A few more indexes.

diff --git a/freeculture.xml b/freeculture.xml
index 0033e3866555543635ea600395e05f9ff234bad9..1a55a5257d56f94dab258dcddbeff449ef66284a 100644 (file)
--- a/freeculture.xml
+++ b/freeculture.xml
@@ -2787,6 +2787,7 @@ the Propertization of Copyright" (September 2002), University of
 Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics,
 Working Paper No. 159.  </para></footnote>
 <indexterm><primary>General Film Company</primary></indexterm>
 Chicago Law School, James M. Olin Program in Law and Economics,
 Working Paper No. 159.  </para></footnote>
 <indexterm><primary>General Film Company</primary></indexterm>

+<indexterm><primary>Picker, Randal C</primary></indexterm>

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


@@ -3028,37 +3029,32 @@ Radio was also born of piracy.
 When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a
 "public performance" of the composer's work.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f12 -->
 When a radio station plays a record on the air, that constitutes a
 "public performance" of the composer's work.<footnote><para>
 <!-- f12 -->

-See 17 United States Code, sections 106 and 110. At the beginning, record
-companies printed "Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast" and other 
-               messages
-purporting to restrict the ability to play a record on a radio station.
-Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument that a warning attached to a
-record might restrict the rights of the radio station. See RCA 
-               Manufacturing
-Co. v. Whiteman, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd Cir. 1940). See also Randal C.
-Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and
-Refusal and the Propertization of Copyright," University of Chicago Law
-Review 70 (2003): 281.
-</para></footnote>
-As I described above,
-the law gives the composer (or copyright holder) an exclusive right to
-public performances of his work. The radio station thus owes the 
-               composer
-money for that performance.
-</para>
-<para>
-But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing
-a copy of the composer's work. The radio station is also performing a
-copy of the recording artist's work. It's one thing to have "Happy 
-               Birthday"
-sung on the radio by the local children's choir; it's quite another to
-have it sung by the Rolling Stones or Lyle Lovett. The recording artist
-is adding to the value of the composition performed on the radio 
-               station.
-And if the law were perfectly consistent, the radio station would
-have to pay the recording artist for his work, just as it pays the 
-               composer
-of the music for his work.
+See 17 United States Code, sections 106 and 110. At the beginning,
+record companies printed "Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast" and other
+messages purporting to restrict the ability to play a record on a
+radio station.  Judge Learned Hand rejected the argument that a
+warning attached to a record might restrict the rights of the radio
+station. See RCA Manufacturing Co. v. Whiteman, 114 F. 2d 86 (2nd
+Cir. 1940). See also Randal C.  Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast
+Flag: Mechanisms of Consent and Refusal and the Propertization of
+Copyright," University of Chicago Law Review 70 (2003): 281.
+<indexterm><primary>Hand, Learned</primary></indexterm>
+<indexterm><primary>Picker, Randal C</primary></indexterm>
+</para></footnote>
+As I described above, the law gives the composer (or copyright holder)
+an exclusive right to public performances of his work. The radio
+station thus owes the composer money for that performance.
+</para>
+<para>
+But when the radio station plays a record, it is not only performing a
+copy of the composer's work. The radio station is also performing a
+copy of the recording artist's work. It's one thing to have "Happy
+Birthday" sung on the radio by the local children's choir; it's quite
+another to have it sung by the Rolling Stones or Lyle Lovett. The
+recording artist is adding to the value of the composition performed
+on the radio station.  And if the law were perfectly consistent, the
+radio station would have to pay the recording artist for his work,
+just as it pays the composer of the music for his work.

 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 72 -->
 </para>
 
 <!-- PAGE BREAK 72 -->
 </para>


@@ -4171,6 +4167,7 @@ controlling the technology of DAT. See Audio Home Recording Act of
 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
 Lessig, Future, 71. See also Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast Flag,"
 University of Chicago Law Review 70 (2003): 293&ndash;96.
 eliminate the opportunity for free riding in the sense I've described. See
 Lessig, Future, 71. See also Picker, "From Edison to the Broadcast Flag,"
 University of Chicago Law Review 70 (2003): 293&ndash;96.

+<indexterm><primary>Picker, Randal C</primary></indexterm>

 </para></footnote>
 In each case, throughout our history,
 that change meant that someone got a "free ride" on someone else's
 </para></footnote>
 In each case, throughout our history,
 that change meant that someone got a "free ride" on someone else's


@@ -9510,6 +9507,7 @@ radio and diversity. Yes, this is done in the name of getting
 royalties to copyright holders, but, absent the play of powerful
 interests, that could have been done in a media-neutral way."
 <indexterm><primary>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel)</primary></indexterm>
 royalties to copyright holders, but, absent the play of powerful
 interests, that could have been done in a media-neutral way."
 <indexterm><primary>CARP (Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel)</primary></indexterm>

+<indexterm><primary>Picker, Randal C</primary></indexterm>

 </para></footnote>
 A regular radio station broadcasting the same content would pay no
 equivalent fee.
 </para></footnote>
 A regular radio station broadcasting the same content would pay no
 equivalent fee.