Generated.

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

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index fff0e5cc7128d76a1b91c69f0d7835539b74967f..8247486f0f029ec0360cc19007ae378da2393fe5 100644 (file)
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -3140,7 +3140,7 @@ composer and publisher without any regard for [their]
 rights.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f4 -->
 To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright: Hearings on
-S. 6330 and H.R. 19853 Before the ( Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th
+S. 6330 and H.R. 19853 Before the (Joint) Committees on Patents, 59th
 Cong. 59, 1st sess. (1906) (statement of Senator Alfred B. Kittredge,
 of South Dakota, chairman), reprinted in <citetitle>Legislative History of the
 Copyright Act</citetitle>, E. Fulton Brylawski and Abe Goldman, eds. (South
@@ -3258,7 +3258,7 @@ creativity.<footnote><para>
 
 <!-- f10 -->
 Copyright Law Revision: Hearings on S. 2499, S. 2900, H.R. 243, and
-H.R. 11794 Before the ( Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st
+H.R. 11794 Before the (Joint) Committee on Patents, 60th Cong., 1st
 sess., 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted
 in <citetitle>Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act</citetitle>, E. Fulton Brylawski and
 Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).
@@ -6026,7 +6026,7 @@ all&mdash;in the library archive of the film company.<footnote><para>
 Doug Herrick, <quote>Toward a National Film Collection: Motion Pictures at
 the Library of Congress,</quote> <citetitle>Film Library Quarterly</citetitle> 13 nos. 2&ndash;3
 (1980): 5; Anthony Slide, <citetitle>Nitrate Won't Wait: A History of Film
-Preservation in the United States</citetitle> ( Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &amp;
+Preservation in the United States</citetitle> (Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland &amp;
 Co., 1992), 36.
 </para></footnote>
 </para>
@@ -6777,7 +6777,7 @@ railroads. Does anyone think we should ban trucks from roads
 <emphasis>for the purpose of</emphasis> protecting the railroads?
 Closer to the subject of this book, remote channel changers have
 weakened the <quote>stickiness</quote> of television advertising (if a boring
-commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf ), and it
+commercial comes on the TV, the remote makes it easy to surf), and it
 may well be that this change has weakened the television advertising
 market. But does anyone believe we should regulate remotes to
 reinforce commercial television?  (Maybe by limiting them to function
@@ -8855,6 +8855,13 @@ commercial media will refuse one side of a crucial debate the
 opportunity to present its case.  And the courts will defend the
 rights of the stations to be this biased.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f34 -->
+<indexterm><primary>ABC</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Comcast</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Marijuana Policy Project</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>NBC</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>WJOA</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>WRC</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>advertising</primary></indexterm>
 The Marijuana Policy Project, in February 2003, sought to place ads
 that directly responded to the Nick and Norm series on stations within
 the Washington, D.C., area. Comcast rejected the ads as <quote>against
@@ -8879,13 +8886,6 @@ diesel buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, <quote>Antidiesel Group Fuming
 After Muni Rejects Ad,</quote> SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at
 <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #32</ulink>. The ground
 was that the criticism was <quote>too controversial.</quote>
-<indexterm><primary>ABC</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Comcast</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Marijuana Policy Project</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>NBC</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>WJOA</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>WRC</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>advertising</primary></indexterm>
 </para></footnote>
 </para>
 <para>
@@ -9161,13 +9161,13 @@ property, the state ought to protect it. But first impressions
 notwithstanding, historically, this property right (as with all
 property rights<footnote><para>
 <!-- f36 -->
+<indexterm><primary>legal realist movement</primary></indexterm>
 It was the single most important contribution of the legal realist
 movement to demonstrate that all property rights are always crafted to
 balance public and private interests. See Thomas C. Grey, <quote>The
 Disintegration of Property,</quote> in <citetitle>Nomos XXII: Property</citetitle>, J. Roland
 Pennock and John W.  Chapman, eds. (New York: New York University
 Press, 1980).
-<indexterm><primary>legal realist movement</primary></indexterm>
 </para></footnote>)
 has been crafted to balance the important need to give authors and
 artists incentives with the equally important need to assure access to
@@ -10158,6 +10158,9 @@ implemented by Congress. I won't catalog all of those responses
 here.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f11. -->
 <indexterm><primary>Tauzin, Billy</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Berman, Howard L.</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Hollings, Fritz</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>broadcast flag</primary></indexterm>
 For example, in July 2002, Representative Howard Berman introduced the
 Peer-to-Peer Piracy Prevention Act (H.R. 5211), which would immunize
 copyright holders from liability for damage done to computers when the
@@ -10172,9 +10175,6 @@ technology in all digital media devices. See GartnerG2, <quote>Copyright and
 Digital Media in a Post-Napster World,</quote> 27 June 2003, 33&ndash;34,
 available at
 <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #44</ulink>.
-<indexterm><primary>Berman, Howard L.</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>Hollings, Fritz</primary></indexterm>
-<indexterm><primary>broadcast flag</primary></indexterm>
 </para></footnote>
 But there is one example that captures the flavor of them all. This is
 the story of the demise of Internet radio.