Clean up XML.

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index 787ad5f5a666ff1a6692faa9d0eecfa58fcbb440..2fbc959b74da0c73c3d90ae2f81bc21f20e7d757 100644 (file)
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -3530,14 +3530,13 @@ Nothing has changed to draw that law into doubt. This form of piracy
 is flat out wrong.
 </para>
 <para>
 is flat out wrong.
 </para>
 <para>

-But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this
-part suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all "piracy" is. Or
-at least, not all "piracy" is wrong if that term is understood in the way
-it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of "piracy" are useful and 
-               productive,
-to produce either new content or new ways of doing business.
-Neither our tradition nor any tradition has ever banned all "piracy" in
-that sense of the term.
+But as the examples from the four chapters that introduced this part
+suggest, even if some piracy is plainly wrong, not all "piracy" is. Or
+at least, not all "piracy" is wrong if that term is understood in the
+way it is increasingly used today. Many kinds of "piracy" are useful
+and productive, to produce either new content or new ways of doing
+business.  Neither our tradition nor any tradition has ever banned all
+"piracy" in that sense of the term.

 </para>
 <para>
 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest
 </para>
 <para>
 This doesn't mean that there are no questions raised by the latest


@@ -3784,14 +3783,12 @@ U.S. Congress, Copyright and Home Copying, 4.
 <para>
 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is
 wrong today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to
 <para>
 But just because the industry was wrong before does not mean it is
 wrong today. To evaluate the real threat that p2p sharing presents to

-the industry in particular, and society in general&mdash;or at least the 
-               society
-that inherits the tradition that gave us the film industry, the record
-industry, the radio industry, cable TV, and the VCR&mdash;the question is
-not simply whether type A sharing is harmful. The question is also how
-harmful type A sharing is, and how beneficial the other types of 
-               sharing
-are.
+the industry in particular, and society in general&mdash;or at least
+the society that inherits the tradition that gave us the film
+industry, the record industry, the radio industry, cable TV, and the
+VCR&mdash;the question is not simply whether type A sharing is
+harmful. The question is also how harmful type A sharing is, and how
+beneficial the other types of sharing are.

 </para>
 <para>
 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from
 </para>
 <para>
 We start to answer this question by focusing on the net harm, from


@@ -13032,7 +13029,7 @@ These statements are astonishing on a number of levels.
 <para>
 First, they are just flat wrong. As I described, most open source and
 free software relies fundamentally upon the intellectual property
 <para>
 First, they are just flat wrong. As I described, most open source and
 free software relies fundamentally upon the intellectual property

-right called "copyright." Without it, restrictions imposed by those
+right called "copyright".  Without it, restrictions imposed by those

 licenses wouldn't work. Thus, to say it "runs counter" to the mission
 of promoting intellectual property rights reveals an extraordinary gap
 in understanding&mdash;the sort of mistake that is excusable in a
 licenses wouldn't work. Thus, to say it "runs counter" to the mission
 of promoting intellectual property rights reveals an extraordinary gap
 in understanding&mdash;the sort of mistake that is excusable in a