Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation examines the rights to free speech and parody by combining philosophical inquiries with legal analyses. Part One draws upon natural law theories to argue that the right to free speech is a universal right, and expressing oneself through parodies is an exercise of this right. It then discusses the nature of copyright from both natural rights and utilitarian perspectives, to illuminate how the right to parody copyrighted works is also a universal right that should be accommodated by copyright law. Regarding the scope of this right, because free speech is more fundamental than copyright, a broad legal definition of parody, which encompasses works targeting the originals as well as those that direct their criticism or commentary towards something else, is preferable to narrow definitions. However, parodies must not adversely impact the interests of rights holders by serving as market substitutes for the original works or their derivatives. Courts should also apply the parody defence or exception with reference to the free speech doctrine to ensure that lawful speech would not be suppressed for the sake or under the pretext of copyright protection. Part Two of the dissertation employs four case studies—the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Hong Kong—to elucidate its arguments for a broad definition of parody and for courts to apply the parody defence or exception with reference to the free speech or freedom of expression doctrine. All four chapters explain how the free speech jurisprudences of these jurisdictions have been informed by the natural law, and how the proposed parody defence or exception would serve to bring their copyright jurisprudences, which have been influenced by utilitarianism, and/or a narrow conception of natural rights privileging the authors’ over the users’ rights, in line with their free speech jurisprudences. These studies also reveal the usefulness of the free speech/freedom of expression doctrine as an external mechanism in safeguarding parodists’ speech freedom. If this external solution would not be sufficient to protect free speech, then solutions within the copyright statutes would serve to create the needed breathing space for free speech.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| 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 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".