Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to shed light on the conceptual, doctrinal and practical issues regarding digital property law by weaving together several facets of the subject. Legislative schemes for the digital environment have emerged to cover some issues but not others. The debate about further statutory reform to deal with digital property is ongoing. Litigated cases in Canada are becoming increasingly common, and those that arise tend to be complex and significant. With this article, we facilitate better understanding of digital property issues among the bench and the bar, and offer a principled approach to legal policymakers grappling with law reform in this context. The approach we put forward is one based on technological neutrality, in the substantive functional sense not the minimalist notion of media neutrality. We begin by providing important historical perspective on the debate about digital property rights, tracing its evolution over the past 20 years. We then canvass six distinct areas of law where digital property issues are engaged: the legal definition of digital assets as property; the protection of digital property against damage; dealing with digital property in life and on death; digital property and privacy rights; jurisdiction over cyberspace; and the technological regulation of digital property. After discussing the most significant legal developments during the past two decades, we conclude with strategic insights for judges, practitioners and others faced with digital property issues in the future. We show how substantive technological neutrality can serve as a guiding principle connecting each of the digital property doctrines we review.
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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".