MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161983110 · doi:10.82308/21635

The impact of competition law on copyright law in new economy markets in Canada /

2002· dissertation· en· W7161983110 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruth Aregger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition lawCompetition (biology)LegislationEnforcementIntellectual propertyMarket powerPublic domainDigital economyNew economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interface between copyright law and competition law has always been a topic of debate in legal and economic circles. Since the last decade however, new economy markets pose new challenges to this interface. Network effects, interconnectivity, rapid innovation, and excludability are characteristics of new economy markets. Particularly network effects can, in connection with copyright protection, increase market power and provoke competition authorities to monitor the exercise of copyrights. This thesis contains an analysis of the background and underlying principles of Canadian copyright law and competition law. It gives an overview over their interface in the legislation and the impact of competition policy on copyright litigation. It also examines the Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidelines that were issued by the Canadian Competition Bureau in September 2000. The thesis concludes that competition law and copyright law are complementary instruments that serve the same goals. The two bodies of law are drafted so that they would not oppose one another. Instead of curbing copyright protection through competition policy enforcement, new challenges posed by new economy markets should be met by rethinking copyright policy and protection in these markets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207