Improve XML formatting.

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index 6fe7cc12d55062df0a377eb3e5017138b633f50c..69cae31d38c59193c8f3e72a03471aae4fe55cc9 100644 (file)
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -7919,45 +7919,40 @@ for the Lear story, not included in the prepared remarks, see
 <para>
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 176 -->
 <para>
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 176 -->

-The network did not control those copyrights because the law 
-               forbade
-the networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The
-law required a separation between the networks and the content 
-               producers;
-that separation would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as
-1992, because of these rules, the vast majority of prime time 
-               television&mdash;75
-percent of it&mdash;was "independent" of the networks.
-</para>
-<para>
-In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this 
-               independence.
-After that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.
-In 1985, there were twenty-five independent television production 
-               studios;
-in 2002, only five independent television studios remained. "In
-1992, only 15 percent of new series were produced for a network by a
-company it controlled. Last year, the percentage of shows produced by
-controlled companies more than quintupled to 77 percent." "In 1992,
-16 new series were produced independently of conglomerate control,
-last year there was one."<footnote><para>
+The network did not control those copyrights because the law forbade
+the networks from controlling the content they syndicated. The law
+required a separation between the networks and the content producers;
+that separation would guarantee Lear freedom. And as late as 1992,
+because of these rules, the vast majority of prime time
+television&mdash;75 percent of it&mdash;was "independent" of the
+networks.
+</para>
+<para>
+In 1994, the FCC abandoned the rules that required this independence.
+After that change, the networks quickly changed the balance.  In 1985,
+there were twenty-five independent television production studios; in
+2002, only five independent television studios remained. "In 1992,
+only 15 percent of new series were produced for a network by a company
+it controlled. Last year, the percentage of shows produced by
+controlled companies more than quintupled to 77 percent." "In 1992, 16
+new series were produced independently of conglomerate control, last
+year there was one."<footnote><para>

 <!-- f30 -->
 <!-- f30 -->

-NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on
-Media Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th
-Cong., 1st sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of 
-               Consumers
-Union and the Consumer Federation of America), available at 
-<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #30</ulink>. Kimmelman quotes Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of
-America, West, in her Remarks at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond,
-Virginia, 27 February 2003.
-</para></footnote>
-In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television
-was owned by the networks that ran it. "In the ten-year period between
-1992 and 2002, the number of prime time television hours per week
-produced by network studios increased over 200%, whereas the 
-               number
-of prime time television hours per week produced by independent
-studios decreased 63%."<footnote><para>
+NewsCorp./DirecTV Merger and Media Consolidation: Hearings on Media
+Ownership Before the Senate Commerce Committee, 108th Cong., 1st
+sess. (2003) (testimony of Gene Kimmelman on behalf of Consumers Union
+and the Consumer Federation of America), available at
+<ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #30</ulink>. Kimmelman
+quotes Victoria Riskin, president of Writers Guild of America, West,
+in her Remarks at FCC En Banc Hearing, Richmond, Virginia, 27 February
+2003.
+</para></footnote>
+In 2002, 75 percent of prime time television was owned by the networks
+that ran it. "In the ten-year period between 1992 and 2002, the number
+of prime time television hours per week produced by network studios
+increased over 200%, whereas the number of prime time television hours
+per week produced by independent studios decreased
+63%."<footnote><para>

 <!-- f31 -->
 Ibid.
 </para></footnote>
 <!-- f31 -->
 Ibid.
 </para></footnote>


@@ -7970,10 +7965,9 @@ fired: The content of any show developed for a network is increasingly
 owned by the network.
 </para>
 <para>
 owned by the network.
 </para>
 <para>

-While the number of channels has increased dramatically, the 
-               ownership
-of those channels has narrowed to an ever smaller and smaller
-few. As Barry Diller said to Bill Moyers,
+While the number of channels has increased dramatically, the ownership
+of those channels has narrowed to an ever smaller and smaller few. As
+Barry Diller said to Bill Moyers,

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


@@ -7982,10 +7976,9 @@ their channel and then distribute worldwide everything that goes
 through their controlled distribution system, then what you get is
 fewer and fewer actual voices participating in the process. [We
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 177 -->
 through their controlled distribution system, then what you get is
 fewer and fewer actual voices participating in the process. [We
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 177 -->

-u]sed to have dozens and dozens of thriving independent
-       production
-companies producing television programs. Now you have less
-than a handful.<footnote><para>
+u]sed to have dozens and dozens of thriving independent production
+companies producing television programs. Now you have less than a
+handful.<footnote><para>

 <!-- f32 -->
 "Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation," Now with Bill Moyers, Bill
 Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript available at 
 <!-- f32 -->
 "Barry Diller Takes on Media Deregulation," Now with Bill Moyers, Bill
 Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript available at 


@@ -7994,17 +7987,16 @@ Moyers, 25 April 2003, edited transcript available at
 </para>
 </blockquote>
 <para>
 </para>
 </blockquote>
 <para>

-This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of
-such large and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous. 
-               Increasingly
-safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows from
-networks like this is increasingly tailored to the message the network
-wants to convey. This is not the communist party, though from the 
-               inside,
-it must feel a bit like the communist party. No one can question
-without risk of consequence&mdash;not necessarily banishment to Siberia,
-but punishment nonetheless. Independent, critical, different views are
-quashed. This is not the environment for a democracy.
+This narrowing has an effect on what is produced. The product of such
+large and concentrated networks is increasingly homogenous.
+Increasingly safe. Increasingly sterile. The product of news shows
+from networks like this is increasingly tailored to the message the
+network wants to convey. This is not the communist party, though from
+the inside, it must feel a bit like the communist party. No one can
+question without risk of consequence&mdash;not necessarily banishment
+to Siberia, but punishment nonetheless. Independent, critical,
+different views are quashed. This is not the environment for a
+democracy.

 </para>
 <indexterm><primary>Clark, Kim B.</primary></indexterm>
 <para>
 </para>
 <indexterm><primary>Clark, Kim B.</primary></indexterm>
 <para>


@@ -8015,17 +8007,16 @@ new, breakthrough technologies that compete with their core business.
 The same analysis could help explain why large, traditional media
 companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f33 -->
 The same analysis could help explain why large, traditional media
 companies would find it rational to ignore new cultural trends.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f33 -->

-Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary 
-               National
-Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do Business (Cambridge: Harvard
-Business School Press, 1997). Christensen acknowledges that the idea was
-first suggested by Dean Kim Clark. See Kim B. Clark, "The Interaction of
-Design Hierarchies and Market Concepts in Technological Evolution,"
-Research Policy 14 (1985): 235&ndash;51. For a more recent study, see Richard
-Foster and Sarah Kaplan, Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are
-Built to Last Underperform the Market&mdash;and How to Successfully Transform
-Them (New York: Currency/Doubleday, 2001).
-</para></footnote>
+Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator's Dilemma: The
+Revolutionary National Bestseller that Changed the Way We Do Business
+(Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 1997). Christensen
+acknowledges that the idea was first suggested by Dean Kim Clark. See
+Kim B. Clark, "The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and Market
+Concepts in Technological Evolution," Research Policy 14 (1985):
+235&ndash;51. For a more recent study, see Richard Foster and Sarah
+Kaplan, Creative Destruction: Why Companies That Are Built to Last
+Underperform the Market&mdash;and How to Successfully Transform 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
 
 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


@@ -8344,12 +8335,11 @@ we could say the law began to look like this:
 </table>
 
 <para>
 </table>
 
 <para>

-The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through,
-say, copy machines, but still much of copying outside of the 
-               commercial
-market remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of
-digital technologies, especially in the context of a digital network,
-means that the law now looks like this:
+The law was interpreted to reach noncommercial copying through, say,
+copy machines, but still much of copying outside of the commercial
+market remained free. But the consequence of the emergence of digital
+technologies, especially in the context of a digital network, means
+that the law now looks like this:

 </para>
 
 <table id="t5">
 </para>
 
 <table id="t5">


@@ -8667,37 +8657,33 @@ gossip: regulated, if at all, by social norms but not by law.
 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.
 Rather than embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace
 something that recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book
 Either response is possible. I think either would be a mistake.
 Rather than embrace one of these two extremes, we should embrace
 something that recognizes the truth in both. And while I end this book

-with a sketch of a system that does just that, my aim in the next chapter
-is to show just how awful it would be for us to adopt the zero-tolerance
-extreme. I believe either extreme would be worse than a reasonable 
-               alternative.
-But I believe the zero-tolerance solution would be the worse
-of the two extremes.
+with a sketch of a system that does just that, my aim in the next
+chapter is to show just how awful it would be for us to adopt the
+zero-tolerance extreme. I believe either extreme would be worse than a
+reasonable alternative.  But I believe the zero-tolerance solution
+would be the worse of the two extremes.

 </para>
 <para>
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 190 -->
 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the
 </para>
 <para>
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 190 -->
 Yet zero tolerance is increasingly our government's policy. In the

-middle of the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary land
-grab is occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to give 
-               content
-holders a kind of control over our culture that they have never had
-before. And in this extremism, many an opportunity for new 
-               innovation
-and new creativity will be lost.
+middle of the chaos that the Internet has created, an extraordinary
+land grab is occurring. The law and technology are being shifted to
+give content holders a kind of control over our culture that they have
+never had before. And in this extremism, many an opportunity for new
+innovation and new creativity will be lost.

 </para>
 <para>
 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to "steal" music. My
 focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this war
 will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so
 </para>
 <para>
 I'm not talking about the opportunities for kids to "steal" music. My
 focus instead is the commercial and cultural innovation that this war
 will also kill. We have never seen the power to innovate spread so

-broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the 
-               innovation
-that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already seen the
-passing of  one cycle of innovation around technologies to distribute
-content. The law is responsible for this passing. As the vice president
-for global public policy at one of these new innovators, eMusic.com,
-put it when criticizing the DMCA's added protection for copyrighted
-material,
+broadly among our citizens, and we have just begun to see the
+innovation that this power will unleash. Yet the Internet has already
+seen the passing of one cycle of innovation around technologies to
+distribute content. The law is responsible for this passing. As the
+vice president for global public policy at one of these new
+innovators, eMusic.com, put it when criticizing the DMCA's added
+protection for copyrighted material,

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