Text 4
The entertainment industry and technology companies have been warring for years over the dazzling ability of computers and the Internet to copy and transmit music and movies.
A crucial battle ended this week with a ruling by America’s Supreme Court in favour of copyright holder and against two companies that distribute peer-to-peer (P2P) software, which lets users share files online with others. The court’s decision, though ostensibly a victory for content providers, is. nevertheless unlikely to stamp out file sharing—much of which will continue from outside America—or stop the technological innovation that is threatening the current business models of media firms.
The court was asked to decide whether two firms, Grokster and StreamCast, were liable for copyright infringement by their customers. Two lower courts had said that the firms were not liable, citing a 1984 ruling in favour of Sony’s Betamax video recorder. This held that a technology firm is immune from liability so long as the device concerned is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses". The court did not reinterpret the 1984 decision in light of the Internet. Instead the justices ruled that the case raised a far narrower issue: whether Grokster and StreamCast induced users to violate copyrights and chose not to take the simpie steps available to prevent it. Such behaviour would make the firms clearly liable for copyright infringement and end their immunity, even under the Betamax standard. The court reasoned that there were sufficient grounds to believe that inducement occurred, and sent the case back to lower courts for trial.
Although the Grokster decision will probably not squelch innovation as much as many tech firms fear, it should certainly make IT and electronics firms more cautious about how they market their products—and quite right, too. But the Supreme Court’s narrow ruling makes this unlikely—in deed, the justices noted the technology’s widespread legitimate use. Yet their decision will surely embolden the entertainment industry to pursue in court any firms that they can claim knowingly allow in fringement; This could kill off some small innovative start-ups. On the other hand, the ruling could also provide legal cover for tech firms with the wit to plaster their products with warnings not to violate the law.
But judged from a long-term perspective, this week’s victory for copyright holders seems likely to prove a Pyrrhic one. The Internet and file sharing are disruptive technologies that give consumers vastly more ability to use all sorts of media content, copyrighted or not. Surely entertainment firms must devise ways to use this technology to sell their wares that will also allow copyright to be protected.
So long as technology continues to evolve in ways that enable legitimate content sharing, piracy will also probably continue to some degree. Happily, in this case the piracy seems to have prompted content firms to compete by offering better fee-based services. The challenge for content providers is to use new technology to create value for customers, and to make those who use content illegally feel bad about it.

A:distributed P2P software illegally. B:allowed users sharing without permission. C:violated the copyright of entertainment firms. D:took advantage of Betamax standard.

The entertainment industry and technology companies have been warring for years over the dazzling ability of computers and the Internet to copy and transmit music and movies.
A crucial battle ended this week with a ruling by America’s Supreme Court in favour of copyright holder and against two companies that distribute peer-to-peer (P2P) software, which lets users share files online with others. The court’s decision, though ostensibly a victory for content providers, is nevertheless unlikely to stamp out file sharing -- much of which will continue from outside America -- or stop the technological innovation that is threatening the current business models of media firms.
The court was asked to decide whether two firms, Grokster and StreamCast, were liable for copyright infringement by their customers. Two lower courts had said that the firms were not liable, citing a 1984 ruling in favour of Sony’s Betamax video recorder. This held that a technology firm is immune from liability so long as the device concerned is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses". The court did not reinterpret the 1984 decision in light of the Internet. Instead the justices ruled that the case raised a far narrower issue: whether Grokster and StreamCast induced users to violate copyrights and chose not to take the simple steps available to prevent it. Such behaviour would make the firms clearly liable for copyright infringement and end their immunity, even under the Betamax standard. The court reasoned that there were sufficient grounds to believe that inducement occurred, and sent the case back to lower courts for trial.
Although the Grokster decision will probably not squelch innovation as much as many tech firms fear, it should certainly make IT and electronics firms more cautious about how they market their products --and quite right, too. But the Supreme Court’s narrow ruling makes this unlikely -- in- deed, the justices noted the technology’s widespread legitimate use. Yet their decision will surely embolden the entertainment industry to pursue in court any firms that they can claim knowingly allow infringement. This could kill off some small innovative start-ups. On the other hand, the ruling could also provide legal cover for tech firms with the wit to plaster their products with warnings not to violate the law.
But judged from a long-term perspective, this week’s victory for copyright holders seems likely to prove a Pyrrhic one. The Internet and file sharing are disruptive technologies that give consumers vastly more ability to use all sorts of media content, col0yrighted or not. Surely entertainment firms must devise ways to use this technology to sell their wares that will also allow copyright to be protected.
So long as technology continues to evolve in ways that enable legitimate content sharing, piracy will also probably continue to some degree. Happily, in this case the piracy seems to have prompted content fir-rug to compete by offering better fee-based services. The challenge for content providers is to use new technology to create value for customers, and to make those who use content illegally feel bad about it.
The Grokster decision was based on the evidence that Grokster

A:distributed P2P software illegally. B:allowed users sharing without permission. C:violated the copyright of entertainment firms. D:took advantage of Betamax standard.

U.S. prisons are filled with drug offenders; the number of prisoners tripled over the past 20 years to nearly 2 million, with 60 to 70 per cent testing positive for substance abuse on arrest. The country has spent billions of dollars attacking the problem at its roots. But there is growing consensus that the "war on drug" has been lost. The United States is still the world’’s largest consumer of illegal substances; cocaine continues to pour over the border from Mexico. "Traffic" taps into the national frustration, depicting the horrors of both drugs and the drug war. Without taking sides, the film illuminates the national debate and poses on alternative that Americans seem increasingly willing to consider: finding new ways to treat, rather than merely punish, drug abuse. 　　Policy revolutions―like legalizing narcotics (drugs producing sleep or insensibility) ―remain a distant dream. But there is growing public awareness that the money and energy wasted on trying to check the flow of drugs into the United States might be better spent on trying to control demand instead. Voters in several states are far ahead of the politicians, approving ballot initiatives that offer more treatment opinions. "Drugs courts" that allow judges to use carrots and sticks to compel substance-abuse treatment have grown fifty-fold since the mid-1990s, part of a new understanding that, even with frequent relapses( returns to a formal state), treatment is much less expensive for society than jail and ban. 　　Drug addiction is increasingly being viewed as more a disease than a crime. Science is yielding clues about the "hedonic (of pleasure ) region" of the brain, while breakthrough medications and greater understanding of the mental-health problems that underlie many addictions are giving therapists new tools. 　　Officials across the Continent have already begun shifting their focus from preventing drug flow to rehabilitating (making able to live a normal life again) drug users. The new European Union Drugs Strategy for 2000-2004 makes a commitment to increasing the number of successfully treated addicts. Gemany, Italy and Luxembourg have transferred responsibility for drug policy from their Ministries of the Interior to the Ministries of Health or Social Affairs. In Britain, the government has set up a National Treatment Agency to coordinate the efforts of social-service agencies and the Department of Health. And drug-prevention and support agencies there are getting about 30 percent more funding this year. Changing the main national strategy from attacking drug pushers to rehabilitating addicts won’’t come easy. But slowly, steadily, Americans, like Europeans, seem determined to try. According to the text, U. S. prisoners

A:have increased by 2 million in number. B:are most jailed for their drug habit. C:consist of over 1.2 million drug dealers. D:are almost all wrong substance users.

The entertainment industry and technology companies have been warring for years over the dazzling ability of computers and the Internet to copy and transmit music and movies.
A crucial battle ended this week with a ruling by America’s Supreme Court in favour of copyright holder and against two companies that distribute peer-to-peer (P2P) software, which lets users share files online with others. The court’s decision, though ostensibly a victory for content providers, is nevertheless unlikely to stamp out file sharing -- much of which will continue from outside America -- or stop the technological innovation that is threatening the current business models of media firms.
The court was asked to decide whether two firms, Grokster and StreamCast, were liable for copyright infringement by their customers. Two lower courts had said that the firms were not liable, citing a 1984 ruling in favour of Sony’s Betamax video recorder. This held that a technology firm is immune from liability so long as the device concerned is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses". The court did not reinterpret the 1984 decision in light of the Internet. Instead the justices ruled that the case raised a far narrower issue: whether Grokster and StreamCast induced users to violate copyrights and chose not to take the simple steps available to prevent it. Such behaviour would make the firms clearly liable for copyright infringement and end their immunity, even under the Betamax standard. The court reasoned that there were sufficient grounds to believe that inducement occurred, and sent the case back to lower courts for trial.
Although the Grokster decision will probably not squelch innovation as much as many tech firms fear, it should certainly make IT and electronics firms more cautious about how they market their products --and quite right, too. But the Supreme Court’s narrow ruling makes this unlikely -- in- deed, the justices noted the technology’s widespread legitimate use. Yet their decision will surely embolden the entertainment industry to pursue in court any firms that they can claim knowingly allow infringement. This could kill off some small innovative start-ups. On the other hand, the ruling could also provide legal cover for tech firms with the wit to plaster their products with warnings not to violate the law.
But judged from a long-term perspective, this week’s victory for copyright holders seems likely to prove a Pyrrhic one. The Internet and file sharing are disruptive technologies that give consumers vastly more ability to use all sorts of media content, col0yrighted or not. Surely entertainment firms must devise ways to use this technology to sell their wares that will also allow copyright to be protected.
So long as technology continues to evolve in ways that enable legitimate content sharing, piracy will also probably continue to some degree. Happily, in this case the piracy seems to have prompted content fir-rug to compete by offering better fee-based services. The challenge for content providers is to use new technology to create value for customers, and to make those who use content illegally feel bad about it.

A:distributed P2P software illegally. B:allowed users sharing without permission. C:violated the copyright of entertainment firms. D:took advantage of Betamax standard.

U.S. prisons are filled with drug offenders; the number of prisoners tripled over the past 20 years to nearly 2 million, with 60 to 70 per cent testing positive for substance abuse on arrest. The country has spent billions of dollars attacking the problem at its roots. But there is growing consensus that the "war on drug" has been lost. The United States is still the world’’s largest consumer of illegal substances; cocaine continues to pour over the border from Mexico. "Traffic" taps into the national frustration, depicting the horrors of both drugs and the drug war. Without taking sides, the film illuminates the national debate and poses on alternative that Americans seem increasingly willing to consider: finding new ways to treat, rather than merely punish, drug abuse. 　　Policy revolutions―like legalizing narcotics (drugs producing sleep or insensibility) ―remain a distant dream. But there is growing public awareness that the money and energy wasted on trying to check the flow of drugs into the United States might be better spent on trying to control demand instead. Voters in several states are far ahead of the politicians, approving ballot initiatives that offer more treatment opinions. "Drugs courts" that allow judges to use carrots and sticks to compel substance-abuse treatment have grown fifty-fold since the mid-1990s, part of a new understanding that, even with frequent relapses( returns to a formal state), treatment is much less expensive for society than jail and ban. 　　Drug addiction is increasingly being viewed as more a disease than a crime. Science is yielding clues about the "hedonic (of pleasure ) region" of the brain, while breakthrough medications and greater understanding of the mental-health problems that underlie many addictions are giving therapists new tools. 　　Officials across the Continent have already begun shifting their focus from preventing drug flow to rehabilitating (making able to live a normal life again) drug users. The new European Union Drugs Strategy for 2000-2004 makes a commitment to increasing the number of successfully treated addicts. Gemany, Italy and Luxembourg have transferred responsibility for drug policy from their Ministries of the Interior to the Ministries of Health or Social Affairs. In Britain, the government has set up a National Treatment Agency to coordinate the efforts of social-service agencies and the Department of Health. And drug-prevention and support agencies there are getting about 30 percent more funding this year. Changing the main national strategy from attacking drug pushers to rehabilitating addicts won’’t come easy. But slowly, steadily, Americans, like Europeans, seem determined to try. According to the text, U. S. prisoners

A:have increased by 2 million in number. B:are most jailed for their drug habit. C:consist of over 1.2 million drug dealers. D:are almost all wrong substance users.

U.S. prisons are filled with drug offenders; the number of prisoners tripled over the past 20 years to nearly 2 million, with 60 to 70 per cent testing positive for substance abuse on arrest. The country has spent billions of dollars attacking the problem at its roots. But there is growing consensus that the "war on drug" has been lost. The United States is still the world’’s largest consumer of illegal substances; cocaine continues to pour over the border from Mexico. "Traffic" taps into the national frustration, depicting the horrors of both drugs and the drug war. Without taking sides, the film illuminates the national debate and poses on alternative that Americans seem increasingly willing to consider: finding new ways to treat, rather than merely punish, drug abuse. 　　Policy revolutions―like legalizing narcotics (drugs producing sleep or insensibility) ―remain a distant dream. But there is growing public awareness that the money and energy wasted on trying to check the flow of drugs into the United States might be better spent on trying to control demand instead. Voters in several states are far ahead of the politicians, approving ballot initiatives that offer more treatment opinions. "Drugs courts" that allow judges to use carrots and sticks to compel substance-abuse treatment have grown fifty-fold since the mid-1990s, part of a new understanding that, even with frequent relapses( returns to a formal state), treatment is much less expensive for society than jail and ban. 　　Drug addiction is increasingly being viewed as more a disease than a crime. Science is yielding clues about the "hedonic (of pleasure ) region" of the brain, while breakthrough medications and greater understanding of the mental-health problems that underlie many addictions are giving therapists new tools. 　　Officials across the Continent have already begun shifting their focus from preventing drug flow to rehabilitating (making able to live a normal life again) drug users. The new European Union Drugs Strategy for 2000-2004 makes a commitment to increasing the number of successfully treated addicts. Gemany, Italy and Luxembourg have transferred responsibility for drug policy from their Ministries of the Interior to the Ministries of Health or Social Affairs. In Britain, the government has set up a National Treatment Agency to coordinate the efforts of social-service agencies and the Department of Health. And drug-prevention and support agencies there are getting about 30 percent more funding this year. Changing the main national strategy from attacking drug pushers to rehabilitating addicts won’’t come easy. But slowly, steadily, Americans, like Europeans, seem determined to try. According to the text, U. S. prisoners

A:have increased by 2 million in number. B:are most jailed for their drug habit. C:consist of over 1.2 million drug dealers. D:are almost all wrong substance users.

The traditional model for systems development was that an IT department used （1） which is a process-centered technique, and consulted users only when their input or approval was needed. Compared with traditional methods, many companies find that JAD allows （2） to participate effectively in the requirements modeling process. When properly used, JAD can result in a more accurate statement of system requirements, a beret understanding of common goals, and a stronger commitment to the success of the new system. RAD is a （3） technique that speeds up information systems development and produces a functioning information system. While the end product of JAD is a(an) （4）, the end product of RAD is the new information system. The RAD model consists of tour phases. During the （5）, users interact with systems analysts and develop models and prototypes that represent all system processes, outputs, and inputs.

A:project managers B:system administrators C:software programmers D:key users