Atrocities & Rojero:
The reason companies go after copyright violations so ruthlessly is so that they can keep having exclusive control when it comes to the paid market. If they don't go after small violations when it comes to their attention, then a clever person making a larger violation has a form of precedent when it comes to court, which can cause them to win the case, despite the fact that the large violation is selling while the small ones weren't.
In order to stop such things from happening, all you need to do is write a (certified) letter to the company holding copyright explaining your non-profit intent and asking permission, and wait for their response. However, you do need to keep the response in a safety deposit box somewhere, as the companies contract out defense of their copyrights, and the company doesn't always totally inform their sub-contractors. Once you have permission in writing, you are licensed, and the precedent issue goes away for the company.
PvK:
It can hurt a business severly if someone is freely distributing stuff that is closely related to the product the business is selling. That is actually part of the reason for patent and copyright laws; it helps protect the little businesses. Suppose, for instance, that company X produces a new (copyrighted/patented) software algorythm that allows an OS to intelligently adapt to a new situation invisibly. Now, suppose Microsoft feels threatened by this, steals the algorythm, and starts distributing it free of charge. Microsoft is big, and can absorb the loss. X is not, and can't compete. Once X goes out of business, Microsoft can buy and use or suppress the algorythm. Copyright and patent law helps to prevent this. It used to be that patents expired after 20 years and copyrights after 75 - but I have heard that has changed recently.
As for unconstitutional: The constitution actually makes specific allowance for copyrights and patents:
Quote:
From The United States Constitution, Article 1, section 8(Powers vested in Congress):
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inverntors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
|
Further, the freedom of expression you refer to isn't directly in the constitution - that is an interpertaition based on the first amendment:
Quote:
First amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
|
It refers to freedom of speech and the press, not images et cetera; not expression.
[ June 18, 2003, 21:21: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]