MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6998922984

Book Review Authors, Users, and Pirates: Copyright Law and Subjectivity. James Meese. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2018. 240 pp. $35.00 (hardcover). (ISBN 9780262037440)

2018· article· en· W6998922984 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIDEALS (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Copyright lawSubjectivityWork (physics)Simple (philosophy)Copyright ActFrame (networking)Public domain
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a copyright librarian, I am often called upon to view library patrons and academic faculty members in their many different roles as defined by copyright law. On the one hand, a particular faculty member may be a copyright “user” by borrowing the work of others to display materials for educational purposes in a digitally facilitated classroom. On the other hand, the faculty member may be an author of portions of the materials she wishes to display along with the borrowed materials. Finally, the faculty member may cross the line of acceptable practices if she takes too much of another authors work and takes on the role of pirate for online course content. Thus, I inherently understand that triad of subjects defined by copyright law—author, user and pirate—are interrelated and complex. And yet, so very often in court proceedings or theoretical arguments, advocates attempt to make the roles appear highly separable, well defined, and immobile, such as the various marketing campaigns of the Copyright Clearance Center. (Copyright Clearance Center, 2016). Instead of responding to such an argument, I would simply pull out a copy of James Meese’s book and respond with this simple declarative statement: “Read this.” Meese lays out a “relational approach” providing readers with “an overarching conceptual frame that encompasses the author, user, and pirate and allows us to explore the various ways that subjectivity manifests in copyright.” (Meese, 2018, p. 8). He does so within the context of four common law countries (the US, Canada, Australia and the UK) by following the formation of these subjects throughout time with the influence of legal cases, technological changes, and changing societal cultural norms. Although other legal theorists have considered each of the three copyright categories (author, user, and pirate), they tended to focus on a “binary opposition between the author and the pirate” rather than the relational approach offered by Meese. (Meese, 2018, p. 8). As such, this book offers a new perspective on copyright law through a relational lens.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.183 · 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.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIDEALS (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign)Same topicCopyright and Intellectual PropertyFrench-language works237,207