MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W853596052

Fragmented Copyright, Fragmented Management: Proposals to Defrag Copyright Management

2003· article· en· W853596052 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCopyright and Intellectual Property
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInefficiencyPolitical scienceCopyright lawLicenseBottleneckBusinessLaw and economicsHumanitiesIntellectual propertyLawComputer scienceSociologyEconomicsArtMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The collective management of copyright in Canada was conceived as a solution to alleviate the problem of inefficiency of individual rights management. Creators could not license, collect and enforce copyright efficiently on an individual basis. Requiring users to obtain permission from individual copyright holders for the use of a work was equally inefficient. Collectives, therefore, emerged to facilitate the clearance of rights between creators and users. Even with the facilitation of collectives in the process, clearing rights remains an inherently difficult and convoluted process. This is especially so in the age of the Internet where clearing rights for multimedia products presents new unprecedented challenges. As a result of an infelicitous legal evolution and the multiplication of collectives, fragmentation of copyright, and the way in which it is used and enforced, has occurred. This paper addresses the problems associated with fragmentation and offers solutions to ‘‘defrag’’ the collective management of copyright in Canada.\nLa gestion collective du droit d’auteur au Canada était à l'origine une solution apportée à l'inefficacité de la gestion individuelle des droits. Les créateurs n’étaient pas en mesure d’octroyer des licences, de percevoir et de mettre en œuvre leur droit d’auteur de façon individuelle. Il était tout aussi inefficace d’exiger des utilisateurs d’œuvres qu’ils obtiennent des licences de chaque ayant droit individuel. Les sociétés de gestion qui ont été mises sur pied devaient faciliter la gestion des rapports entre ayants droit et utilisateurs. Mais malgré le rôle joué par ces sociétés de gestion, l’obtention de autorisation nécessaires à l’exploitation d’une œuvre protégée reste un processus long et alambiqué. Cela est particulière ment vrai depuis l’arrivée d’Internet, qui pose des défis sans précédents dans ce domaine. Le résultat de l’évolution parfois mal orientée de la législation applicable et la création de multiples sociétés de gestion ont mené à un fractionnement du droit d’auteur et de sa gestion. Cet article se penche sur le problème du fractionnement et propose des solutions devant permettre de défragmenter la gestion collective du droit d’auteur.\nThe main problem with the collective management of copyright in Canada is fragmentation. Fragmentation is a term we use in this paper to refer to the lack of cohesion, standardization, and, to a certain extent, effective organization of both copyright law and collective management per se. Fragmentation occurs on many different levels: rights stemming from the law recognising several economic rights (reproduction, communication to the public, adaptation, rental, etc.); within the market structure; within licensing practices; within a repertory of works; within different markets (language, territory); and through the interoperability of rights clearance systems. Fragmentation impacts directly on all affected parties whether they are rightsholders, users of copyright works, or regulatory authorities that oversee the process.\nThe structure of the paper is as follows: first, it will explore the history of collective management societies (sometimes referred to simply as ‘‘collectives’’); second, focus on the origin of collective management societies and copyright law in Canada; third, look at the development of technologies and their intersection with copyright law and its management; fourth, examine the origins of fragmentation and the various problems that ensue from the situation; and fifth, look to potential solutions to alleviate some of the concerns and challenges posed by fragmentation.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.027

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · 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