DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT AND CANADIAN PRIVACY: ALTERNATIVES FOR DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has signed, but not ratified, either the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WCT) or the World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). This thesis examines the current state of privacy and personal data protection law if Digital Rights Management system technologies were legally implemented today in Canada, in compliance with these treaties. This study emphasises in two jurisdictions: Federal and Ontario. It will be demonstrated that functionalities present in Digital Rights Management, like fingerprinting, watermarking and\nauthentication technologies, violate privacy and personal data protection law. The idea to issue a number of alternatives for implementation of Digital Rights Management in the legal and technological fields that could enhance privacy and personal data protection.\nThis thesis concludes that there are alternatives for implementation of Digital Rights Management in Canada that, do not require a direct implementation of the WCT and the WPPT.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".