1 files changed, 10 insertions, 24 deletions
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst b/data/v3/samples/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
index a2e059a..621fc69 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
@@ -11,47 +11,33 @@
  :created: 2004-03-25
  :issued: 2004-03-25
  :available: 2004-03-25
- :modified: 2004-03-25
  :valid: 2004-03-25
-
-% :created: 2004-04-08
+ :modified: 2004-03-25
 
 @rights:
  :copyright: Copyright (C) Lawrence Lessig, 2004.
  :license: Free Culture is Licensed under a Creative Commons License. This License permits non-commercial use of this work, so long as attribution is given. For more information about the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/
 
 @classify:
- :type: Book
  :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;copyright;free culture;creative commons;intellectual property:copyright:creative commons;book:subject:culture|copyright|society|public policy|mass media;culture;society
+ :type: Book
  :isbn: 9781594200069
  :oclc: 53324884
 
 % :isbn: 1594200068
 
-% :language: US
-
-@make:
- :breaks: new=:B; break=1
- :skin: skin_lessig
-
 @links:
  {Free Culture}http://www.free-culture.cc
  {Remixes}http://www.free-culture.cc/remixes/
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
  {@ Wikipedia}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_%28book%29
  {@ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594200068
  {@ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=1594200068
- {The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- {Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- {Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard M. Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {Free For All, Peter Wayner @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
- { CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow
- { Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
- {For the Win, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/for_the_win.cory_doctorow
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
+
+@make:
+ :breaks: new=:B; break=1
+ :skin: skin_lessig
 
 :A~ @title @author
 
@@ -834,7 +820,7 @@ Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of the l
 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that type A sharing is a kind of "theft" that is "devastating" the industry.
 ={Edison, Thomas}
 
-While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young put it, "Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels fought it."~{ See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, /{Technology Evolution and the Music Industry's Business Model Crisis}/ (2003), 3. This report describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a cassette-shape skull and the caption "Home taping is killing music."<br>At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette format. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, /{Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the Law,}/ OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1989), 145-56. }~ The labels claimed that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was the answer.
+While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young put it, "Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels fought it."~{ See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, /{Technology Evolution and the Music Industry's Business Model Crisis}/ (2003), 3. This report describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a cassette-shape skull and the caption "Home taping is killing music." \\ At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette format. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, /{Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the Law,}/ OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1989), 145-56. }~ The labels claimed that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was the answer.
 ={cassette recording+1;recording industry:new technology opposed by+2;technology:established industries threatened by changes in+2}
 
 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record turnaround. "In the end," Cap Gemini concludes, "the 'crisis' ... was not the fault of the tapers" who did not [stop after MTV came into being] - but had to a large extent resulted from stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels."~{ U.S. Congress, /{Copyright and Home Copying,}/ 4. }~
@@ -891,7 +877,7 @@ If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing technolog
 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology. In this adjustment, the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes less.
 
 So, as we've seen, when "mechanical reproduction" threatened the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress that their "creative property" was not being respected (since the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast), Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
-={artists:recording industry payments to;composers, copyright protections of;Congress, U.S.:on copyright laws+3|on recording industry+1;copyright law:on music recordings+2|statutory licenses in+2;radio:music recordings played on;recording industry:artist remuneration in|copyright protections in|radio broadcast and;statutory licenses|composer's rights vs. producers' rights in}
+={artists:recording industry payments to;composers, copyright protections of;Congress, U.S.:on copyright laws+3|on recording industry+1;copyright law:on music recordings+2|statutory licenses in+2;radio:music recordings played on;recording industry:artist remuneration in|copyright protections in|radio broadcast and;statutory licenses:composer's rights vs. producers' rights in}
 
 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast, Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
 ={cable television+1;Congress, U.S.:on cable television+1;copyright law:on cable television rebroadcasting+1;television:cable vs. broadcast+1}