MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123644802

Putting the Community in Communication: Dissolving the Conflict between Freedom of Expression and Copyright

2006· article· en· W3123644802 on OpenAlexaffabout
Donna Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic domainLegitimacyLaw and economicsExpression (computer science)Entitlement (fair division)Political scienceValue (mathematics)Intellectual propertyPrivate propertyProperty rightsLawSociologyEconomicsPhilosophyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is concerned with the relationship between freedom of expression and copyright law — and, more specifically, with what this relationship reveals about the nature and purpose of the copyright interest. I argue that the source of the apparent conflict between copyright and free expression is the prevailing characterization of both as individual rights vested in the liberal subject. The key to dissolving the conflict lies in the recognition of the social values that these rights affirm: the value that we attach to communication, to interaction between members of society and to participation in a social dialogue. If copyright is to be justified as necessary limitation upon expression in the name of maximizing creativity, then it must embrace the values of freedom of expression, for these values are its own. Through an analysis of the Canadian case of Cie Générale des Etablissements Michélin-Michélin & Cie v. C.A.W.-Canada, I show how the private property analogy undermines the expressive function of copyright's subject matter. It therefore neglects the speech implications of the copyright system, permits intellectual property to trump the principles of free expression, and ultimately defeats copyright’s public policy goals. The vision of copyright as a private, proprietary entitlement capable of trumping free expression thus threatens the internal coherence and legitimacy of the copyright system.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Muse (Johns Hopkins University)Same topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207