Recalibrating Copyright Law?: A Comment on the Supreme Court of Canada's Decision in CCH Canadian Limited et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous decision in CCH Canadian Ltd. et. al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada marks a second recent decision by the Court that has major implications for the development of copyright law in Canada. In Théberge v. Galerie D’Art du Petit Champlain, the majority of the Court provided a significant articulation of the balance to be struck between the rights of creators and the rights of users of copyright-protected works. In doing so, it embraced an approach to copyright typical of U.S. copyright law in its heyday. The unanimous Court in CCH Canadian makes it clear that Théberge was not an isolated case; in an area of law where Parliament has been strongly lobbied to restrict users’ rights, the Court seems poised to take an interpretive approach that places limits on the scope of the rights of owners of copyright. In CCH Canadian, the Court does this on a number of fronts. The decision sets a new standard for originality in Canadian copyright law, reigns in the scope of certain acts of infringement in the technological context, and signals an open and expansive approach to interpreting the fair dealing defences.
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 | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.072 | 0.048 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".