That will never happen, because you're mistaking RIAA with the movie industry. Yes, most of the time the two group's interests are aligned. However, in the case of piracy, this isn't always true.
The movie industry can add more features to DVDs, but the RIAA CAN'T. If piracy was all but quashed by the addition of super-awesome features (i.e. petrified Natalie Portman covered in hot grits), the RIAA would get a lot LESS funding from its members, since it won't have to play the anti-piracy enforcement role anymore. Therefore, the RIAA must convice its members that pirates are lurking in every shadow - so that it can get more funding and grow even larger.
I guess they must have stole a page from the "War on Terror". (tm)[1]
[1] "War on Terror" is a trademark of Bush & co. Patent pending; please contact the http://www.rnc.org/ for licensing.
I used to think the same way too... 'till we ran to this case while doing rounds during my edical ethics class:
A teenage girl was dying from heart failure (we were not told what this was caused by, since the this was an undergraduate ethics class) and required a heart transplant. Her cardiologist requested one from UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing), and got one. The operation went reasonably well, but as I understand it, multiple clots eventually developed in her bloodstream post-surgery. Some lodged in her brain, causing multiple strokes of varying severity, rendering her comatose. Others lodged in varying organs, including her newly transplanted heart, causing it to slowly fail.
Since her cardiologist was an attending physician at a large medical school, he had quite a lot of connections. He pulled some strings, and got the girl back on the heart transplant list.
Second heart was found and flown in. (Second verse, same as the first, a little bit louder, a little bit worse...) After a few days... turns out it's incompatable. The girl starts rejecting the second heart, and it slowly begins to fail. Dr. Promenent Attending Physician with Connections pulls more strings (he's got a lot invested in this girl), and she's back up on the heart transplant list.
Our professor, who was the pediatric neurologist called, assessed that the girl had no significant chance of recovering due to multiple strokes. And yet there she was, high up on the transplant list for her third heart!
Morals of the story:
1) connections matter; if you're gonna get a transplant, go to a major teaching facility and get the attending physician to do it.
2) resource allocation of something as precious as a heart isn't as cut and dry as, say, deciding who gets a scholarship to college. You give away multiple grants to somebody, and everybody else who applied will scrape by and find another way to fund their education; you give away multiple organs to one person, and there's a good chance that many, many people will die waiting.
Your argument presents a false dichotomy of either save the kid, or don't save the kid. (Who in their right minds would, without any other piece of information, say "don't save the kid"?) In reality, the case is this: Save the kid, or save a kid who needs a stomach, a kid who needs a liver, two kids who need kidneys, etc...
Until the day that we are able to grow organs, scarcity will be an issue. And regardless of how "feel good" it is to perform heroic measures to save somebody, it is ethically remiss to give multiple transplants to the same person, whether it be in the form of three consecutive hearts, or a half dozen organs. Chosing one organ recipient over another because of their health, importance to society, etc., is an ethical gray area. But how anybody can claim that it's better to save a kid by giving her multiple organs, over saving eight separate kids each of whom needs one organ transplant, is beyond me.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops. Replace RIAA with MPAA. I'm getting my opressive organizations mixed up. /dons tinfoil hat
That will never happen, because you're mistaking RIAA with the movie industry. Yes, most of the time the two group's interests are aligned. However, in the case of piracy, this isn't always true.
The movie industry can add more features to DVDs, but the RIAA CAN'T. If piracy was all but quashed by the addition of super-awesome features (i.e. petrified Natalie Portman covered in hot grits), the RIAA would get a lot LESS funding from its members, since it won't have to play the anti-piracy enforcement role anymore. Therefore, the RIAA must convice its members that pirates are lurking in every shadow - so that it can get more funding and grow even larger.
I guess they must have stole a page from the "War on Terror". (tm)[1]
[1] "War on Terror" is a trademark of Bush & co. Patent pending; please contact the http://www.rnc.org/ for licensing.
I used to think the same way too... 'till we ran to this case while doing rounds during my edical ethics class: A teenage girl was dying from heart failure (we were not told what this was caused by, since the this was an undergraduate ethics class) and required a heart transplant. Her cardiologist requested one from UNOS (United Network for Organ Sharing), and got one. The operation went reasonably well, but as I understand it, multiple clots eventually developed in her bloodstream post-surgery. Some lodged in her brain, causing multiple strokes of varying severity, rendering her comatose. Others lodged in varying organs, including her newly transplanted heart, causing it to slowly fail. Since her cardiologist was an attending physician at a large medical school, he had quite a lot of connections. He pulled some strings, and got the girl back on the heart transplant list. Second heart was found and flown in. (Second verse, same as the first, a little bit louder, a little bit worse...) After a few days... turns out it's incompatable. The girl starts rejecting the second heart, and it slowly begins to fail. Dr. Promenent Attending Physician with Connections pulls more strings (he's got a lot invested in this girl), and she's back up on the heart transplant list. Our professor, who was the pediatric neurologist called, assessed that the girl had no significant chance of recovering due to multiple strokes. And yet there she was, high up on the transplant list for her third heart! Morals of the story: 1) connections matter; if you're gonna get a transplant, go to a major teaching facility and get the attending physician to do it. 2) resource allocation of something as precious as a heart isn't as cut and dry as, say, deciding who gets a scholarship to college. You give away multiple grants to somebody, and everybody else who applied will scrape by and find another way to fund their education; you give away multiple organs to one person, and there's a good chance that many, many people will die waiting. Your argument presents a false dichotomy of either save the kid, or don't save the kid. (Who in their right minds would, without any other piece of information, say "don't save the kid"?) In reality, the case is this: Save the kid, or save a kid who needs a stomach, a kid who needs a liver, two kids who need kidneys, etc... Until the day that we are able to grow organs, scarcity will be an issue. And regardless of how "feel good" it is to perform heroic measures to save somebody, it is ethically remiss to give multiple transplants to the same person, whether it be in the form of three consecutive hearts, or a half dozen organs. Chosing one organ recipient over another because of their health, importance to society, etc., is an ethical gray area. But how anybody can claim that it's better to save a kid by giving her multiple organs, over saving eight separate kids each of whom needs one organ transplant, is beyond me.