Clean up XML and add more index entries.

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index db212477bdb75356d4b3b8858c0fac266d85179a..9797704d6723f0e3d86fd24c972297a765cab4cb 100644 (file)
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -2827,25 +2827,24 @@ their music. In other words, in 1900, if I wanted a copy of Phil Russel's
 to get a copy of the musical score, and I would also have to pay for the
 right to perform it publicly.
 </para>
-<para>
-But what if I wanted to record "Happy Mose," using Edison's
-phonograph or Fourneaux's player piano? Here the law stumbled. It was
-clear enough that I would have to buy any copy of the musical score that
-I performed in making this recording. And it was clear enough that I
-would have to pay for any public performance of the work I was 
-               recording.
-But it wasn't totally clear that I would have to pay for a "public 
-               performance"
-if I recorded the song in my own house (even today, you don't
-owe the Beatles anything if you sing their songs in the shower), or if I
-recorded the song from memory (copies in your brain are not&mdash;yet&mdash;
-regulated by copyright law). So if I simply sang the song into a 
-               recording
-device in the privacy of my own home, it wasn't clear that I owed the
-composer anything. And more importantly, it wasn't clear whether I
-owed the composer anything if I then made copies of those recordings.
-Because of this gap in the law, then, I could effectively pirate someone
-else's song without paying its composer anything.
+<indexterm><primary>Beatles</primary></indexterm>
+<para>
+But what if I wanted to record "Happy Mose," using Edison's phonograph
+or Fourneaux's player piano?  Here the law stumbled. It was clear
+enough that I would have to buy any copy of the musical score that I
+performed in making this recording. And it was clear enough that I
+would have to pay for any public performance of the work I was
+recording.  But it wasn't totally clear that I would have to pay for a
+"public performance" if I recorded the song in my own house (even
+today, you don't owe the Beatles anything if you sing their songs in
+the shower), or if I recorded the song from memory (copies in your
+brain are not&mdash;yet&mdash; regulated by copyright law). So if I
+simply sang the song into a recording device in the privacy of my own
+home, it wasn't clear that I owed the composer anything. And more
+importantly, it wasn't clear whether I owed the composer anything if I
+then made copies of those recordings.  Because of this gap in the law,
+then, I could effectively pirate someone else's song without paying
+its composer anything.
 </para>
 <para>
 The composers (and publishers) were none too happy about
@@ -2960,6 +2959,7 @@ he wants for that permission. The price to publish Grisham is
 thus set by Grisham, and copyright law ordinarily says you have no
 permission to use Grisham's work except with permission of Grisham.
 </para>
+<indexterm><primary>Beatles</primary></indexterm>
 <para>
 But the law governing recordings gives recording artists less. And
 thus, in effect, the law subsidizes the recording industry through a kind
@@ -3856,21 +3856,19 @@ owners make money from the content they sell; but as with cable
 before statutory licensing, they don't have to pay the copyright
 owner for the content they sell.
 </para>
+<indexterm><primary>Bernstein, Leonard</primary></indexterm>
 <para>
 Type C sharing, then, is very much like used book stores or used
-record stores. It is different, of course, because the person making the
-content available isn't making money from making the content 
-               available.
-It is also different, of course, because in real space, when I sell a
-record, I don't have it anymore, while in cyberspace, when someone
-shares my 1949 recording of Bernstein's "Two Love Songs," I still have
-it. That difference would matter economically if the owner of the
-copyright were selling the record in competition to my sharing. But
-we're talking about the class of content that is not currently 
-               commercially
-available. The Internet is making it available, through 
-               cooperative
-sharing, without competing with the market.
+record stores. It is different, of course, because the person making
+the content available isn't making money from making the content
+available.  It is also different, of course, because in real space,
+when I sell a record, I don't have it anymore, while in cyberspace,
+when someone shares my 1949 recording of Bernstein's "Two Love Songs,"
+I still have it. That difference would matter economically if the
+owner of the copyright were selling the record in competition to my
+sharing. But we're talking about the class of content that is not
+currently commercially available. The Internet is making it available,
+through cooperative sharing, without competing with the market.
 </para>
 <para>
 It may well be, all things considered, that it would be better if the
@@ -3898,31 +3896,30 @@ both he and society are better off. (Actually, much better off: It is a
 great book!)
 </para>
 <para>
-Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits 
-               society
+Likewise for work in the public domain: This sharing benefits society
 with no legal harm to authors at all. If efforts to solve the problem
 of type A sharing destroy the opportunity for type D sharing, then we
 lose something important in order to protect type A content.
 </para>
 <para>
-The point throughout is this: While the recording industry 
-               understandably
-says, "This is how much we've lost," we must also ask, "How
-much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the efficiencies?
-What is the content that otherwise would be unavailable?"
-</para>
-<para>
-For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this chapter,
-much of the "piracy" that file sharing enables is plainly legal and good.
-And like the piracy I described in chapter 4, much of this piracy is 
-               motivated
-by a new way of spreading content caused by changes in the
-technology of distribution. Thus, consistent with the tradition that
-gave us Hollywood, radio, the recording industry, and cable TV, the
-question we should be asking about file sharing is how best to preserve
-its benefits while minimizing (to the extent possible) the wrongful harm
-it causes artists. The question is one of balance. The law should seek
-that balance, and that balance will be found only with time.
+The point throughout is this: While the recording industry
+understandably says, "This is how much we've lost," we must also ask,
+"How much has society gained from p2p sharing? What are the
+efficiencies?  What is the content that otherwise would be
+unavailable?"
+</para>
+<para>
+For unlike the piracy I described in the first section of this
+chapter, much of the "piracy" that file sharing enables is plainly
+legal and good.  And like the piracy I described in chapter 4, much of
+this piracy is motivated by a new way of spreading content caused by
+changes in the technology of distribution. Thus, consistent with the
+tradition that gave us Hollywood, radio, the recording industry, and
+cable TV, the question we should be asking about file sharing is how
+best to preserve its benefits while minimizing (to the extent
+possible) the wrongful harm it causes artists. The question is one of
+balance. The law should seek that balance, and that balance will be
+found only with time.
 </para>
 <para>
 "But isn't the war just a war against illegal sharing? Isn't the target