Authorizing Copyright Infringement and the Control Requirement: A Look at P2P File-Sharing and Distribution of New Technology in the U.K., Australia, Canada, and Singapore
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
The doctrine of authorizing copyright infringement has been used to deal with the marketing of new Ttechnology that might be employed by a user to infringe copyright, from the distribution of blank cassette tapes and double-cassette tape recorders to photocopiers. It is being tested yet again with the distribution of peer-to-peer file-sharing software that enables the online exchange of MP3 music and other copyrighted files. This article looks at the different positions adopted in several Commonwealth jurisdictions, and examines the policy considerations behind these positions. It looks at, in particular, the recent Australian case of Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd. v. Sharman License Holdings Ltd. While many copyright infringement issues involve a balancing of the copyright owner’s interests against the alleged infringing user’s interests, the authorization concept is compounded by the further competing interests of promoting technology, as well as the interests of legitimate users who deploy the technology in lawful ways. The court’s challenge is to find an acceptable equilibrium among these interests.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it