From Cartier to Codification: Website-Blocking Injunctions and Third-Party Internet Service Provider Respondents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the proliferation of commercial-scale copyright infringement through unauthorized online content streaming has created persisting legal hurdles for Canadian rights holders seeking redress. John Doe defendants in online copyright disputes can easily preserve their anonymity and operate their infringing enterprises from unknown locations, undeterred by injunctions issued against them directly. These anonymized administrators of illicit streaming platforms offer users unauthorized access to content for a lower cost than or as a free alternative to the access provided by the legitimate rights holder. This form of copyright infringement has reportedly resulted in up to hundreds of thousands of lost subscribers and hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues annually for Canadian rights holders. More fundamentally, online copyright infringement undermines the balance of interests that the Copyright Act seeks to achieve between empowering Internet consumers and rewarding content creators.\nIn response, the Canadian judiciary has recently embraced website-blocking injunctions as a novel remedy to combat online streaming-based copyright infringement. Instead of pursuing an anonymous defendant directly, an injunction granted against a third-party Internet service provider (‘‘ISP”) intermediary disables users on the ISP’s network from access to the unknown defendant’s offending website. In Teksavvy Solutions Inc. v. Bell Media Inc. (‘‘GoldTV FCA”), the Federal Court of Appeal allowed the first site-blocking order of this type in Canada. The order required third-party respondent ISPs enjoined by the injunction to use tools at their disposal to prevent the online copyright infringement facilitated by their retail broadband services, despite the ISPs not being directly liable for the infringement.
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".