X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/text-free-culture-lessig.git/blobdiff_plain/b5b33bd4ac494d941ea03c69287e75a2c6fbd30d..15486e2a2e0ebaa5c943a01575e94947fc50c093:/freeculture.xml

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index 65e1dd6..13ee0d0 100644
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -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>
@@ -12008,11 +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