A proposed approach to the analysis of computer program copyright infringement in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian computer program copyright infringement decisions are' characterized by prolix reasoning and inconsistent methodological approaches. In this context, there exists a need for the explication of a revised approach to the analysis of infringement vis-a-vis production and reproduction rights. Herein the author explicates a proposed approach, which holds true to the dictates of the idea/expression dichotomy and the requirement of originality. It recognizes a difference between "copyrightable" and "protected by copyright" regarding parts of a computer program, rejects the U.S. abstraction-filtration-comparison test, allows a court to consider all admissible evidence when making the assessment of copying in fact, restrains the taking of parts of a computer program that in quality constitute original expression, and provides justification for the "weeding-out" favoured by the courts. The proposed approach provides a sound foundation for courts and lawyers to deal with issues looming on the litigation horizon as regards computer program copyright infringement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".