-for defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad—in practically
-every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it delivers too
-slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection to the justice
- underlying
-the claim. The legal system may be tolerable for the very rich.
-For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a tradition that prides
- itself
-on the rule of law.
-</para>
-<para>
-Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides
- adequate
-"breathing room" between regulation by the law and the access
-the law should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal
-system has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
-publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors impose
-upon filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon journalists—
-these are the real laws governing creativity. And these rules have little
-relationship to the "law" with which judges comfort themselves.
-</para>
-<para>
-For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful
- infringement
-of a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of dollars to
-even defend against a copyright infringement claim, and which would
-never return to the wrongfully accused defendant anything of the costs
-she suffered to defend her right to speak—in that world, the
- astonishingly
-broad regulations that pass under the name "copyright" silence
-speech and creativity. And in that world, it takes a studied blindness for
-people to continue to believe they live in a culture that is free.
-</para>
-<para>
-As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said
-to me,
+for defending rights such as fair use is astonishingly bad—in
+practically every context, but especially here. It costs too much, it
+delivers too slowly, and what it delivers often has little connection
+to the justice underlying the claim. The legal system may be tolerable
+for the very rich. For everyone else, it is an embarrassment to a
+tradition that prides itself on the rule of law.
+</para>
+<para>
+Judges and lawyers can tell themselves that fair use provides adequate
+"breathing room" between regulation by the law and the access the law
+should allow. But it is a measure of how out of touch our legal system
+has become that anyone actually believes this. The rules that
+publishers impose upon writers, the rules that film distributors
+impose upon filmmakers, the rules that newspapers impose upon
+journalists— these are the real laws governing creativity. And
+these rules have little relationship to the "law" with which judges
+comfort themselves.
+</para>
+<para>
+For in a world that threatens $150,000 for a single willful
+infringement of a copyright, and which demands tens of thousands of
+dollars to even defend against a copyright infringement claim, and
+which would never return to the wrongfully accused defendant anything
+of the costs she suffered to defend her right to speak—in that
+world, the astonishingly broad regulations that pass under the name
+"copyright" silence speech and creativity. And in that world, it takes
+a studied blindness for people to continue to believe they live in a
+culture that is free.
+</para>
+<para>
+As Jed Horovitz, the businessman behind Video Pipeline, said to me,