LES APPAREILS VIDÉO ET LE DROIT D’AUTEUR : L’AFFAIRE BETAMAX DEVANT LA COURT OF APPEALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La popularité grandissante des appareils vidéo auprès des consommateurs pose la question de la légalité de leur utilisation en regard des lois américaine et canadienne sur le droit d’auteur. En 1979 un tribunal américain a conclu à leur parfaite légalité, mais deux ans plus tard une cour d’appel a conclu exactement le contraire. Toute la question concerne l’application ou non des concepts “fair use” et « utilisation équitable » auxquels ces lois réfèrent. Le droit canadien semble aussi réticent à admettre une utilisation généralisée des appareils vidéo. Allons-nous vers une impasse juridique ? Le législateur sera peut-être obligé d’intervenir pour légaliser ex post facto une activité dont le public ne veut plus se priver.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".