Clean up XML.

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index 99bc348f87577e03d2e9c8c34d32f14c63db24e4..579b6fa70b7c9243d85dc156c85538709480d5b6 100644 (file)
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -6827,8 +6827,8 @@ is a different wrong. Some view transformation as no wrong at
 all—they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should
 not protect derivative rights at all.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f14 -->
 all&mdash;they believe that our law, as the framers penned it, should
 not protect derivative rights at all.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f14 -->

-Jonathan Zittrain, "The Copyright Cage," <citetitle>Legal Affairs</citetitle>, July/August
-2003, available at 
+Jonathan Zittrain, "The Copyright Cage," <citetitle>Legal
+Affairs</citetitle>, July/August 2003, available at

 <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #26</ulink>.
 <indexterm><primary>Zittrain, Jonathan</primary></indexterm>
 </para></footnote>
 <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #26</ulink>.
 <indexterm><primary>Zittrain, Jonathan</primary></indexterm>
 </para></footnote>


@@ -6846,27 +6846,25 @@ Professor Rubenfeld has presented a powerful constitutional argument
 about the difference that copyright law should draw (from the
 perspective of the First Amendment) between mere "copies" and
 derivative works. See Jed Rubenfeld, "The Freedom of Imagination:
 about the difference that copyright law should draw (from the
 perspective of the First Amendment) between mere "copies" and
 derivative works. See Jed Rubenfeld, "The Freedom of Imagination:

-Copyright's Constitutionality," <citetitle>Yale Law Journal</citetitle> 112 (2002):
-1&ndash;60 (see especially pp. 53&ndash;59).
+Copyright's Constitutionality," <citetitle>Yale Law
+Journal</citetitle> 112 (2002): 1&ndash;60 (see especially
+pp. 53&ndash;59).

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

-These two different uses of my creative work are
-treated the same.
+These two different uses of my creative work are treated the same.

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

-This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why
-should you be able to write a movie that takes my story and makes
-money from it without paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney 
-               creates
-a creature called "Mickey Mouse," why should you be able to make
-Mickey Mouse toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney
-originally created?
+This again may seem right to you. If I wrote a book, then why should
+you be able to write a movie that takes my story and makes money from
+it without paying me or crediting me? Or if Disney creates a creature
+called "Mickey Mouse," why should you be able to make Mickey Mouse
+toys and be the one to trade on the value that Disney originally
+created?

 </para>
 <para>
 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the
 </para>
 <para>
 These are good arguments, and, in general, my point is not that the

-derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower: 
-               simply
-to make clear that this expansion is a significant change from the
-rights originally granted.
+derivative right is unjustified. My aim just now is much narrower:
+simply to make clear that this expansion is a significant change from
+the rights originally granted.

 </para>
 </section>
 <section id="lawreach">
 </para>
 </section>
 <section id="lawreach">


@@ -6907,11 +6905,11 @@ very slowly so that the point is not easily missed. My claim is that the
 Internet should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which
 the law of copyright automatically applies,<footnote><para>
 <!-- f17 -->
 Internet should at least force us to rethink the conditions under which
 the law of copyright automatically applies,<footnote><para>
 <!-- f17 -->

-Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law extends,
-we should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good argument for
-its extending where it does, and should not determine its reach on the 
-               basis
-of arbitrary and automatic changes caused by technology.
+Thus, my argument is not that in each place that copyright law
+extends, we should repeal it. It is instead that we should have a good
+argument for its extending where it does, and should not determine its
+reach on the basis of arbitrary and automatic changes caused by
+technology.

 </para></footnote>
 because it is clear that the
 current reach of copyright was never contemplated, much less chosen,
 </para></footnote>
 because it is clear that the
 current reach of copyright was never contemplated, much less chosen,


@@ -6961,15 +6959,14 @@ that remain unregulated because the law considers these "fair uses."
 <graphic fileref="images/1541.png"></graphic>
 </figure>
 <para>
 <graphic fileref="images/1541.png"></graphic>
 </figure>
 <para>

-These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law treats
-as unregulated because public policy demands that they remain 
-               unregulated.
-You are free to quote from this book, even in a review that
-is quite negative, without my permission, even though that quoting
-makes a copy. That copy would ordinarily give the copyright owner the
-exclusive right to say whether the copy is allowed or not, but the law
-denies the owner any exclusive right over such "fair uses" for public
-policy (and possibly First Amendment) reasons.
+These are uses that themselves involve copying, but which the law
+treats as unregulated because public policy demands that they remain
+unregulated.  You are free to quote from this book, even in a review
+that is quite negative, without my permission, even though that
+quoting makes a copy. That copy would ordinarily give the copyright
+owner the exclusive right to say whether the copy is allowed or not,
+but the law denies the owner any exclusive right over such "fair uses"
+for public policy (and possibly First Amendment) reasons.

 </para>
 <figure id="fig-1542">
 <title>Unregulated copying considered &quot;fair uses.&quot;</title>
 </para>
 <figure id="fig-1542">
 <title>Unregulated copying considered &quot;fair uses.&quot;</title>


@@ -6990,25 +6987,22 @@ are nonetheless deemed "fair" regardless of the copyright owner's views.
 Enter the Internet&mdash;a distributed, digital network where every use
 of a copyrighted work produces a copy.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f18 -->
 Enter the Internet&mdash;a distributed, digital network where every use
 of a copyrighted work produces a copy.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f18 -->

-I don't mean "nature" in the sense that it couldn't be different, but rather that
-its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical networks need not make
-copies of content they transmit, and a digital network could be designed to
-delete anything it copies so that the same number of copies remain.
-</para></footnote>
-And because of this single,
-arbitrary feature of the design of a digital network, the scope of 
-               category
-1 changes dramatically. Uses that before were presumptively 
-               unregulated
-are now presumptively regulated. No longer is there a set of
-presumptively unregulated uses that define a freedom associated with a
-copyrighted work. Instead, each use is now subject to the copyright,
-because each use also makes a copy&mdash;category 1 gets sucked into 
-               category
-2. And those who would defend the unregulated uses of 
-               copyrighted
-work must look exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the
-burden of this shift.
+I don't mean "nature" in the sense that it couldn't be different, but
+rather that its present instantiation entails a copy. Optical networks
+need not make copies of content they transmit, and a digital network
+could be designed to delete anything it copies so that the same number
+of copies remain.
+</para></footnote>
+And because of this single, arbitrary feature of the design of a
+digital network, the scope of category 1 changes dramatically. Uses
+that before were presumptively unregulated are now presumptively
+regulated. No longer is there a set of presumptively unregulated uses
+that define a freedom associated with a copyrighted work. Instead,
+each use is now subject to the copyright, because each use also makes
+a copy&mdash;category 1 gets sucked into category 2. And those who
+would defend the unregulated uses of copyrighted work must look
+exclusively to category 3, fair uses, to bear the burden of this
+shift.

 </para>
 <para>
 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the
 </para>
 <para>
 So let's be very specific to make this general point clear. Before the


@@ -7018,10 +7012,9 @@ the copyright owner could make to control that use of her
 book. Copyright law would have nothing to say about whether you read
 the book once, ten times, or every
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 155 -->
 book. Copyright law would have nothing to say about whether you read
 the book once, ten times, or every
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 155 -->

-night before you went to bed. None of those instances of use&mdash;reading&mdash;
-could be regulated by copyright law because none of those uses 
-               produced
-a copy.
+night before you went to bed. None of those instances of
+use&mdash;reading&mdash; could be regulated by copyright law because
+none of those uses produced a copy.

 </para>
 <para>
 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different
 </para>
 <para>
 But the same book as an e-book is effectively governed by a different


@@ -7065,16 +7058,15 @@ creative work.
 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 156 -->
 Third, this shift from category 1 to category 2 puts an extraordinary
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 156 -->

-burden on category 3 ("fair use") that fair use never before had to bear.
-If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I could read
-a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that this is a
-violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been any litigation
-about whether I have a fair use right to read, because before the 
-               Internet,
-reading did not trigger the application of copyright law and hence
-the need for a fair use defense. The right to read was effectively 
-               protected
-before because reading was not regulated.
+burden on category 3 ("fair use") that fair use never before had to
+bear.  If a copyright owner now tried to control how many times I
+could read a book on-line, the natural response would be to argue that
+this is a violation of my fair use rights. But there has never been
+any litigation about whether I have a fair use right to read, because
+before the Internet, reading did not trigger the application of
+copyright law and hence the need for a fair use defense. The right to
+read was effectively protected before because reading was not
+regulated.

 </para>
 <para>
 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for
 </para>
 <para>
 This point about fair use is totally ignored, even by advocates for


@@ -7094,45 +7086,38 @@ videos. Video Pipeline got the trailers from the film distributors, put
 the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
 </para>
 <para>
 the trailers on tape, and sold the tapes to the retail stores.
 </para>
 <para>

-The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it 
-               began
-to think about the Internet as another way to distribute these 
-               previews.
-The idea was to expand their "selling by sampling" technique by
-giving on-line stores the same ability to enable "browsing." Just as in a
-bookstore you can read a few pages of a book before you buy the book,
-so, too, you would be able to sample a bit from the movie on-line 
-               before
-you bought it.
+The company did this for about fifteen years. Then, in 1997, it began
+to think about the Internet as another way to distribute these
+previews.  The idea was to expand their "selling by sampling"
+technique by giving on-line stores the same ability to enable
+"browsing." Just as in a bookstore you can read a few pages of a book
+before you buy the book, so, too, you would be able to sample a bit
+from the movie on-line before you bought it.

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

-In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film 
-               distributors
+In 1998, Video Pipeline informed Disney and other film distributors

 that it intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet
 (rather than sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two
 years later, Disney told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 157 -->
 Pipeline asked Disney to talk about the matter&mdash;he had built a
 that it intended to distribute the trailers through the Internet
 (rather than sending the tapes) to distributors of their videos. Two
 years later, Disney told Video Pipeline to stop. The owner of Video
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 157 -->
 Pipeline asked Disney to talk about the matter&mdash;he had built a

-       business
-on distributing this content as a way to help sell Disney films; he
-had customers who depended upon his delivering this content. Disney
-would agree to talk only if Video Pipeline stopped the distribution 
-               immediately.
-Video Pipeline thought it was within their "fair use" rights
-to distribute the clips as they had. So they filed a lawsuit to ask the
-court to declare that these rights were in fact their rights.
+business on distributing this content as a way to help sell Disney
+films; he had customers who depended upon his delivering this
+content. Disney would agree to talk only if Video Pipeline stopped the
+distribution immediately.  Video Pipeline thought it was within their
+"fair use" rights to distribute the clips as they had. So they filed a
+lawsuit to ask the court to declare that these rights were in fact
+their rights.

 </para>
 <para>
 Disney countersued&mdash;for $100 million in damages. Those damages
 </para>
 <para>
 Disney countersued&mdash;for $100 million in damages. Those damages

-were predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had "willfully 
-               infringed"
-on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of 
-               willful
-infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the actual
-harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set in the
-statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred clips of
-Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those movies,
-Disney was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.
+were predicated upon a claim that Video Pipeline had "willfully
+infringed" on Disney's copyright. When a court makes a finding of
+willful infringement, it can award damages not on the basis of the
+actual harm to the copyright owner, but on the basis of an amount set
+in the statute. Because Video Pipeline had distributed seven hundred
+clips of Disney movies to enable video stores to sell copies of those
+movies, Disney was now suing Video Pipeline for $100 million.

 </para>
 <para>
 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video
 </para>
 <para>
 Disney has the right to control its property, of course. But the video


@@ -7977,9 +7962,8 @@ The copyrights that Lear held assured an independence from network
 control.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f29 -->
 Leonard Hill, "The Axis of Access," remarks before Weidenbaum Center
 control.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f29 -->
 Leonard Hill, "The Axis of Access," remarks before Weidenbaum Center

-Forum, "Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry," St. Louis, 
-               Missouri,
-3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available at 
+Forum, "Entertainment Economics: The Movie Industry," St. Louis,
+Missouri, 3 April 2003 (transcript of prepared remarks available at

 <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #28</ulink>;
 for the Lear story, not included in the prepared remarks, see 
 <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #29</ulink>).
 <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #28</ulink>;
 for the Lear story, not included in the prepared remarks, see 
 <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #29</ulink>).


@@ -8777,12 +8761,11 @@ eMusic opposes music piracy. We are a distributor of copyrighted
 material, and we want to protect those rights.
 </para>
 <para>
 material, and we want to protect those rights.
 </para>
 <para>

-But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of
-the major labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright
-interests, nor is it necessarily the best. It is simply too early to 
-               answer
-that question. Market forces operating naturally may very
-well produce a totally different industry model.
+But building a technology fortress that locks in the clout of the
+major labels is by no means the only way to protect copyright
+interests, nor is it necessarily the best. It is simply too early to
+answer that question. Market forces operating naturally may very well
+produce a totally different industry model.

 </para>
 <para>
 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make
 </para>
 <para>
 This is a critical point. The choices that industry sectors make


@@ -8822,20 +8805,17 @@ and will kill opportunities that could be extraordinarily valuable.
 <chapter id="harms">
 <title>CHAPTER TWELVE: Harms</title>
 <para>
 <chapter id="harms">
 <title>CHAPTER TWELVE: Harms</title>
 <para>

-

 To fight "piracy," to protect "property," the content industry has
 To fight "piracy," to protect "property," the content industry has

-launched a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign contributions have
-now brought the government into this war. As with any war, this one
-will have both direct and collateral damage. As with any war of 
-               prohibition,
-these damages will be suffered most by our own people.
+launched a war. Lobbying and lots of campaign contributions have now
+brought the government into this war. As with any war, this one will
+have both direct and collateral damage. As with any war of
+prohibition, these damages will be suffered most by our own people.

 </para>
 <para>
 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in
 </para>
 <para>
 My aim so far has been to describe the consequences of this war, in

-particular, the consequences for "free culture." But my aim now is to 
-               extend
-this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war 
-               justified?
+particular, the consequences for "free culture." But my aim now is to
+extend this description of consequences into an argument. Is this war
+justified?

 </para>
 <para>
 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the
 </para>
 <para>
 In my view, it is not. There is no good reason why this time, for the