Protection from the protectors: Does the competition act provide an answer to the misuse of technological protection measures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
McOrmond suggested that this linkage of authorized content and devices may fall within the definition of tied selling:\nIf you are a competitor of the members of the DVD CCA, or for any reason cannot sign on to their contractual obligations, you will not receive the keys to encode your own content or decode content. It should be reviewed by the Competition Bureau to determine whether such contractual obligations should be allowed. Tying the ability to access content encoded with DVD CCA keys requiring a DVD CCA-approved access device seems like a text- book example of “tied selling” under section 77 of the Competition Act.\nThis article attempts to assess this claim. Specifically, it asks whether Part VIII of the Competition Act is capable of addressing these concerns, while permitting the potential benefits that rights holders seek. The argument proceeds in two parts.\nFirst, the analysis is contextualized by examining how challenges to the anticompetitive effects of TPMs have been treated in other jurisdictions. Although the details vary, the fundamental themes and issues of competition law tend to be similar around the world. Useful insights can be drawn from a comparative review of the global jurisprudence.\nThen, the analysis turns to two key sections of the Canadian Act. Sections 77 (Tied Selling) and 79 (Abuse of Dominant Position) may each potentially apply to the conduct of concern. These sections will be examined by testing them against the Apple iTunes ecosystem. A single vendor example will be easier to analyze than an alleged conspiracy. Moreover, the case represents a high-water mark in that Apple has a dominant position in both the content and the device businesses. If the Competition Act can restrain the anticompetitive exclusionary effect of TPMs in general, these facts should provide a suitable test case.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".