A few more index entries.

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index e0e75cd29c31c733420ec6310f311475d699acd5..0033e3866555543635ea600395e05f9ff234bad9 100644 (file)
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -2950,27 +2950,27 @@ by the statute.
 </para>
 <para>
 This is an exception within the law of copyright. When John Grisham
-writes a novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if Grisham
-gives the publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to charge 
-               whatever
-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.
+writes a novel, a publisher is free to publish that novel only if
+Grisham gives the publisher permission. Grisham, in turn, is free to
+charge whatever 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.
+<indexterm><primary>Grisham, John</primary></indexterm>
 </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
-of piracy&mdash;by giving recording artists a weaker right than it otherwise
-gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control over their creative
-work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of this less control are
-the recording industry and the public. The recording industry gets
-something of value for less than it otherwise would pay; the public gets
-access to a much wider range of musical creativity. Indeed, Congress
-was quite explicit about its reasons for granting this right. Its fear was
-the monopoly power of rights holders, and that that power would 
-               stifle
-follow-on creativity.<footnote><para>
+thus, in effect, the law subsidizes the recording industry through a
+kind of piracy&mdash;by giving recording artists a weaker right than
+it otherwise gives creative authors. The Beatles have less control
+over their creative work than Grisham does. And the beneficiaries of
+this less control are the recording industry and the public. The
+recording industry gets something of value for less than it otherwise
+would pay; the public gets access to a much wider range of musical
+creativity. Indeed, Congress was quite explicit about its reasons for
+granting this right. Its fear was the monopoly power of rights
+holders, and that that power would stifle follow-on
+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
@@ -2978,6 +2978,7 @@ sess., 217 (1908) (statement of Senator Reed Smoot, chairman), reprinted
 in Legislative History of the 1909 Copyright Act, E. Fulton Brylawski and
 Abe Goldman, eds. (South Hackensack, N.J.: Rothman Reprints, 1976).
 </para></footnote>
+<indexterm><primary>Beatles</primary></indexterm>
 </para>
 <para>
 While the recording industry has been quite coy about this recently,
@@ -4901,6 +4902,7 @@ Groening approved the shot. The shot was a four-and-a-halfsecond image
 on a tiny television set in the corner of the room. How could it hurt?
 Groening was happy to have it in the film, but he told Else to contact
 Gracie Films, the company that produces the program.
+<indexterm><primary>Gracie Films</primary></indexterm>
 </para>
 <para>
 Gracie Films was okay with it, too, but they, like Groening, wanted
@@ -4908,6 +4910,7 @@ to be careful. So they told Else to contact Fox, Gracie's parent company.
 Else called Fox and told them about the clip in the corner of the one
 room shot of the film. Matt Groening had already given permission,
 Else said. He was just confirming the permission with Fox.
+<indexterm><primary>Gracie Films</primary></indexterm>
 </para>
 <para>
 Then, as Else told me, "two things happened. First we discovered
@@ -13761,6 +13764,7 @@ I'm willing to assume it does); but it does not make sense for that right
 to run for the same term as the underlying copyright. The derivative
 right could be important in inducing creativity; it is not important long
 after the creative work is done.
+<indexterm><primary>Grisham, John</primary></indexterm>
 </para>
 <para>
 Scope: Likewise should the scope of derivative rights be narrowed.