Merge branch 'upstream' into debian/sid

2 files changed, 40 insertions, 18 deletions

diff --git a/CHANGELOG b/CHANGELOG
index 9d9f60f..1b3b787 100644
--- a/CHANGELOG
+++ b/CHANGELOG
@@ -6,11 +6,19 @@ Reverse Chronological:
 
 %% STABLE MANIFEST
 
+%% sisu-markup-samples_1.0.11.orig.tar.gz (2008-10-09:40/4)
+http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/archive/pool/non-free/s/sisu-markup-samples/sisu-markup-samples_1.0.11.orig.tar.gz
+  sisu-markup-samples_1.0.11.orig.tar.gz
+  sisu-markup-samples_1.0.11-1.dsc
+  sisu-markup-samples_1.0.11-1.diff.gz
+
+  * minor adjustments to "Free Culture"
+
 %% sisu-markup-samples_1.0.10.orig.tar.gz (2008-10-09:40/4)
 http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/archive/pool/non-free/s/sisu-markup-samples/sisu-markup-samples_1.0.10.orig.tar.gz
-  sisu-markup-samples_1.0.10.orig.tar.gz
-  sisu-markup-samples_1.0.10-1.dsc
-  sisu-markup-samples_1.0.10-1.diff.gz
+  1e769b5c2c2d6135c3f5a14ede1d019f77588c7024168c756c7093510145c7dc 3442966 sisu-markup-samples_1.0.10.orig.tar.gz
+  1fd20f69634682feee7d7c2d0fe0e05c493ee83c199bc5370459f6ad9fb606de 1076 sisu-markup-samples_1.0.10-1.dsc
+  49a7d073829131935872b4bf357d1f4309a0f626cf309f3cfd469928d273b4ea 653510 sisu-markup-samples_1.0.10-1.diff.gz
 
   * book index sample markup for sisu-0.69 series for books "Free Culture" and "The Wealth of Networks"
 
diff --git a/data/sisu_markup_samples/non-free/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst b/data/sisu_markup_samples/non-free/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
index 3c61981..65f8e69 100644
--- a/data/sisu_markup_samples/non-free/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
+++ b/data/sisu_markup_samples/non-free/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
@@ -235,7 +235,8 @@ We allow this, I believe, not because it is right, and not because most of us re
 
 1~intro_piracy [Intro]-#
 
-*{Since the inception}* of the law regulating creative property, there has been a war against "piracy." The precise contours of this concept, "piracy," are hard to sketch, but the animating injustice is easy to capture. As Lord Mansfield wrote in a case that extended the reach of English copyright law to include sheet music,
+!_ Since the inception
+of the law regulating creative property, there has been a war against "piracy." The precise contours of this concept, "piracy," are hard to sketch, but the animating injustice is easy to capture. As Lord Mansfield wrote in a case that extended the reach of English copyright law to include sheet music,
 ={Copyright law:English;Mansfield, William Murray, Lord;music publishing;sheet music}
 
 _1 A person may use the copy by playing it, but he has no right to rob the author of the profit, by multiplying copies and disposing of them for his own use."~{ /{Bach v. Longman,}/ 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (1777) (Mansfield). }~
@@ -274,7 +275,8 @@ These burdens make no sense in our tradition. We should begin by understanding t
 
 1~ Chapter One: Creators
 
-In 1928, a cartoon character was born. An early Mickey Mouse made his debut in May of that year, in a silent flop called /{Plane Crazy}/. In November, in New York City's Colony Theater, in the first widely distributed cartoon synchronized with sound, /{Steamboat Willie}/ brought to life the character that would become Mickey Mouse.
+!_ In 1928,
+a cartoon character was born. An early Mickey Mouse made his debut in May of that year, in a silent flop called /{Plane Crazy}/. In November, in New York City's Colony Theater, in the first widely distributed cartoon synchronized with sound, /{Steamboat Willie}/ brought to life the character that would become Mickey Mouse.
 ={animated cartoons+15;cartoon films+16;films:animated+15;Steamboat Willie+9;Mikey Mouse+9}
 
 Synchronized sound had been introduced to film a year earlier in the movie /{The Jazz Singer}/. That success led Walt Disney to copy the technique and mix sound with cartoons. No one knew whether it would work or, if it did work, whether it would win an audience. But when Disney ran a test in the summer of 1928, the results were unambiguous. As Disney describes that first experiment,
@@ -351,7 +353,8 @@ I spent four wonderful months in Japan, and I asked this question as often as I
 
 This is a theme to which we will return: that regulation by law is a function of both the words on the books and the costs of making those words have effect. For now, focus on the obvious question that is begged: Would Japan be better off with more lawyers? Would manga be richer if doujinshi artists were regularly prosecuted? Would the Japanese gain something important if they could end this practice of uncompensated sharing? Does piracy here hurt the victims of the piracy, or does it help them? Would lawyers fighting this piracy help their clients or hurt them?
 
-!_ Let's pause for a moment.
+!_ Let's pause
+for a moment.
 
 If you're like I was a decade ago, or like most people are when they first start thinking about these issues, then just about now you should be puzzled about something you hadn't thought through before.
 
@@ -567,7 +570,7 @@ We're building a technology that takes the magic of Kodak, mixes moving images a
 
 1~ Chapter Three: Catalogs
 
-!_ In the fall of 2002
+!_ In the fall of 2002,
 Jesse Jordan of Oceanside, New York, enrolled as a freshman at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in Troy, New York. His major at RPI was information technology. Though he is not a programmer, in October Jesse decided to begin to tinker with search engine technology that was available on the RPI network.
 ={Jordan, Jesse;Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)+2:computer network search engine of+10;search engines+10;university computer networks, p2p sharing on+20;Internet: search engines used on+6}
 
@@ -623,7 +626,8 @@ Jesse's parents betray a certain pride in their reluctant activist. As his fathe
 1~ Chapter Four: "Pirates"
 ={piracy:in development of content industry+43}
 
-*{If "piracy" means}* using the creative property of others without their permission - if "if value, then right" is true - then the history of the content industry is a history of piracy. Every important sector of "big media" today - film, records, radio, and cable TV - was born of a kind of piracy so defined. The consistent story is how last generation's pirates join this generation's country club - until now.
+!_ If "piracy" means
+using the creative property of others without their permission - if "if value, then right" is true - then the history of the content industry is a history of piracy. Every important sector of "big media" today - film, records, radio, and cable TV - was born of a kind of piracy so defined. The consistent story is how last generation's pirates join this generation's country club - until now.
 ={creative property: "if value, then right" theory of;if value, then right, theory}
 
 % note bad sort: ={"if value, then right" theory}
@@ -734,12 +738,14 @@ Copyright owners took the cable companies to court. Twice the Supreme Court held
 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.
 ={Congress, U.S.:on cable television|on copyright laws}
 
-These separate stories sing a common theme. If "piracy" means using value from someone else's creative property without permission from that creator - as it is increasingly described today~{ See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, /{The Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet - The Myth of Free Information,}/ available at link #13. "The threat of piracy"the use of someone else's creative work without permission or compensation - has grown with the Internet." }~ - then /{every}/ industry affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. ... The list is long and could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the last. Every generation - until now.
+!_ These separate stories
+sing a common theme. If "piracy" means using value from someone else's creative property without permission from that creator - as it is increasingly described today~{ See, for example, National Music Publisher's Association, /{The Engine of Free Expression: Copyright on the Internet - The Myth of Free Information,}/ available at link #13. "The threat of piracy"the use of someone else's creative work without permission or compensation - has grown with the Internet." }~ - then /{every}/ industry affected by copyright today is the product and beneficiary of a certain kind of piracy. Film, records, radio, cable TV. ... The list is long and could well be expanded. Every generation welcomes the pirates from the last. Every generation - until now.
 
 1~ Chapter Five: "Piracy"
 ={piracy:commercial+20}
 
-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 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.
+!_ 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 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.
 
 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.
 
@@ -956,7 +962,8 @@ We should be doing the same thing today. The technology of the Internet is chang
 This is especially true when a new technology enables a vastly superior mode of distribution. And this p2p has done. P2p technologies can be ideally efficient in moving content across a widely diverse network. Left to develop, they could make the network vastly more efficient. Yet these "potential public benefits," as John Schwartz writes in /{The New York Times}/, "could be delayed in the P2P fight."~{ John Schwartz, "New Economy: The Attack on Peer-to-Peer Software Echoes Past Efforts," /{New York Times,}/ 22 September 2003, C3. }~
 ={peer-to-peer (p2p) file sharing:benefits of+1;Schwartz, John}
 
-Yet when anyone begins to talk about "balance," the copyright warriors raise a different argument. "All this hand waving about balance and incentives," they say, "misses a fundamental point. Our content," the warriors insist, "is our /{property}/. Why should we wait for Congress to 'rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait before calling the police when your car has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?"
+!_ Yet when anyone
+begins to talk about "balance," the copyright warriors raise a different argument. "All this hand waving about balance and incentives," they say, "misses a fundamental point. Our content," the warriors insist, "is our /{property}/. Why should we wait for Congress to 'rebalance' our property rights? Do you have to wait before calling the police when your car has been stolen? And why should Congress deliberate at all about the merits of this theft? Do we ask whether the car thief had a good use for the car before we arrest him?"
 
 "It is /{our property}/," the warriors insist. "And it should be protected just as any other property is protected."
 
@@ -964,7 +971,8 @@ Yet when anyone begins to talk about "balance," the copyright warriors raise a d
 
 1~intro_property [Intro]-#
 
-The copyright warriors are right: A copyright is a kind of property. It can be owned and sold, and the law protects against its theft. Ordinarily, the copyright owner gets to hold out for any price he wants. Markets reckon the supply and demand that partially determine the price she can get.
+!_ The copyright warriors
+are right: A copyright is a kind of property. It can be owned and sold, and the law protects against its theft. Ordinarily, the copyright owner gets to hold out for any price he wants. Markets reckon the supply and demand that partially determine the price she can get.
 ={copyright:as property+5;property rights:copyright vs.+5}
 
 % would have placed index links on heading above, but is an un-numbered heading
@@ -984,7 +992,8 @@ My strategy in doing this will be the same as my strategy in the preceding part.
 1~ Chapter Six: Founders
 ={books:English copyright law developed for+40;copyright law:development of+40|English+40;England, copyright laws developed in+40;United Kingdom:history of copyright law in+40}
 
-*{William Shakespeare}* wrote /{Romeo and Juliet}/ in 1595. The play was first published in 1597. It was the eleventh major play that Shakespeare had written. He would continue to write plays through 1613, and the plays that he wrote have continued to define Anglo-American culture ever since. So deeply have the works of a sixteenth-century writer seeped into our culture that we often don't even recognize their source. I once overheard someone commenting on Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Henry V: "I liked it, but Shakespeare is so full of clichés."
+!_ William Shakespeare
+wrote /{Romeo and Juliet}/ in 1595. The play was first published in 1597. It was the eleventh major play that Shakespeare had written. He would continue to write plays through 1613, and the plays that he wrote have continued to define Anglo-American culture ever since. So deeply have the works of a sixteenth-century writer seeped into our culture that we often don't even recognize their source. I once overheard someone commenting on Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Henry V: "I liked it, but Shakespeare is so full of clichés."
 ={Branagh, Kenneth;Henry V.;Shakespeare, William;Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare)+2}
 
 In 1774, almost 180 years after /{Romeo and Juliet}/ was written, the "copy-right" for the work was still thought by many to be the exclusive right of a single London publisher, Jacob Tonson.~{ Jacob Tonson is typically remembered for his associations with prominent eighteenth-century literary figures, especially John Dryden, and for his handsome "definitive editions" of classic works. In addition to /{Romeo and Juliet,}/ he published an astonishing array of works that still remain at the heart of the English canon, including collected works of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, John Milton, and John Dryden. See Keith Walker, "Jacob Tonson, Bookseller," /{American Scholar}/ 61:3 (1992): 424-31. }~ Tonson was the most prominent of a small group of publishers called the Conger~{ Lyman Ray Patterson, /{Copyright in Historical Perspective}/ (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968), 151-52. }~ who controlled bookselling in England during the eighteenth century. The Conger claimed a perpetual right to control the "copy" of books that they had acquired from authors. That perpetual right meant that no one else could publish copies of a book to which they held the copyright. Prices of the classics were thus kept high; competition to produce better or cheaper editions was eliminated.
@@ -1099,7 +1108,8 @@ At least, this was the rule in a world where the Parliament is anti-monopoly, re
 1~ Chapter Seven: Recorders
 ={copyright law:fair use and+22;documentary film+22;Else, Jon+22;fair use:in documentary film+22;films:fair use of copyrighted material in+22}
 
-*{Jon Else}* is a filmmaker. He is best known for his documentaries and has been very successful in spreading his art. He is also a teacher, and as a teacher myself, I envy the loyalty and admiration that his students feel for him. (I met, by accident, two of his students at a dinner party. He was their god.)
+!_ Jon Else
+is a filmmaker. He is best known for his documentaries and has been very successful in spreading his art. He is also a teacher, and as a teacher myself, I envy the loyalty and admiration that his students feel for him. (I met, by accident, two of his students at a dinner party. He was their god.)
 
 Else worked on a documentary that I was involved in. At a break, he told me a story about the freedom to create with film in America today.
 
@@ -1129,7 +1139,8 @@ Else was certain there was a mistake. He worked his way up to someone he thought
 Else didn't have the money to buy the right to replay what was playing on the television backstage at the San Francisco Opera.To reproduce this reality was beyond the documentary filmmaker's budget. At the very last minute before the film was to be released, Else digitally replaced the shot with a clip from another film that he had worked on, /{The Day After Trinity}/, from ten years before.
 ={San Francisco Opera;Day After Trinity, The}
 
-There's no doubt that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox, owns the copyright to /{The Simpsons}/. That copyright is their property. To use that copyrighted material thus sometimes requires the permission of the copyright owner. If the use that Else wanted to make of the /{Simpsons}/ copyright were one of the uses restricted by the law, then he would need to get the permission of the copyright owner before he could use the work in that way. And in a free market, it is the owner of the copyright who gets to set the price for any use that the law says the owner gets to control.
+!_ There's no doubt
+that someone, whether Matt Groening or Fox, owns the copyright to /{The Simpsons}/. That copyright is their property. To use that copyrighted material thus sometimes requires the permission of the copyright owner. If the use that Else wanted to make of the /{Simpsons}/ copyright were one of the uses restricted by the law, then he would need to get the permission of the copyright owner before he could use the work in that way. And in a free market, it is the owner of the copyright who gets to set the price for any use that the law says the owner gets to control.
 ={Fox (film company)+2;Groening, Matt+2}
 
 For example, "public performance" is a use of /{The Simpsons}/ that the copyright owner gets to control. If you take a selection of favorite episodes, rent a movie theater, and charge for tickets to come see "My Favorite /{Simpsons}/," then you need to get permission from the copyright owner. And the copyright owner (rightly, in my view) can charge whatever she wants - $10 or $1,000,000. That's her right, as set by the law.
@@ -2459,11 +2470,13 @@ When forty to sixty million Americans are considered "criminals" under the law,
 
 1~intro_balances [Intro]-#
 
-*{So here's}* the picture: You're standing at the side of the road. Your car is on fire. You are angry and upset because in part you helped start the fire. Now you don't know how to put it out. Next to you is a bucket, filled with gasoline. Obviously, gasoline won't put the fire out.
+!_ So here's
+the picture: You're standing at the side of the road. Your car is on fire. You are angry and upset because in part you helped start the fire. Now you don't know how to put it out. Next to you is a bucket, filled with gasoline. Obviously, gasoline won't put the fire out.
 
 As you ponder the mess, someone else comes along. In a panic, she grabs the bucket. Before you have a chance to tell her to stop - or before she understands just why she should stop - the bucket is in the air. The gasoline is about to hit the blazing car. And the fire that gasoline will ignite is about to ignite everything around.
 
-*{A war}* about copyright rages all around - and we're all focusing on the wrong thing. No doubt, current technologies threaten existing businesses. No doubt they may threaten artists. But technologies change. The industry and technologists have plenty of ways to use technology to protect themselves against the current threats of the Internet. This is a fire that if let alone would burn itself out.
+!_ A war
+about copyright rages all around - and we're all focusing on the wrong thing. No doubt, current technologies threaten existing businesses. No doubt they may threaten artists. But technologies change. The industry and technologists have plenty of ways to use technology to protect themselves against the current threats of the Internet. This is a fire that if let alone would burn itself out.
 
 Yet policy makers are not willing to leave this fire to itself. Primed with plenty of lobbyists' money, they are keen to intervene to eliminate the problem they perceive. But the problem they perceive is not the real threat this culture faces. For while we watch this small fire in the corner, there is a massive change in the way culture is made that is happening all around.
 
@@ -3056,7 +3069,8 @@ A sensible patent policy could endorse and strongly support the patent system wi
 
 But we as a culture have lost this sense of balance. We have lost the critical eye that helps us see the difference between truth and extremism. A certain property fundamentalism, having no connection to our tradition, now reigns in this culture - bizarrely, and with consequences more grave to the spread of ideas and culture than almost any other single policy decision that we as a democracy will make.
 
-A simple idea blinds us, and under the cover of darkness, much happens that most of us would reject if any of us looked. So uncritically do we accept the idea of property in ideas that we don't even notice how monstrous it is to deny ideas to a people who are dying without them. So uncritically do we accept the idea of property in culture that we don't even question when the control of that property removes our ability, as a people, to develop our culture democratically. Blindness becomes our common sense. And the challenge for anyone who would reclaim the right to cultivate our culture is to find a way to make this common sense open its eyes.
+!_ A simple idea
+blinds us, and under the cover of darkness, much happens that most of us would reject if any of us looked. So uncritically do we accept the idea of property in ideas that we don't even notice how monstrous it is to deny ideas to a people who are dying without them. So uncritically do we accept the idea of property in culture that we don't even question when the control of that property removes our ability, as a people, to develop our culture democratically. Blindness becomes our common sense. And the challenge for anyone who would reclaim the right to cultivate our culture is to find a way to make this common sense open its eyes.
 
 So far, common sense sleeps. There is no revolt. Common sense does not yet see what there could be to revolt about. The extremism that now dominates this debate fits with ideas that seem natural, and that fit is reinforced by the RCAs of our day. They wage a frantic war to fight "piracy," and devastate a culture for creativity. They defend the idea of "creative property," while transforming real creators into modern-day sharecroppers. They are insulted by the idea that rights should be balanced, even though each of the major players in this content war was itself a beneficiary of a more balanced ideal. The hypocrisy reeks. Yet in a city like Washington, hypocrisy is not even noticed. Powerful lobbies, complex issues, and MTV attention spans produce the "perfect storm" for free culture.