Clean up XML.

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index 7e62f3513c96c331f3e8a4100a81afd02ce1afaf..9b1e81f2591638f1edd612fbb773754d373bf3a0 100644 (file)
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -9225,8 +9225,9 @@ company whose business is not approved of by the dinosaurs, you are at
 risk not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your
 investment buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.
 So extreme has the environment become that even car manufacturers are
 risk not just in the marketplace, but in the courtroom as well.  Your
 investment buys you not only a company, it also buys you a lawsuit.
 So extreme has the environment become that even car manufacturers are

-afraid of technologies that touch content. In an article in <citetitle>Business
-2.0</citetitle>, Rafe Needleman describes a discussion with BMW:
+afraid of technologies that touch content. In an article in
+<citetitle>Business 2.0</citetitle>, Rafe Needleman describes a
+discussion with BMW:

 </para>
 <blockquote>
 <indexterm><primary>BMW</primary></indexterm>
 </para>
 <blockquote>
 <indexterm><primary>BMW</primary></indexterm>


@@ -9260,18 +9261,17 @@ constantly threatened by litigation.
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 201 -->
 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 201 -->
 The point is not that businesses should have a right to start illegal

-enterprises. The point is the definition of "illegal." The law is a mess of
-uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply to new
-technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial deference, and
-by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that copyright law 
-               imposes,
-that uncertainty now yields a reality which is far more 
-               conservative
-than is right. If the law imposed the death penalty for parking
-tickets, we'd not only have fewer parking tickets, we'd also have much
-less driving. The same principle applies to innovation. If innovation is
-constantly checked by this uncertain and unlimited liability, we will
-have much less vibrant innovation and much less creativity.
+enterprises. The point is the definition of "illegal." The law is a
+mess of uncertainty. We have no good way to know how it should apply
+to new technologies. Yet by reversing our tradition of judicial
+deference, and by embracing the astonishingly high penalties that
+copyright law imposes, that uncertainty now yields a reality which is
+far more conservative than is right. If the law imposed the death
+penalty for parking tickets, we'd not only have fewer parking tickets,
+we'd also have much less driving. The same principle applies to
+innovation. If innovation is constantly checked by this uncertain and
+unlimited liability, we will have much less vibrant innovation and
+much less creativity.

 </para>
 <para>
 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair
 </para>
 <para>
 The point is directly parallel to the crunchy-lefty point about fair


@@ -9327,49 +9327,44 @@ the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School
 (2003), 33&ndash;35, available at 
 <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #44</ulink>.
 </para></footnote>
 (2003), 33&ndash;35, available at 
 <ulink url="http://free-culture.cc/notes/">link #44</ulink>.
 </para></footnote>

- 
-               Congress
-has already launched proceedings to explore a mandatory 
-               "broadcast
-flag" that would be required on any device capable of transmitting
-digital video (i.e., a computer), and that would disable the copying of
-any content that is marked with a broadcast flag. Other members of
-Congress have proposed immunizing content providers from liability
-for technology they might deploy that would hunt down copyright 
-               violators
-and disable their machines.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f7. --> GartnerG2, 26&ndash;27.
+Congress has already launched proceedings to explore a mandatory
+"broadcast flag" that would be required on any device capable of
+transmitting digital video (i.e., a computer), and that would disable
+the copying of any content that is marked with a broadcast flag. Other
+members of Congress have proposed immunizing content providers from
+liability for technology they might deploy that would hunt down
+copyright violators and disable their machines.<footnote><para>
+<!-- f7. -->
+GartnerG2, 26&ndash;27.

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

-

 </para>
 <para>
 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the
 </para>
 <para>
 In one sense, these solutions seem sensible. If the problem is the

-code, why not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any 
-               regulation
-of technical infrastructure will always be tuned to the particular
-technology of the day. It will impose significant burdens and costs on
-
+code, why not regulate the code to remove the problem. But any
+regulation of technical infrastructure will always be tuned to the
+particular technology of the day. It will impose significant burdens
+and costs on

 <!-- PAGE BREAK 203 -->
 the technology, but will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly
 those requirements.
 </para>
 <para>
 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 203 -->
 the technology, but will likely be eclipsed by advances around exactly
 those requirements.
 </para>
 <para>
 In March 2002, a broad coalition of technology companies, led by

-Intel, tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation would
-impose.<footnote><para>
-<!-- f8. --> See David McGuire, "Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy," Newsbytes,
+Intel, tried to get Congress to see the harm that such legislation
+would impose.<footnote><para>
+<!-- f8. -->
+See David McGuire, "Tech Execs Square Off Over Piracy," Newsbytes,

 February 2002 (Entertainment).
 </para></footnote>
 February 2002 (Entertainment).
 </para></footnote>

- Their argument was obviously not that copyright should not
-be protected. Instead, they argued, any protection should not do more
+Their argument was obviously not that copyright should not be
+protected. Instead, they argued, any protection should not do more

 harm than good.
 <indexterm><primary>Intel</primary></indexterm>
 </para>
 <para>
 harm than good.
 <indexterm><primary>Intel</primary></indexterm>
 </para>
 <para>

-There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed 
-               innovation&mdash;again,
-a story that will be quite familiar to the free market
-crowd.
+There is one more obvious way in which this war has harmed
+innovation&mdash;again, a story that will be quite familiar to the
+free market crowd.

 </para>
 <para>
 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form
 </para>
 <para>
 Copyright may be property, but like all property, it is also a form


@@ -9388,11 +9383,11 @@ Jessica Litman, <citetitle>Digital Copyright</citetitle> (Amherst,
 N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2001).
 <indexterm><primary>Litman, Jessica</primary></indexterm>
 </para></footnote>
 N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2001).
 <indexterm><primary>Litman, Jessica</primary></indexterm>
 </para></footnote>

- overall this history of copyright
-is not bad. As chapter 10 details, when new technologies have come
-along, Congress has struck a balance to assure that the new is protected
-from the old. Compulsory, or statutory, licenses have been one part of
-that strategy. Free use (as in the case of the VCR) has been another.
+overall this history of copyright is not bad. As chapter 10 details,
+when new technologies have come along, Congress has struck a balance
+to assure that the new is protected from the old. Compulsory, or
+statutory, licenses have been one part of that strategy. Free use (as
+in the case of the VCR) has been another.

 </para>
 <para>
 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed
 </para>
 <para>
 But that pattern of deference to new technologies has now changed