Electronic Trespass in Canada: The Protection of Private Property on the Internet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that Canadian courts can, and should, adopt electronic trespass as a viable cause of action for the protection of property rights on the Internet. Of course, this conclusion presupposes that property rights in fact exist on the Internet. While American courts have accepted the existence of property rights on the Internet without any real controversy, a significant body of criticism has developed around American jurisprudence. Part III examines the critiques levelled against the assumption of property rights inherent in electronic trespass, and argues that there are property rights that need to be protected on the Internet. Part IV addresses the practical issue of whether electronic trespass is available at common law in Canada. Focusing on the tangible quality of electronic communications and the lack of requirement to show actual damages, this paper concludes that electronic trespass is a viable cause of action in Canada. Despite being a viable cause of action, Part V examines the concerns of the anticommons movement, and considers whether Canadian courts should forgo electronic trespass and adopt an alternative doctrine resembling nuisance. In rejecting such an approach, this paper concludes with a discussion of the importance of consent as a means of imposing rationality on the operation of electronic trespass, and questions the usefulness of legislative reform.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".