MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285784988 · doi:10.53724/lrd/v4n1.04

Liability of Internet Service Providers Across Various Countries: An Overview

2019· article· en· W4285784988 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ms. Poonam Pant, Ms. Bhumika Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueLegal Research Development · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiabilityDigital Millennium Copyright ActLicenseBusinessLegislationThe InternetCopyright infringementService providerStrict liabilityInternet service providerService (business)LawInternet privacyIntellectual propertyFinancePolitical scienceMarketingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of I.S.P. or Intermediary is very important for effective utilization of information technology. The liability of Intermediary or I.S.P. has gain immense importance at international level. Various countries have defined the liability of I.S.P. either in the form of copyright infringement or for the infringement of information technology. Australia was the first country to enact the legislation relating to the liability aspect of I.S.P. in the form of Copyright Act, 1968 making I.S.P. liable to disable the access to online services hosted outside Australia. Some safe harbors were also provided for I.S.P. as part of the Australia - United States Free Trade Agreement. The US provides for the liability of ISP in the form of Communications Decency Act, 1996, Digital Millennium Copyright Act,1998. Title II of the D.M.C.A. specifically deals with the issue of I.S.P. liability and also provides for the penalties for unauthorized access to a copyright work. As regarding the legislations of Canada, it does not specifically defines the liability of I.S.P., instead it provides safe harbor for those ISP’s providing any means for Internet access. I.S.P.’s are also protected for copyright infringement in Canada. In Singapore the liability of I.S.P. is regulated by the Internet class license and Internet code of Practice which requires the I.S.P. to abide by the conditions of license. I.S.P.’s are also restricted to make public access of those websites which contain offensive content harmful to national interest. Japan’s Copyright Act, 1970, The Provider Liability Limitation Law 2002 protects the I.S.P. against any kind of liability for Copyright infringement. UK enacted two legislations in form of Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Digital Economy Act 2010 which imposes the obligations on ISP to notify the infringement to its subscribers, also liable to take technical measures to terminate the Internet services after reporting of infringement. The countries also make the provisions for the penalties for offences relating to the infringement of copyright or unauthorized access of information by various I.S.P.’s or Intermediaries. The quantum of punishment is differed in every country according to the nature of offence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0180.022
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLegal Research DevelopmentSame topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207