Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the USA, Canada, UK, and Australia currently retain territorial copyright laws, with commensurate restrictions on parallel, importation of books, advances in digital technology, and the advent of e-books have caused an involuntary migration of the book across these defined borders. This changing publishing sphere has impacted authors' copyright protection, with authors struggling to come to grips with breaches of copyright outside the protection of their own borders. Additionally, the extra-territorial publication of books are often in breach of authors' copyright but difficult to address locally. This article deals with the copyright issues faced by authors once their books enter the digital sphere, as well as the difficulties associated with overseas publications of their books, from a territorial perspective. It examines—especially in view of recent case law in the United States—whether territorial copyright borders still afford book authors effective copyright protection in the digital economy, and further, whether the culture of the book is being eroded through the prevalence of extra-territorial publications. In addressing these issues, the article references recent qualitative and quantitative research conducted through interviewing and surveying published Australian authors nationally. The findings of the qualitative and quantitative research showed that, whilst publication in the digital sphere poses significant challenges for book authors, their responses to copyright challenges are varied and inconsistent, depending on their viewpoints. Relevantly, this article examines the recent US Supreme Court decision of Kirtsaeng v Wiley and Sons, Inc.—which dealt with the application of the “first sale doctrine” in the cross-border sale of text books on eBay—and considers its likely future impact on the enforcement of territorial copyright by authors and publishers. Finally, the article concludes that territorial copyright borders have become blurred, difficult to enforce in view of recent precedent, and are ineffective in preserving authors' copyright and the cultural dimensions of their books. In conclusion, it suggests that new copyright solutions are required, demanding that authors embrace digital technology, improve their knowledge of online publishing, and apply creative publishing models to their advantage.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".