The Regulation of New Media Broadcasting in Canada Post-iCraveTV.com, 19 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 331 (2001)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Broadcasters in both the U.S. and Canada were perplexed when iCraveTV.com began intercepting American and Canadian television signals and began broadcasting them for free over the Internet. Broadcasters in Canada contend that these type of actions constitute a violation of section 3 of the Canadian Copyright Act. Provisions of section 31(2) of the Copyright Act appear to allow new media broadcasters to rebroadcast signals in return for paying a tariff, however, these criterion must be meet: the communication must be a retransmission of a local or distant signal, the transmission must be lawful under the Broadcasting Act, the signal must be transmitted simultaneously and in its entirety, and a royalty must be paid. Canadian broadcasters also contend that new media broadcasters activities amount to secondary infringement, arguing foreign programming licenses would be jeopardized. ICraveTV.com is currently working on technology that will only allow Canadians to view these programs and thus new media broadcasters will evade liablity for secondary infringement. Compared to the current state of American copyright law, new media broadcasters in America do not enjoy such freedom. New media broadcasters must negotiate licensing agreements between the traditional broadcasters and new media broadcasters.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".