Cleanup.

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index 112a8f59c12c8b0175ad11cdc1fbc5be3911c286..6f0f1a716bbca91723c8802e371cd68e0cff04ef 100644 (file)
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -3108,8 +3108,7 @@ general counsel of the Association of Maximum Service Telecasters, Inc.).
 </para>
 </blockquote>
 <para>
 </para>
 </blockquote>
 <para>

-Again, the demand of the copyright holders seemed reasonable
-enough:
+Again, the demand of the copyright holders seemed reasonable enough:

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


@@ -3125,61 +3124,55 @@ United Artists Television, Inc.).
 </para>
 </blockquote>
 <para>
 </para>
 </blockquote>
 <para>

-These were "free-ride[rs]," Screen Actor's Guild president 
-               Charlton
-Heston said, who were "depriving actors of compensation."<footnote><para>
+These were "free-ride[rs]," Screen Actor's Guild president Charlton
+Heston said, who were "depriving actors of
+compensation."<footnote><para>

 <!-- f17 -->
 Copyright Law Revision&mdash;CATV, 209 (statement of Charlton Heston,
 president of the Screen Actors Guild).
 </para></footnote>
 </para>
 <para>
 <!-- f17 -->
 Copyright Law Revision&mdash;CATV, 209 (statement of Charlton Heston,
 president of the Screen Actors Guild).
 </para></footnote>
 </para>
 <para>

-But again, there was another side to the debate. As Assistant 
-               Attorney
+But again, there was another side to the debate. As Assistant Attorney

 General Edwin Zimmerman put it,
 </para>
 <blockquote>
 <para>
 General Edwin Zimmerman put it,
 </para>
 <blockquote>
 <para>

-Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have
-any copyright protection at all, the problem here is whether 
-               copyright
-holders who are already compensated, who already have a
-monopoly, should be permitted to extend that monopoly. . . . The
+Our point here is that unlike the problem of whether you have any
+copyright protection at all, the problem here is whether copyright
+holders who are already compensated, who already have a monopoly,
+should be permitted to extend that monopoly. . . . The

 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 74 -->
 question here is how much compensation they should have and
 how far back they should carry their right to compensation.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f18 -->
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 74 -->
 question here is how much compensation they should have and
 how far back they should carry their right to compensation.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f18 -->

-Copyright Law Revision&mdash;CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M. 
-               Zimmerman,
-acting assistant attorney general).
+Copyright Law Revision&mdash;CATV, 216 (statement of Edwin M.
+Zimmerman, acting assistant attorney general).

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

-Copyright owners took the cable companies to court. Twice the
-Supreme Court held that the cable companies owed the copyright
-owners nothing.
+Copyright owners took the cable companies to court. Twice the Supreme
+Court held that the cable companies owed the copyright owners nothing.

 </para>
 <para>
 It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question
 of whether cable companies had to pay for the content they "pirated."
 </para>
 <para>
 It took Congress almost thirty years before it resolved the question
 of whether cable companies had to pay for the content they "pirated."

-In the end, Congress resolved this question in the same way that it 
-               resolved
-the question about record players and player pianos. Yes, cable
-companies would have to pay for the content that they broadcast; but
-the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright owner.
-The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn't exercise veto
-power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable companies thus
-built their empire in part upon a "piracy" of the value created by 
-               broadcasters'
-content.
-</para>
-<para>
-These separate stories sing a common theme. If "piracy"
-means using value from someone else's creative property without 
-               permission
-from that creator&mdash;as it is increasingly described today<footnote><para>
+In the end, Congress resolved this question in the same way that it
+resolved the question about record players and player pianos. Yes,
+cable companies would have to pay for the content that they broadcast;
+but the price they would have to pay was not set by the copyright
+owner.  The price was set by law, so that the broadcasters couldn't
+exercise veto power over the emerging technologies of cable. Cable
+companies thus built their empire in part upon a "piracy" of the value
+created by broadcasters' content.
+</para>
+<para>
+These separate stories sing a common theme. If "piracy" means
+using value from someone else's creative property without permission
+from that creator&mdash;as it is increasingly described
+today<footnote><para>

 <!-- f19 -->
 See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, The Engine
 of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&mdash;The Myth of Free
 <!-- f19 -->
 See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, The Engine
 of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet&mdash;The Myth of Free


@@ -3200,23 +3193,21 @@ generation&mdash;until now.
 <sect1 id="piracy">
 <title>CHAPTER FIVE: "Piracy"</title>
 <para>
 <sect1 id="piracy">
 <title>CHAPTER FIVE: "Piracy"</title>
 <para>

-
-There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy
-comes in many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the
+There is piracy of copyrighted material. Lots of it. This piracy comes
+in many forms. The most significant is commercial piracy, the

 unauthorized taking of other people's content within a commercial
 unauthorized taking of other people's content within a commercial

-context. Despite the many justifications that are offered in its defense,
-this taking is wrong. No one should condone it, and the law should
-stop it.
+context. Despite the many justifications that are offered in its
+defense, this taking is wrong. No one should condone it, and the law
+should stop it.

 </para>
 <para>
 But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of "taking"
 that is more directly related to the Internet. That taking, too, seems
 wrong to many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before we paint this
 taking "piracy," however, we should understand its nature a bit more.
 </para>
 <para>
 But as well as copy-shop piracy, there is another kind of "taking"
 that is more directly related to the Internet. That taking, too, seems
 wrong to many, and it is wrong much of the time. Before we paint this
 taking "piracy," however, we should understand its nature a bit more.

-For the harm of this taking is significantly more ambiguous than 
-               outright
-copying, and the law should account for that ambiguity, as it has
-so often done in the past.
+For the harm of this taking is significantly more ambiguous than
+outright copying, and the law should account for that ambiguity, as it
+has so often done in the past.

 <!-- PAGE BREAK 76 -->
 </para>
 <sect2 id="piracy-i">
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 76 -->
 </para>
 <sect2 id="piracy-i">