data/samples/generic, minor typo fixes

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/data/samples/generic/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst b/data/samples/generic/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
index f51bb5a..b41f064 100644
--- a/data/samples/generic/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
+++ b/data/samples/generic/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
@@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ The arguments in favor of requiring permission will sound surprisingly familiar.
 ={Disney, Walt+1;images, ownership of+4}
 
 On the other side was an argument that should be familiar, as well. Sure, there may be something of value being used. But citizens should have the right to capture at least those images that stand in public view. (Louis Brandeis, who would become a Supreme Court Justice, thought the rule should be different for images from private spaces.~{ Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, "The Right to Privacy," /{Harvard Law Review}/ 4 (1890): 193. }~) It may be that this means that the photographer gets something for nothing. Just as Disney could take inspiration from /{Steamboat Bill, Jr.}/ or the Brothers Grimm, the photographer should be free to capture an image without compensating the source.
-={Brandeis, Louis;Steamboat Bill, Jr.;carmera technology+2}
+={Brandeis, Louis;Steamboat Bill, Jr.;camera technology+2}
 
 Fortunately for Mr. Eastman, and for photography in general, these early decisions went in favor of the pirates. In general, no permission would be required before an image could be captured and shared with others. Instead, permission was presumed. Freedom was the default. (The law would eventually craft an exception for famous people: commercial photographers who snap pictures of famous people for commercial purposes have more restrictions than the rest of us. But in the ordinary case, the image can be captured without clearing the rights to do the capturing.~{ See Melville B. Nimmer, "The Right of Publicity," /{Law and Contemporary Problems}/ 19 (1954): 203; William L. Prosser, "Privacy," /{California Law Review}/ 48 (1960) 398-407; /{White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,}/ 971 F. 2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993). }~)
 
@@ -2109,7 +2109,7 @@ Likewise, when the other side says, "File sharing is just like walking into a To
 ={Kazaa;Lovett, Lyle}
 
 But it is not quite stealing from Tower. After all, when I take a CD from Tower Records, Tower has one less CD to sell. And when I take a CD from Tower Records, I get a bit of plastic and a cover, and something to show on my shelves. (And, while we're at it, we could also note that when I take a CD from Tower Records, the maximum fine that might be imposed on me, under California law, at least, is $1,000. According to the RIAA, by contrast, if I download a ten-song CD, I'm liable for $1,500,000 in damages.)
-={copyright infringement lawsuits:exaggerated claims of+2|in recording industry+2|against student file sharing+2;recordin industry:copyright infringement lawsuits of+2;Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA):copyright infringement lawsuits filed by+2;copyright law:felony punishment for infringement of+2}
+={copyright infringement lawsuits:exaggerated claims of+2|in recording industry+2|against student file sharing+2;recording industry:copyright infringement lawsuits of+2;Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA):copyright infringement lawsuits filed by+2;copyright law:felony punishment for infringement of+2}
 
 The point is not that it is as neither side describes. The point is that it is both - both as the RIAA describes it and as Kazaa describes it. It is a chimera. And rather than simply denying what the other side asserts, we need to begin to think about how we should respond to this chimera. What rules should govern it?
 ={Kazaa}