FROM "RADICAL EXTREMISM" TO "BALANCED COPYRIGHT": CANADIAN COPYRIGHT AND THE DIGITAL AGENDA, Michael Geist, ed., Irwin Law, 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On July 27, 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada released a significant decision dealing with copyright and parallel imports, Euro-Excellence Inc. v. Kraft Canada Inc. [Euro-Excellence]. This paper frames Euro-Excellence in light of (a) the evolving roles in Supreme Court of Canada copyright jurisprudence of the concepts of "balance," "reproduction," and "user rights" in the copyright system, and (b) the distinctions between copyright, patent and trade-mark as autonomous yet related legal regimes. More specifically, the paper analyzes Bastarache J.'s judgment in Euro-Excellence in order to tease out the ways in which the concept of copyright's own specific domain - as distinct from that of other modes of intellectual property protection - interacts with that of copyright's purpose, and to speculate about the implications that this interaction holds for our understanding of copyright subject-matter and copyright infringement. The upshot of the discussion is a distinction between "patterns of ink" and "works of authorship" affirming and developing the familiar proposition - contained in the defense of independent creation and the defense of fair dealing - that the mere physical identity of patterns of ink in the plaintiff's and the defendant's respective works need not give rise to copyright liability. Physical identities are not by that token alone infringing copies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".