单选题
单选题
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:indeed hit the piracy industry hard. B:has little impact on content sharing. C:may prevent tech firms from innovating. D:can lead to a flourish of entertainment industry.
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.
Bram Cohen was an unusual kid. While other first-graders were outside playing, he was writing computer code. By junior high, he could solve Rubik’s Cube in a few minutes. A college dropout, he went on to co-found a hacker’s convention in San Francisco. " I was always really weird, " he says. Yet it was only two years ago, at age27, that he learned why. Cohen says he has trouble examining his thoughts and making eye contact but has learned to control his symptoms using behavioral psychology. Now he has a new task: warding off accusations by the Hollywood film industry that a breakthrough piece of software he wrote is threatening the movie business the way Napster menaced—and subsequently revolutionized—the music world.
Cohen is the author of a free program called BitTorrent, which has been downloaded more than 20 million times and underpins a new generation of file-sharing technology. BitTorrent addresses a couple of the biggest problems of file sharing—that downloading bogs down when lots of folks access a file at once, and that some people leech, downloading content but refusing to share with others on the network. BitTorrent eliminates the bottleneck by having everyone share little pieces of a file at the same time—a process techies call swarming. And the program prevents leeching since folks must upload a file while they download it. All this means that the more popular the content, the more efficiently it zips through the network—bad news if you’re a movie studio trying to hinder the trading of films like The In credibles. Says Andrew Parker of the Web-tracking firm CacheLogic, " It has turned the download world on its head. "
Hollywood has good reason to be worried. BitTorrent downloads account for one-third of Internet traffic, according to CacheLogic. So-called tracker sites post links to movies, video games and episodes of TV shows, the content of which is then traded at express speeds. With more folks logging onto the Internet via broadband connections, online trading of movies and TV shows is surging. Downloads of feature films alone are up 175% in the past year, says BigChampagne. In response, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) recently filed dozens of civil suits against tracker sites in the U. S. and Britain, as well as criminal complaints against sites in France. The industry is hoping that in a case scheduled for next month, the U. S. Supreme Court will rule against firms that produce file-sharing software, such as Morpheus and Grokster. Neither Cohen nor BitTorrent is named in the lawsuit, although an MPAA spokesman says Cohen is under examination for continuing to develop the software " and making it easy to steal copyright material. /
We can infer from the passage that______.
A:The Incredibles enjoys great popularity B:BitTorrent allows people to share files C:Napster lays a foundation for file-sharing D:CacheLogic is a trader in Web download
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:indeed hit the piracy industry hard. B:has little impact on content sharing. C:may prevent tech firms from innovating. D:can lead to a flourish of entertainment industry.
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.
A:families with too many kids lend to he unhappy B:children can be a major source of unhappiness and trouble C:sharing holidays are not always pleasant D:you need less money to have a sharing holiday with your friends
{{B}}第二篇{{/B}}
| {{B}}? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ?The Roles of Men and Women{{/B}} ? ?In a family where the roles of men and women are not sharply separated and where many household tasks are shared to a greater or lesser extent, notions of male superiority are hard to maintain. The pattern of sharing in tasks and in decisions makes for equality, and this in turn leads to further sharing. In such a home, the growing boy and girl learn to accept that equality more easily than did their parents and to prepare more fully for participation in a world characterized by cooperation rather than by the "battle of the sexes". ? ?If the process goes too far and man’s role is regarded as less important—and that has happened in some cases—we are as badly off as before, only in reverse. ? ?It is time to realize the role of the man in the American family. We are getting a little tired of "Momism(母亲崇拜)"—But we don’t want to exchange it for a "neo—Popism(爸爸至上)." What we need, rather, is the recognition that bringing up children involves a partnership of equals. There are signs that psychiatrists(精神病医生), psychologist(心理学家), social workers, and specialists on the family are becoming more aware of the part men play and that they have decided that women should not receive all the credit—not all the blame. We have almost given up saying that a woman’s place is in the home. We are beginning, however, to analyze man’s place in the home and to insist that he does have a place in it. Nor is that place irrelevant to the healthy development of the child. ? ?The family is a co-operative enterprise for which it is difficult to lay down rules, because each family needs to work out its own ways for solving its own problems. ? ?Excessive authoritarianism(权力主义，__主义) has unhappy consequences, whether it wears skirts or trousers, and the ideal of equal rights and equal responsibilities is pertinent(有关的) not only to a healthy democracy, but also to a healthy family. |
A:masculine (男性化的) women B:effeminate (女性化的) men C:inequality D:further sharing
{{B}}第二篇{{/B}}
| {{B}}? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ?The Roles of Men and Women{{/B}} ? ?In a family where the roles of men and women are not sharply separated and where many household tasks are shared to a greater or lesser extent, notions of male superiority are hard to maintain. The pattern of sharing in tasks and in decisions makes for equality, and this in turn leads to further sharing. In such a home, the growing boy and girl learn to accept that equality more easily than did their parents and to prepare more fully for participation in a world characterized by cooperation rather than by the "battle of the sexes". ? ?If the process goes too far and man’s role is regarded as less important—and that has happened in some cases—we are as badly off as before, only in reverse. ? ?It is time to realize the role of the man in the American family. We are getting a little tired of "Momism(母亲崇拜)"—But we don’t want to exchange it for a "neo—Popism(爸爸至上)." What we need, rather, is the recognition that bringing up children involves a partnership of equals. There are signs that psychiatrists(精神病医生), psychologist(心理学家), social workers, and specialists on the family are becoming more aware of the part men play and that they have decided that women should not receive all the credit—not all the blame. We have almost given up saying that a woman’s place is in the home. We are beginning, however, to analyze man’s place in the home and to insist that he does have a place in it. Nor is that place irrelevant to the healthy development of the child. ? ?The family is a co-operative enterprise for which it is difficult to lay down rules, because each family needs to work out its own ways for solving its own problems. ? ?Excessive authoritarianism(权力主义，__主义) has unhappy consequences, whether it wears skirts or trousers, and the ideal of equal rights and equal responsibilities is pertinent(有关的) not only to a healthy democracy, but also to a healthy family. |
A:the role of the father may become an inferior one B:the role of the mother may become an inferior one C:the children will grow up believing that that life is a battle of the sexes D:sharing leads to constant arguing
您可能感兴趣的题目
