MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912497001

Much Ado About Five Hundred Dollars: Why the SCC Should Overturn Rogers v Voltage

2018· article· en· W2912497001 on OpenAlex
Colin M. Hyslop

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoticeSuspectLawLaw and economicsPolitical scienceBusinessComputer securityEngineeringEconomicsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The FCA’s decision in Rogers Communications Inc v Voltage Pictures, LLC, et al has dramatic policy implications, despite being only a decision regarding $500 in costs. Voltage Pictures sought the identities of alleged copyright infringers from Rogers by moving for a Norwich Order and was able to convince the FCA to compel Rogers to supply this information for free, by exploiting the “notice and notice” regime. The FCA’s decision in Voltage was legally suspect and should be overturned when the case is heard by the SCC. This paper will argue that SCC must overturn this decision. The case threatens to re-imagine Canada’s “notice and notice” regime, while putting Canadian internet users’ privacy in serious jeopardy. The FCA misinterpreted Canada’s “notice and notice” regime in reference to its interactions with Norwich Orders. This subjects ISPs to considerable liability and may open the floodgates for “copyright trolling.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.199 · 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