Libraries and technology: Canadian and Malaysian copyright exceptions
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a snapshot and a comparative analysis of copyright exceptions available for libraries. It frames the differences and similarities, leading to discussion as to what extent copyright exceptions help libraries cater the changing technology. Design/methodology/approach This paper introduces the role of copyright exceptions in balancing owners and users interests. It explains evolving libraries activities due to technological development and how copyright exceptions significantly applies. Several factors in Canadian and Malaysian statutes are compared, namely, the rights granted, purposes allowed, beneficiaries affected, works involved, and conditions attached. This signifies to what extent the library exceptions cater to the changing needs and circumstances. It emphasizes the importance of awareness and understanding in order for libraries to serve its role effectively. Findings Both countries consider the use of new technologies in its library exceptions. Malaysian statute adopts a general approach which can either be flexibly or rigidly interpreted. Comparatively, Canada adopts a more specific and detail approach that might restrict beneficial activities. This paper calls for extra effort for policy makers to allow more control of digital works that may serve libraries activities. Originality/value There has not been any comparative study in the library literature on copyright exceptions for libraries in Malaysia and Canada. This study aims to provoke such discussion and how each country may learn from each others practices. It should be useful to the whole library community, particularly to both countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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