14. Redefining Reader and Writer, Remixing Copyright: Experimental Publishing at if:book Australia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Groth details several experimental literary projects created by if:book Australia and highlights the challenges to copyright they present and subsequent considerations for writers, audiences and publishers. if:book Australia has created works that are deliberately ephemeral, made freely available editing data, and encouraged the practice of ‘remixing’: using existing literature as source material for new works. In considering copyright and how it supports or hinders creative works, especially in new media, my approach is therefore deeply informed by the necessities of practice. The approach to copyright in such forms is based on mutual respect between artist and audience. Remix in particular relies on opening creative work to enable audiences to share and modify, while ensuring that the original artist and work is acknowledged. Digital media has permanently changed the underlying assumptions that have informed our approach to copyright. Making unauthorised copies of physical media requires an investment of resources that makes it unfeasible without the promise of financial reward. Intellectual property stored in a digital medium may be copied so effortlessly as to be invisible to audiences. Witness the number of incidental copies made of an email attachment, for example. Digital media also exposes the shortcomings of territoriality in licensing, something that Australian writers and audiences alike feel keenly when access to digital content is artificially ‘geoblocked’. But digital media does not replace physical media. An appropriate copyright system should therefore not dismiss all current copyright principles, but rather acknowledge and adapt them for the medium in which they are transmitted. Current debate in Australia focuses on adopting US style fair use rather than the more archaic and medium-specific fair dealing. Many writers’ organisations and individuals have publicly opposed such a measure, although their opposition has been conflated with other more egregious policy of lifting parallel import restriction.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.049 | 0.061 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it