Anti-circumvention technology legislation in Canada : drafting a new law in the wake of the DMCA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In becoming a signatory to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Treaties, Canada has undertaken the obligation to provide protection against the circumvention of technological measures designed to protect copyright works. While on its face the obligation appears simple, in reality it brings about an intersection of policy, law and technology; a complex situation with far reaching repercussions. The U.S., a co-signatory to the WIPO Treaties, responded to this tension by enacting the Digital Milennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which heavily regulated circumvention technology and garnered wide-spread criticism. Critics labeled the law as unpredictable and overbroad legislation, which has chilled free speech, violated fair use, stifled research and study and encouraged monopolies by eliminating competition. Drawing largely on the U.S. experience, this thesis aims to suggest a possible route for Canada to take when fulfilling its own obligations under the WIPO. It will begin with a review of the relevant provisions of the Treaties to determine the extent of Canada's obligation. It will then examine Canada's proposal papers and the responses of its citizens to the questioned posed regarding future anti-circumvention legislation. It will also examine the DMCA in detail and attempt to distil its flaws. Finally, it will investigate the extent of the need for new anti-circumvention legislation in Canada by examining Canada's existing laws dealing with the protection of technology measures. Such process will provide evidence that Canada has, to a large extent, complied with its obligations under the WIPO while maintaining the delicate balance between the stakeholders of copyright law. Thus while new anti-circumvention legislation may still be in order, Canada has the latitude to craft a law that fully recognizes the rights of all stakeholders in the copyright equation and is consistent with its own copyright policies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".