Internet freedom and copyright maximalism: Contradictory hypocrisy or complementary policies?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
U.S. advocacy for increased international intellectual property protection and a free and open Internet has been criticized as being inconsistent at best and hypocritical at worst. Placing U.S. copyright and Internet policy in a historical context and using Susan Strange's concepts of structural power and knowledge structures, we argue that copyright and Internet policies cannot be analyzed in isolation, but are intimately and inextricably linked forms of knowledge regulation. All knowledge regulation policies involve balancing access and restriction. Our analysis suggests that the current U.S. policy of Internet freedom and strong copyright protection represents a particular, historically situated strategy designed to exert structural power in the global information economy: Free flow of information creates markets by exposure to intellectual properties, while copyright secures economic benefit to copyright holders from the flow. We argue that a full and honest debate over issues of information access requires acknowledgment of contemporary and conflicting values, with the realization that different societies and interests will weigh access and dissemination differently. Recognizing as legitimate and incorporating these different perspectives into the global governance structures of the Internet comprise the key challenge facing those who favor truly democratic global Internet governance.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it