Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Copyright Act includes a set of copyright infringement exceptions that permit the unauthorized use of copyrighted works in order to serve public interest objectives. The Supreme Court of Canada liberally interpreted these exceptions as “users’ rights” by relying on the purpose of the Act, understood as a balance between the authors’ right to be rewarded for their works and the public interest in the dissemination and use of works. The utility of copyright balance to safeguard users’ rights is uncertain. The Act does not explicitly adopt “balance” as a purpose. National and international copyright law traditionally recognize the users’ side in the copyright law balance in copyright exceptions and limitations. And, in copyright law discourse, different stakeholders propose and defend conflicting forms of balance. Therefore, the paper argues that a human rights-based approach to copyright exceptions is more persuasive in justifying their interpretation as users’ rights. Copyright users’ rights mirror the content of the human rights to participate in culture, education, and freedom of expression, which Canada is obliged to implement as a State Party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The proposed approach would align the discourse with key elements of Canadian jurisprudence: (1) human rights as reinforcers of the rule of law; (2) international human rights law as an interpretive tool for Canadian courts; and (3) the need to interpret Canadian legislation in a manner that does not breach international obligations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".