MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269358503

NYMITY, P2P & ISPS: Lessons from BMG Canada Inc. v. John Doe

2005· article· en· W2269358503 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ian R. Kerr, Alex Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFreedom of Expression and Defamation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnintended consequencesThe InternetFile sharingEnforcementBacklashInternet service providerElement (criminal law)Internet privacyBusinessIntermediaryPolitical scienceLawEngineeringMarketingComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter provides an exploration of the reasons why a Canadian Federal Court refused to compel five Internet service providers to disclose the identities of twenty nine ISP subscribers alleged to have been engaged in P2P file-sharing. The authors argue that there are important lessons to be learned from the decision, particularly in the area of online privacy, including the possibility that the decision may lead to powerful though unintended consequences. At the intersection of digital copyright enforcement and privacy, the Court's decision could have the ironic effect of encouraging more powerful private-sector surveillance of our online activities, which would likely result in a technological backlash by some to ensure that Internet users have even more impenetrable anonymous places to roam. Consequently, the authors encourage the Court to further develop its analysis of how, when and why the compelled disclosure of identity by third party intermediaries should be ordered by including as an element in the analysis a broader-based public interest in privacy.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0460.020
Scholarly communication0.0170.009
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0120.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicFreedom of Expression and DefamationFrench-language works237,207