Research on the Establishment and Application of Punitive Damages in China's Copyright Infringement: in the Background of the Third Amendment of Copyright Law of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Punitive damages derived from common law liability. Punitive damages regime in the modern sense born in England, was soon widely accepted by common law countries. In the field of copyright infringement, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada have developed a unique system of punitive damages. Civil law system which has been to the principle of full compensation, adheres to compensatory damages with the goal of filling the loss of infringee, and regards the punitive damages as foreigners. But some civil law countries or regions, such as France, Germany and Taiwan, have made a breakthrough in legislative practice or theoretical discussion in recent years. However, the criticism of traditional theory about thefunctional division of public and private law, about the functional positioning of tort law are unavoidable problems when we explore the way to introduce the punitive damages into the field of copyright infringement. If we examine these problems above from four perspectives: the functional division of public and private law, the preventive function of tort law, and the rational apathy accompanied with criminal responsibility and compensatory damages, we will find that there is no obstacle to introduce punitive damages into copyright law. Focused on the situation of protection of right in copyright field, some problems existed in reality make the punitive damages meaningful, such as the flooding of copyright infringement, the insignificance of criminal protection, and the universal compensatory damages on the low side. In the background of the third time modification of copyright law, it is a priority to make clear three subjects: the purpose of the punitive damages, the relationship among the punitive damages, compensatory damagesand the statutory damages, and the condition of the appliance of punitive damages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".