Merge remote-tracking branch 'marsgui/master'

[text-free-culture-lessig.git] / freeculture.xml

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index bcde3d9d7f9ae9164692d1ad015997b977a81ece..13ee0d0e85050db41b353a42a6c067dee5159814 100644 (file)
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999)
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 5 -->
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 6 -->
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 7 -->
-<dedication><title></title>
+<dedication id='dedication'><title></title>
 <!-- FIXME figure out how to do this better in dblatex and docbook-xsl -->
 <?latex {\Huge \centering
 ?>
@@ -798,8 +798,8 @@ State copyright law historically protected not just the commercial interest in
 publication, but also a privacy interest. By granting authors the exclusive
 right to first publication, state copyright law gave authors the power to
 control the spread of facts about them. See Samuel D. Warren and Louis
-D. Brandeis, <quote>The Right to Privacy,</quote> Harvard Law Review 4 (1890): 193,
-198&ndash;200.
+D. Brandeis, <quote>The Right to Privacy,</quote> <citetitle>Harvard
+Law Review</citetitle> 4 (1890): 193, 198&ndash;200.
 <indexterm><primary>Brandeis, Louis D.</primary></indexterm>
 </para></footnote>
 This is also, of course, an important part of creativity and culture,
@@ -2493,8 +2493,8 @@ more instances of the same <quote>misspeaking</quote> emerged. Finally, the stor
 broke back into the mainstream press. In the end, Lott was forced to
 resign as senate majority leader.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f18 -->
-Noah Shachtman, <quote>With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the Pot,</quote> New
-York Times, 16 January 2003, G5.
+Noah Shachtman, <quote>With Incessant Postings, a Pundit Stirs the
+Pot,</quote> <citetitle>New York Times</citetitle>, 16 January 2003, G5.
 </para></footnote>
 </para>
 <indexterm id='idxmediacommercialimperativesof' class='startofrange'><primary>media</primary><secondary>commercial imperatives of</secondary></indexterm>
@@ -10101,6 +10101,10 @@ that will obviously and necessarily stifle new innovation. It is hard
 enough to start a company. It is impossibly hard if that company is
 constantly threatened by litigation.
 </para>
+<indexterm id='idxmarketconstraints3' class='startofrange'><primary>market constraints</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm id='idxpermissionculturetransactioncostof' class='startofrange'><primary>permission culture</primary><secondary>transaction cost of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>regulation</primary><secondary>outsize penalties of</secondary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>technology</primary><secondary>legal murkiness on</secondary></indexterm>
 <para>
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 201 -->
@@ -10117,7 +10121,6 @@ innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this uncertain and
 unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation and
 much less creativity.
 </para>
-<indexterm><primary>market constraints</primary></indexterm>
 <para>
 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
 use. Whatever the <quote>real</quote> law is, realism about the effect of law in
@@ -10149,6 +10152,8 @@ within a permission culture are enough to bury a wide range of
 creativity.  Someone needs to do a lot of justifying to justify that
 result.
 </para>
+<indexterm startref='idxmarketconstraints3' class='endofrange'/>
+<indexterm startref='idxpermissionculturetransactioncostof' class='endofrange'/>
 <para>
 <emphasis role='strong'>The uncertainty</emphasis> of the law is one
 burden on innovation. There is a second burden that operates more
@@ -12003,11 +12008,12 @@ most liberal judges in the D.C. Circuit believed Congress had
 overstepped its bounds.
 </para>
 <para>
-It was here that most expected Eldred v. Ashcroft would die, for the
-Supreme Court rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It
-hears about one hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand
-appeals.) And it practically never reviews a decision that upholds a
-statute when no other court has yet reviewed the statute.
+It was here that most expected <citetitle>Eldred</citetitle>
+v. <citetitle>Ashcroft</citetitle> would die, for the Supreme Court
+rarely reviews any decision by a court of appeals. (It hears about one
+hundred cases a year, out of more than five thousand appeals.) And it
+practically never reviews a decision that upholds a statute when no
+other court has yet reviewed the statute.
 </para>
 <para>
 But in February 2002, the Supreme Court surprised the world by