MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748652642 · doi:10.3390/laws6030011

Back to the Future: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

2017· article· en· W2748652642 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Rimmer

Bibliographic record

VenueLaws · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTelstra FoundationGoogle
KeywordsDigital Millennium Copyright ActIntellectual propertyGeneral partnershipNoticeLiabilityCopyright ActGovernment (linguistics)International tradePolitical scienceBusinessLawLaw and economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a trade agreement, which seeks to regulate copyright law, intermediary liability, and technological protection measures. The United States Government under President Barack Obama sought to export key features of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 (US) (DMCA). Drawing upon the work of Joseph Stiglitz, this paper expresses concerns that the TPP would entrench DMCA measures into the laws of a dozen Pacific Rim countries. This study examines four key jurisdictions—the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—participating in the TPP. This paper has three main parts. Part 2 focuses upon the takedown-and-notice scheme, safe harbours, and intermediary liability under the TPP. Elements of the safe harbours regime in the DMCA have been embedded into the international agreement. Part 3 examines technological protection measures—especially in light of a constitutional challenge to the DMCA. Part 4 looks briefly at electronic rights management. This paper concludes that the model of the DMCA is unsuitable for a template for copyright protection in the Pacific Rim in international trade agreements. It contends that our future copyright laws need to be responsive to new technological developments in the digital age—such as Big Data, cloud computing, search engines, and social media. There is also a need to resolve the complex interactions between intellectual property, electronic commerce, and investor-state dispute settlement in trade agreements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.016
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLawsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207