The Copyright Modernization Act: A Guide for Post-Secondary Instructors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In November 2012, the educational provisions of the Copyright Modernization Act were proclaimed in force, thereby introducing a number of significant changes to the Canadian Copyright Act. These changes include the expansion of fair dealing to include the purpose of education, the addition of new educational exceptions for the online transmission of lessons and the use of work freely available through the internet, and a number of amendments that make existing educational exceptions more technologically accommodating. This paper considers the significance of these changes for post-secondary instructors, first contextualizing the changes in relation to recent fair dealing jurisprudence, and then considering their significance for everyday instructional practice. Drawing on influential court decisions and the commentary of academics and lawyers, the paper not only describes how the changes to the Copyright Act have expanded the rights and exceptions available to instructors, but also identifies a number of unresolved questions about how the changes should be applied in practice. Despite these areas of uncertainty, the paper concludes that the changes bode well for post-secondary instructors, as they relax many long-standing restrictions around the use of copyrighted works for educational purposes.\nEn novembre 2012, les dispositions éducatives de la Loi sur la modernisation du droit d’auteur ont été proclamées avec force. Elles apportaient un certain nombre de changements significatifs à la Loi du Canada sur le droit d’auteur. Ces changements comprennent l’élargissement de l’utilisation équitable pour y inclure le but de l’éducation, l’addition de nouvelles exceptions éducatives pour la transmission de leçons en ligne et l’utilisation de travaux disponibles à volonté sur internet, ainsi qu’un certain nombre de modifications aux exceptions éducatives existantes qui tiennent davantage compte de la technologie. Cet article examine la signification de ces changements pour les enseignants de niveau post-secondaire, tout d’abord en mettant en contexte les changements par rapport à la jurisprudence récente en matière d’élargissement de l’utilisation, ensuite en examinant leur signification pour la pratique de l’enseignement de tous les jours. L’article, qui met à profit les décisions de la cour et les commentaires d’universitaires et d’avocats, non seulement décrit la manière dont les changements apportés à la Loi du droit d’auteur ont élargi les droits et les exceptions à la disposition des enseignants, il identifie également un certain nombre de questions non résolues sur la manière dont les changements devraient être mis en pratique. Malgré ces zones d’incertitude, l’article en arrive à la conclusion que les changements sont de bon augure pour les enseignants de niveau post-secondaire car ils assouplissent de nombreuses restrictions qui existaient de longue date concernant l’utilisation de travaux protégés par le droit d’auteur pour les besoins éducatifs.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.025 |
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".