, subsides or other types of redistributive mechanisms and schemes, on the other, in searching for an efficient cultural policy to protect and promote cultural diversity on the local, regional and international level.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".