Deflating the Michelin Man: Protecting Users' Rights in the Canadian Copyright Reform Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-60, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act, in which further protections for technological protection measures (TPMs) were proposed. In this article, the author suggests that the proposed protection of TPMs raised serious constitutional concerns in terms of freedom of expression, arguing that the constitutionality of the Copyright Act was already legitimately subject to question and that expanding the Act’s incursion on freedom of expression by broadening its scope to prohibit circumvention of TPMs could only serve to heighten constitutional concerns. She suggests that if the Act is to be amended to extend legislative protection to these private and non-transparent forms of censorship and surveillance, constitutional contouring will be necessary to ensure explicit protection of users' rights. Without such contouring, she suggests that the legislation risked trenching too deeply on rights of access to and use of information that are essential to a healthy and innovative expression marketplace. The article concludes by suggesting that the Canadian government had the opportunity, and the obligation, to chart a course that compromised public commitments to freedom of expression in favour of the economic interests of copyright holders only insofar as was necessary to serve the public interest in a robust marketplace of ideas.
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".