La distribution des oeuvres du point de vue du droit de destination, de l'épuisement du droit et des importations parallèles /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study deals with the prerogatives associated with work distribution in copyright law. The first part is devoted to the droit de destination and the exhaustion doctrine. We will illustrate each one with legislative and jurisprudential examples. While these theories are often regarded as opposite, they in fact are dissimilar juridical solutions. The exhaustion doctrine derives from an economic conception of copyright law whereas the droit de destination originates from natural law focussed on the interests of the author. The second part is concerned with the fact that a coherent theory on work distribution in Canadian copyright law has yet to be established. It will be shown how the legislator and the jurisprudence have developed means to assure that, after the first distribution of the work, the copyright holder is still in the position to control some of its use. Finally, I will proceed to analyse the regime that deals specifically with parallel imports allowing the copyright holder to supervise imported works.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".