Fissures in the Façade of Fair-Dealing: Users' Rights in Works Protected By Copyright
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant part of the copyright regime is premised on a delicate balance being struck between the rights of those who create works for commercial exploitation and the interests of the audience of users for whom those works were created to edify, engage and entertain. In view of the increasing pressures from copyright owners seeking to fortify the nature and scope of their exclusive rights, what role do the courts play in restoring balance to the copyright system through the way they interpret the statutory defences to copyright infringement? This article will evaluate a recent attempt by the Canadian Supreme Court to widen the scope of the fair dealing for private study or research defence, which has traditionally been applied restrictively, in a way which suggests that users of copyrighted works may have a stronger claim to make copies of these works than was previously thought.
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 | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.104 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".