Moving Past <em>Michelin</em>: Towards Judicial Reconsideration of the Intersection of Copyright and the Charter Right to Freedom of Expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On a regular basis over the past two decades, Canadian courts considering the intersection of the Charter right to freedom of expression and copyright have cited to Michelin v. CAW-Canada as authority. In this paper, I argue that it is no longer acceptable for them to do so. As I will establish, the approaches to the intersection of freedom of expression and copyright employed in Michelin rely upon and have been shaped by conceptions of copyright and freedom of expression that although once endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada, are no longer valid, namely the author-centric view of copyright as well as an approach to freedom of expression under which it is accepted that property rights are insulated from Charter scrutiny. As such, the Michelin approaches to the intersection of the Charter right to freedom of expression and copyright are no longer good law, and should be explicitly rejected.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".