MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7065765419

EU handelsbeleid en auteursrecht : over de grenzen van bevoegdheden en het evenwicht tussen de bescherming van auteursrecht en andere fundamentele rechten

2019· article· en· W7065765419 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLirias (KU Leuven) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFundamental rightsProportionality (law)European unionCharterPrinciple of legalityDirectiveHuman rightsEuropean Union lawData Protection Act 1998
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dissertation examines the EU's recent trade policy in the field of copyright law, both in the light of the revised catalogue of EU competences in the EU Treaties and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It is guided by the following central research question: to what extent is the current EU's trade policy compatible with its obligations to provide copyright protection, to safeguard other fundamental rights and to respect constitutionally confined competences? Part I provides an overview of the balancing mechanisms between the right to copyright protection and other fundamental rights. Four potential conflicts are discussed in detail: those between the right to copyright protection and the obligations to protect (1) the freedom of expression, (2) the right to privacy and data protection, (3) the freedom to establish a business and (4) the fair trial rights and the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties. A balance between those rights and the right to copyright protection within the EU legal order is achieved by several safeguards in the EU copyright directives and an interpretation of these safeguards by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The main correction mechanisms that restrict an excessive level of copyright protection are the exceptions and limitations in Art. 5 Information Society Directive and the principle of proportionality under Art. 52(1) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Nonetheless, a number of red flags for the EU's trade policy have been identified, mainly with respect to the freedom of expression. These for example include a possible extension of the term of copyright and related rights protection beyond 50 years and an extensive legal protection of TPMs which prevents legitimate uses of works on grounds of Art. 5 Information Society Directive. Part II outlines the constitutional set-up of the EU's external competences with regard to copyright law. On the one hand, the dissertation sets out the scope of the common commercial policy competence in Art. 207 TFEU by defining the concept 'commercial aspects of intellectual property'. On the other hand, the dissertation examines the scope of the EU's implied external ERTA-competence in Art. 3(2) TFEU. The doctoral thesis identifies two main areas in which discussions concerning the legal basis can arise: (1) moral rights and (2) criminal enforcement. However, in the end, it is concluded that the EU's express scope of action to regulate copyright internationally provided by Art. 207 TFEU is extensive and has few constraints. Moreover, the EU's implied competence in Art. 3(2) TFEU can serve as a proper back-up. In sum, the EU's external competence in copyright matters is all-encompassing and does not give rise to specific red flags. Part III carries out an evaluation of the copyright provisions of a number of selected trade agreements: the agreements between the EU and South-Korea, Peru, Colombia and Ecuador, Singapore and Canada. It examines whether the delicate balance between rights and interests that is struck internally has been preserved in its trade policy and checks whether the copyright provisions remain within the boundaries of the EU's external competences. In the end, the dissertation concludes that the EU's current trade policy is fully compatible with its obligation to respect constitutionally confined competences and is clearly compatible with its obligation to protect copyright. However, the EU's current trade policy does not sufficiently guarantee access to information for the public and therefore is not entirely compatible with the freedom of expression.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0140.008
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.006

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 venueLirias (KU Leuven)Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207