Clean up XML.

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index 3e5aa7a77c81be08dbaa002760c7cd6927304646..a2ef081058ad6c01fb9c4ed4bfc4fc1bd809ed1e 100644 (file)
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -8095,9 +8095,9 @@ Built to Last Underperform the Market—and How to Successfully Transform
 Them (New York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001).
 </para></footnote>
 
 Them (New York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001).
 </para></footnote>
 

-               Lumbering
-giants not only don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the field is
-only open to the giants, there will be far too little sprinting.
+Lumbering giants not only don't, but should not, sprint. Yet if the
+field is only open to the giants, there will be far too little
+sprinting.

 </para>
 <para>
 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media
 </para>
 <para>
 I don't think we know enough about the economics of the media


@@ -8120,41 +8120,36 @@ any position in government by saying I believe this war is a profound
 mistake. I am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 178 -->
 mistake. I am not pro drugs. Indeed, I come from a family once
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 178 -->

-wrecked by drugs&mdash;though the drugs that wrecked my family were all
-quite legal. I believe this war is a profound mistake because the 
-               collateral
-damage from it is so great as to make waging the war insane.
-When you add together the burdens on the criminal justice system, the
-desperation of generations of kids whose only real economic 
-               opportunities
-are as drug warriors, the queering of constitutional protections 
-               because
-of the constant surveillance this war requires, and, most profoundly,
-the total destruction of the legal systems of many South American 
-               nations
-because of the power of the local drug cartels, I find it impossible
-to believe that the marginal benefit in reduced drug consumption by
-Americans could possibly outweigh these costs.
-</para>
-<para>
-You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and
-it is through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we 
-               depend
-fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about
+wrecked by drugs&mdash;though the drugs that wrecked my family were
+all quite legal. I believe this war is a profound mistake because the
+collateral damage from it is so great as to make waging the war
+insane.  When you add together the burdens on the criminal justice
+system, the desperation of generations of kids whose only real
+economic opportunities are as drug warriors, the queering of
+constitutional protections because of the constant surveillance this
+war requires, and, most profoundly, the total destruction of the legal
+systems of many South American nations because of the power of the
+local drug cartels, I find it impossible to believe that the marginal
+benefit in reduced drug consumption by Americans could possibly
+outweigh these costs.
+</para>
+<para>
+You may not be convinced. That's fine. We live in a democracy, and it
+is through votes that we are to choose policy. But to do that, we
+depend fundamentally upon the press to help inform Americans about

 these issues.
 </para>
 <para>
 these issues.
 </para>
 <para>

-Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy
-launched a media campaign as part of the "war on drugs." The 
-               campaign
-produced scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal
-drugs. In one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar,
-discussing the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the
-collateral damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of
-drug legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way
-against the argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes his
-mind (hey, it's television). The plug at the end is a damning attack on
-the pro-legalization campaign.
+Beginning in 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy launched
+a media campaign as part of the "war on drugs." The campaign produced
+scores of short film clips about issues related to illegal drugs. In
+one series (the Nick and Norm series) two men are in a bar, discussing
+the idea of legalizing drugs as a way to avoid some of the collateral
+damage from the war. One advances an argument in favor of drug
+legalization. The other responds in a powerful and effective way
+against the argument of the first. In the end, the first guy changes
+his mind (hey, it's television). The plug at the end is a damning
+attack on the pro-legalization campaign.

 </para>
 <para>
 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its
 </para>
 <para>
 Fair enough. It's a good ad. Not terribly misleading. It delivers its


@@ -8163,98 +8158,88 @@ message well. It's a fair and reasonable message.
 <para>
 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to
 <para>
 But let's say you think it is a wrong message, and you'd like to run a
 countercommercial. Say you want to run a series of ads that try to

-demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the
-drug war. Can you do it?
+demonstrate the extraordinary collateral harm that comes from the drug
+war. Can you do it?

 </para>
 <para>
 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 179 -->
 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in
 </para>
 <para>
 Well, obviously, these ads cost lots of money. Assume you raise the
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 179 -->
 money. Assume a group of concerned citizens donates all the money in

-the world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your 
-               message
-will be heard then?
+the world to help you get your message out. Can you be sure your
+message will be heard then?

 </para>
 <para>
 </para>
 <para>

-No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of 
-               avoiding
+No. You cannot. Television stations have a general policy of avoiding

 "controversial" ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed
 "controversial" ads. Ads sponsored by the government are deemed

-uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are controversial.
-This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with the First 
-               Amendment,
-but the Supreme Court has held that stations have the right to
-choose what they run. Thus, the major channels of 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>
+uncontroversial; ads disagreeing with the government are
+controversial.  This selectivity might be thought inconsistent with
+the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court has held that stations have
+the right to choose what they run. Thus, the major channels of
+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 -->
 <!-- f34 -->

-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 "against [their] 
-               policy."
-The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads without reviewing
-them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally agreed to run the ads and
-accepted payment to do so, but later decided not to run the ads and 
-               returned
-the collected fees. Interview with Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.
-These restrictions are, of course, not limited to drug policy. See, for 
-               example,
-Nat Ives, "On the Issue of an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with
-Rejection from TV Networks," New York Times, 13 March 2003, C4. 
-               Outside
-of election-related air time there is very little that the FCC or the
-courts are willing to do to even the playing field. For a general overview,
-see Rhonda Brown, "Ad Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial 
-               Advertising
-on Television and Radio," Yale Law and Policy Review 6 (1988):
-449&ndash;79, and for a more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the
-courts, see Radio-Television News Directors Association v. FCC, 184 F. 3d
-872 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as
-the networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San Francisco
-transit authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni diesel buses. Phillip
-Matier and Andrew Ross, "Antidiesel Group Fuming After Muni Rejects
-Ad," SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at 
-<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #32</ulink>. The ground was
-that the criticism was "too controversial."
-</para></footnote>
-</para>
-<para>
-I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&mdash;if we lived in
-a media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the media
-throws that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies control 
-               access
-to the media, and that handful of companies gets to decide which
-political positions it will allow to be promoted on its channels, then in
-an obvious and important way, concentration matters. You might like
-the positions the handful of companies selects. But you should not like
-a world in which a mere few get to decide which issues the rest of us
-get to know about.
-
+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 "against
+[their] policy."  The local NBC affiliate, WRC, rejected the ads
+without reviewing them. The local ABC affiliate, WJOA, originally
+agreed to run the ads and accepted payment to do so, but later decided
+not to run the ads and returned the collected fees. Interview with
+Neal Levine, 15 October 2003.  These restrictions are, of course, not
+limited to drug policy. See, for example, Nat Ives, "On the Issue of
+an Iraq War, Advocacy Ads Meet with Rejection from TV Networks," New
+York Times, 13 March 2003, C4.  Outside of election-related air time
+there is very little that the FCC or the courts are willing to do to
+even the playing field. For a general overview, see Rhonda Brown, "Ad
+Hoc Access: The Regulation of Editorial Advertising on Television and
+Radio," Yale Law and Policy Review 6 (1988): 449&ndash;79, and for a
+more recent summary of the stance of the FCC and the courts, see
+Radio-Television News Directors Association v. FCC, 184 F. 3d 872
+(D.C. Cir. 1999). Municipal authorities exercise the same authority as
+the networks. In a recent example from San Francisco, the San
+Francisco transit authority rejected an ad that criticized its Muni
+diesel buses. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, "Antidiesel Group Fuming
+After Muni Rejects Ad," SFGate.com, 16 June 2003, available at
+<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #32</ulink>. The ground
+was that the criticism was "too controversial."
+/para></footnote>
+</para>
+<para>
+I'd be happy to defend the networks' rights, as well&mdash;if we lived
+in a media market that was truly diverse. But concentration in the
+media throws that condition into doubt. If a handful of companies
+control access to the media, and that handful of companies gets to
+decide which political positions it will allow to be promoted on its
+channels, then in an obvious and important way, concentration
+matters. You might like the positions the handful of companies
+selects. But you should not like a world in which a mere few get to
+decide which issues the rest of us get to know about.

 </para>
 </sect2>
 <sect2 id="together">
 <title>Together</title>
 <para>
 </para>
 </sect2>
 <sect2 id="together">
 <title>Together</title>
 <para>

-There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the 
-               copyright
-warriors that the government should "protect my property." In
-the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally harmless. No
-sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.
+There is something innocent and obvious about the claim of the
+copyright warriors that the government should "protect my property."
+In the abstract, it is obviously true and, ordinarily, totally
+harmless. No sane sort who is not an anarchist could disagree.

 </para>
 <para>
 But when we see how dramatically this "property" has changed&mdash;
 </para>
 <para>
 But when we see how dramatically this "property" has changed&mdash;

-when we recognize how it might now interact with both technology
-and markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty to 
-               cultivate
-our culture is dramatically different&mdash;the claim begins to seem
+when we recognize how it might now interact with both technology and
+markets to mean that the effective constraint on the liberty to
+cultivate our culture is dramatically different&mdash;the claim begins
+to seem

 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 180 -->
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 180 -->

-less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to 
-               supplement
-the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated markets
-to weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing the 
-               massively
-expanded "property" rights granted by copyright fundamentally
-changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and build upon our
-past, then we have to ask whether this property should be redefined.
+less innocent and obvious. Given (1) the power of technology to
+supplement the law's control, and (2) the power of concentrated
+markets to weaken the opportunity for dissent, if strictly enforcing
+the massively expanded "property" rights granted by copyright
+fundamentally changes the freedom within this culture to cultivate and
+build upon our past, then we have to ask whether this property should
+be redefined.

 </para>
 <para>
 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish
 </para>
 <para>
 Not starkly. Or absolutely. My point is not that we should abolish


@@ -8263,62 +8248,51 @@ mistake, disastrous for the most important creative enterprises within
 our culture today.
 </para>
 <para>
 our culture today.
 </para>
 <para>

-But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture 
-               notwithstanding.
-And these massive shifts in the effective power of copyright
-regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content industry and
-resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly enable control
-over the use of culture, should drive us to consider whether another 
-               adjustment
-is called for. Not an adjustment that increases copyright's
-power. Not an adjustment that increases its term. Rather, an 
-               adjustment
-to restore the balance that has traditionally defined copyright's
-regulation&mdash;a weakening of that regulation, to strengthen creativity.
+But there is a space between zero and one, Internet culture
+notwithstanding.  And these massive shifts in the effective power of
+copyright regulation, tied to increased concentration of the content
+industry and resting in the hands of technology that will increasingly
+enable control over the use of culture, should drive us to consider
+whether another adjustment is called for. Not an adjustment that
+increases copyright's power. Not an adjustment that increases its
+term. Rather, an adjustment to restore the balance that has
+traditionally defined copyright's regulation&mdash;a weakening of that
+regulation, to strengthen creativity.

 </para>
 <para>
 </para>
 <para>

-Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of 
-               constant
-commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and
+Copyright law has not been a rock of Gibraltar. It's not a set of
+constant commitments that, for some mysterious reason, teenagers and

 geeks now flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a
 short period of time, as the technologies of distribution and creation
 geeks now flout. Instead, copyright power has grown dramatically in a
 short period of time, as the technologies of distribution and creation

-have changed and as lobbyists have pushed for more control by 
-               copyright
-holders. Changes in the past in response to changes in 
-               technology
-suggest that we may well need similar changes in the future. And
-these changes have to be reductions in the scope of copyright, in 
-               response
-to the extraordinary increase in control that technology and the
-market enable.
+have changed and as lobbyists have pushed for more control by
+copyright holders. Changes in the past in response to changes in
+technology suggest that we may well need similar changes in the
+future. And these changes have to be reductions in the scope of
+copyright, in response to the extraordinary increase in control that
+technology and the market enable.

 </para>
 <para>
 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that
 we see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 181 -->
 together the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and
 </para>
 <para>
 For the single point that is lost in this war on pirates is a point that
 we see only after surveying the range of these changes. When you add
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 181 -->
 together the effect of changing law, concentrated markets, and

-       changing
-technology, together they produce an astonishing conclusion:
-Never in our history have fewer had a legal right to control more of the 
-               development
-of our culture than now.
-</para>
-<para>
-Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were
-perpetual, they affected only that precise creative work. Not when only
-publishers had the tools to publish, for the market then was much more
-diverse. Not when there were only three television networks, for even
-then, newspapers, film studios, radio stations, and publishers were 
-               independent
-of the networks. Never has copyright protected such a wide
-range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term that was
-remotely as long. This form of regulation&mdash;a tiny regulation of a tiny
-part of the creative energy of a nation at the founding&mdash;is now a 
-               massive
-regulation of the overall creative process. Law plus technology plus
-the market now interact to turn this historically benign regulation into
-the most significant regulation of culture that our free society has
-known.<footnote><para>
+changing technology, together they produce an astonishing conclusion:
+Never in our history have fewer had a legal right to control more of
+the development of our culture than now.
+</para>
+<para> Not when copyrights were perpetual, for when copyrights were
+perpetual, they affected only that precise creative work. Not when
+only publishers had the tools to publish, for the market then was much
+more diverse. Not when there were only three television networks, for
+even then, newspapers, film studios, radio stations, and publishers
+were independent of the networks. Never has copyright protected such a
+wide range of rights, against as broad a range of actors, for a term
+that was remotely as long. This form of regulation&mdash;a tiny
+regulation of a tiny part of the creative energy of a nation at the
+founding&mdash;is now a massive regulation of the overall creative
+process. Law plus technology plus the market now interact to turn this
+historically benign regulation into the most significant regulation of
+culture that our free society has known.<footnote><para>

 <!-- f35 -->
 Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his "four surrenders" of
 copyright law in the digital age. See Vaidhyanathan, 159&ndash;60.
 <!-- f35 -->
 Siva Vaidhyanathan captures a similar point in his "four surrenders" of
 copyright law in the digital age. See Vaidhyanathan, 159&ndash;60.


@@ -8329,12 +8303,10 @@ This has been a long chapter. Its point can now be briefly stated.
 </para>
 <para>
 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and
 </para>
 <para>
 At the start of this book, I distinguished between commercial and

-noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have 
-               distinguished
-between copying a work and transforming it. We can now
+noncommercial culture. In the course of this chapter, I have
+distinguished between copying a work and transforming it. We can now

 combine these two distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes
 combine these two distinctions and draw a clear map of the changes

-that copyright law has undergone.
-In 1790, the law looked like this:
+that copyright law has undergone.  In 1790, the law looked like this:

 </para>
 
 <table id="t2">
 </para>
 
 <table id="t2">


@@ -8401,20 +8373,16 @@ By the end of the nineteenth century, the law had changed to this:
 </table>
 
 <para>
 </table>
 
 <para>

-Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&mdash;if 
-               published,
-which again, given the economics of publishing at the time,
+Derivative works were now regulated by copyright law&mdash;if
+published, which again, given the economics of publishing at the time,

 means if offered commercially. But noncommercial publishing and
 transformation were still essentially free.
 </para>
 <para>
 means if offered commercially. But noncommercial publishing and
 transformation were still essentially free.
 </para>
 <para>

-In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and 
-               after
+In 1909 the law changed to regulate copies, not publishing, and after

 this change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the
 this change, the scope of the law was tied to technology. As the

-technology of copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law 
-               expanded.
-Thus by 1975, as photocopying machines became more 
-               common,
+technology of copying became more prevalent, the reach of the law
+expanded.  Thus by 1975, as photocopying machines became more common,

 we could say the law began to look like this:
 </para>
 
 we could say the law began to look like this:
 </para>