Who thinks it isn't OK to record a CD you own onto a cassette so you can listen to it in your car? Or onto an MP3 player so you can listen on the bus?
Who thinks they shouldn't be able to make a backup copy? That it would be better if you had to buy a new copy if you lose the original?
I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that they would be better off giving up their rights so that a big company can make more profits at their expense.
Now, there are those that argue that PIRACY is bad, or even that piracy is so bad that eliminating fair use is a reasonable solution. I think the reason you don't see more people arguing these points is that there is no evidence that they are true -- quite the contrary.
The plastic does help focus the laser, or maybe more correctly, affects the focus. The laser beam is focussed on the pits, that means that the laser beam is not parallel. Since the refractive index of the plastic is different than air, it WILL have an effect on the focussing. Besides helping the focussing, the plastic is also there to hold the pits:-) The top of a CD is simply a thin layer of lacquer which is much easier to scratch than plastic.
This fact that the plastic affects the focussing caused a problem when the DVD format was originally being developed. Because of the decision to make DVDs double-sided, each layer is only half as thick as a CD (since the DVD as a whole is the same thickness). This means that a normal CD player physically can't focus on the layers on a DVD, and it is impossible to make a dual-use disk that can be played in both a normal CD player and a DVD player. This would have been handy for the DVD audio music format. If DVDs were not double-sided, it would be possible to create a dual-use music disk that could be read by both DVD and CD players: the CD pits in the normal position, and a second semi-transparent DVD layer. Sony's SACD format does support dual-use disks.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is going to argue against fair use?
Who thinks it isn't OK to record a CD you own onto a cassette so you can listen to it in your car? Or onto an MP3 player so you can listen on the bus?
Who thinks they shouldn't be able to make a backup copy? That it would be better if you had to buy a new copy if you lose the original?
I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that they would be better off giving up their rights so that a big company can make more profits at their expense.
Now, there are those that argue that PIRACY is bad, or even that piracy is so bad that eliminating fair use is a reasonable solution. I think the reason you don't see more people arguing these points is that there is no evidence that they are true -- quite the contrary.
The plastic does help focus the laser, or maybe more correctly, affects the focus. The laser beam is focussed on the pits, that means that the laser beam is not parallel. Since the refractive index of the plastic is different than air, it WILL have an effect on the focussing. Besides helping the focussing, the plastic is also there to hold the pits :-) The top of a CD is simply a thin layer of lacquer which is much easier to scratch than plastic.
This fact that the plastic affects the focussing caused a problem when the DVD format was originally being developed. Because of the decision to make DVDs double-sided, each layer is only half as thick as a CD (since the DVD as a whole is the same thickness). This means that a normal CD player physically can't focus on the layers on a DVD, and it is impossible to make a dual-use disk that can be played in both a normal CD player and a DVD player. This would have been handy for the DVD audio music format. If DVDs were not double-sided, it would be possible to create a dual-use music disk that could be read by both DVD and CD players: the CD pits in the normal position, and a second semi-transparent DVD layer. Sony's SACD format does support dual-use disks.