A few more index entries.

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index 69cae31d38c59193c8f3e72a03471aae4fe55cc9..bf085c442cbf6091d2ec80942986cefea020b3f0 100644 (file)
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -549,6 +549,7 @@ how the world of radio worked, and on at least three occasions,
 Armstrong invented profoundly important technologies that advanced our
 understanding of radio.
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 19 -->
 Armstrong invented profoundly important technologies that advanced our
 understanding of radio.
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 19 -->

+<indexterm><primary>Faraday, Michael</primary></indexterm>

 </para>
 <para>
 On the day after Christmas, 1933, four patents were issued to Armstrong
 </para>
 <para>
 On the day after Christmas, 1933, four patents were issued to Armstrong


@@ -3499,6 +3500,7 @@ in inventive ways. For a discussion of Christensen's ideas, see
 Lawrence Lessig, Future, 89&ndash;92, 139.
 </para></footnote>), Shawn Fanning and crew had simply
 put together components that had been developed independently.
 Lawrence Lessig, Future, 89&ndash;92, 139.
 </para></footnote>), Shawn Fanning and crew had simply
 put together components that had been developed independently.

+<indexterm><primary>Fanning, Shawn</primary></indexterm>

 </para>
 <para>
 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999,
 </para>
 <para>
 The result was spontaneous combustion. Launched in July 1999,


@@ -10249,57 +10251,52 @@ As I've described, this clause is unique within the power-granting
 clause of Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause
 granting power to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do
 something&mdash;for example, to regulate "commerce among the several
 clause of Article I, section 8 of our Constitution. Every other clause
 granting power to Congress simply says Congress has the power to do
 something&mdash;for example, to regulate "commerce among the several

-states" or "declare War." But here, the "something" is something quite 
-               specific&mdash;to
-"promote . . . Progress"&mdash;through means that are also specific&mdash;
-by "securing" "exclusive Rights" (i.e., copyrights) "for limited Times."
+states" or "declare War." But here, the "something" is something quite
+specific&mdash;to "promote . . . Progress"&mdash;through means that
+are also specific&mdash; by "securing" "exclusive Rights" (i.e.,
+copyrights) "for limited Times."

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

-In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of 
-               extending
-existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me
+In the past forty years, Congress has gotten into the practice of
+extending existing terms of copyright protection. What puzzled me

 about this was, if Congress has the power to extend existing terms,
 then the Constitution's requirement that terms be "limited" will have
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 223 -->
 no practical effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire,
 about this was, if Congress has the power to extend existing terms,
 then the Constitution's requirement that terms be "limited" will have
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 223 -->
 no practical effect. If every time a copyright is about to expire,

-       Congress
-has the power to extend its term, then Congress can achieve what
-the Constitution plainly forbids&mdash;perpetual terms "on the installment
-plan," as Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.
+Congress has the power to extend its term, then Congress can achieve
+what the Constitution plainly forbids&mdash;perpetual terms "on the
+installment plan," as Professor Peter Jaszi so nicely put it.
+<indexterm><primary>Jaszi, Peter</primary></indexterm>

 </para>
 <para>
 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember
 </para>
 <para>
 As an academic, my first response was to hit the books. I remember

-sitting late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious 
-               consideration
-of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's
+sitting late at the office, scouring on-line databases for any serious
+consideration of the question. No one had ever challenged Congress's

 practice of extending existing terms. That failure may in part be why
 practice of extending existing terms. That failure may in part be why

-Congress seemed so untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that the
-practice had become so lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that
+Congress seemed so untroubled in its habit. That, and the fact that
+the practice had become so lucrative for Congress. Congress knows that

 copyright owners will be willing to pay a great deal of money to see
 copyright owners will be willing to pay a great deal of money to see

-their copyright terms extended. And so Congress is quite happy to
-keep this gravy train going.
+their copyright terms extended. And so Congress is quite happy to keep
+this gravy train going.

 </para>
 <para>
 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of
 </para>
 <para>
 For this is the core of the corruption in our present system of

-government. "Corruption" not in the sense that representatives are bribed.
-Rather, "corruption" in the sense that the system induces the 
-               beneficiaries
-of Congress's acts to raise and give money to Congress to induce
-it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so much Congress can
-do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must do&mdash;and those
-things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.
+government. "Corruption" not in the sense that representatives are
+bribed.  Rather, "corruption" in the sense that the system induces the
+beneficiaries of Congress's acts to raise and give money to Congress
+to induce it to act. There's only so much time; there's only so much
+Congress can do. Why not limit its actions to those things it must
+do&mdash;and those things that pay? Extending copyright terms pays.

 </para>
 <para>
 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one
 of the very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to
 make money one hundred years after it was created. The Estate of
 </para>
 <para>
 If that's not obvious to you, consider the following: Say you're one
 of the very few lucky copyright owners whose copyright continues to
 make money one hundred years after it was created. The Estate of

-Robert Frost is a good example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry 
-               continues
-to be extraordinarily valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate 
-               benefits
-greatly from any extension of copyright, since no publisher would
-pay the estate any money if the poems Frost wrote could be published
-by anyone for free.
+Robert Frost is a good example. Frost died in 1963. His poetry
+continues to be extraordinarily valuable. Thus the Robert Frost estate
+benefits greatly from any extension of copyright, since no publisher
+would pay the estate any money if the poems Frost wrote could be
+published by anyone for free.

 </para>
 <para>
 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from
 </para>
 <para>
 So imagine the Robert Frost estate is earning $100,000 a year from


@@ -11723,6 +11720,7 @@ January. For at the start of this case, one of America's leading
 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this
 case was a mistake. "The Court is not ready," Peter Jaszi said; this
 issue should not be raised until it is.
 intellectual property professors stated publicly that my bringing this
 case was a mistake. "The Court is not ready," Peter Jaszi said; this
 issue should not be raised until it is.

+<indexterm><primary>Jaszi, Peter</primary></indexterm>

 </para>
 <para>
 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and
 </para>
 <para>
 After the argument and after the decision, Peter said to me, and