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:Copyright, to Be Protected Urgently. B:The Pro-copyrightholder Verdict, a True Victory C:Piracy out of Control. D:Tech Firms, How Far to Go

Text 1
Whoever said that victory has many fathers and defeat is an orphan, surely had never heard of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In the case of the hapless multilateral trade body and its long suffering representatives, the total failure of the opening meeting of the socalled Millennium trade round has lots of people boasting of their role in the violent physical struggle. Well. That’s just brilliant. They are proud of being part of a movement that wants to wreck the most important engine of economic growth, prosperity and overall global rising living standards we have—the freedom of trade and movement of people and goods between nations.
The 135-member WTO is composed of sovereign governments wishing to further this goal and ease the settlement of international trade disputes. From the sounds emanating from Seattle, though, it would now seem the WTO has now replaced the Trilateral Commission and the Freemasons as candidate No. 1 to take over the world.
Everybody has his favorite Seattle story. The city’s police chief will have plenty of time to think about his, having now resigned in disgrace over the loss of control of downtown Seattle. The Seattle business community maybe more inclined to brood over theirs; the poor fools invested $ 9 million to attract the meeting to their fine city. What stands out more I would nominate the union of steel workers who were marching in protest. It’s an image that will boggle the mind for years to come.
The debate now is over just how effective this anti-globalist coalition will turn out to be. In the heat of the moment, it always looks as though the world as we know it is coming to an end. But the overwhelming likelihood is that we have not actually seen a replay of the anti-Vietnam War movement, which had much clearer focus, obviously, though its consequences were far-reaching. How long, after all, can you protest against cheap imports when those same imports are all over your house
No, the real reason for the disaster in Seattle is political, and reports coming out of the meeting point to President Clinton as a major culprit. Which may be both good and bad. Taking the long view, other trade rounds have had difficult beginnings, too. It took years to get the Uruguay Round under way, which finally happened in 1986. Thankfully, we will soon be electing another president, and it should be someone whose actions match his rhetoric.
Still, it is a disgrace that the world’s greatest trading nation, i.e. the United States, is currently led by a man whose motivations are so narrowly political and egocentric that he has now wrecked any chance of entering the history books as a champion of free trade.

A:the victory of suffering representatives. B:the failure of WTO's opening meeting. C:the role of international free trade. D:the dynamics of economic growth.

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 best title for the passage might be

A:Copyright, to Be Protected Urgently. B:The Pro-copyrightholder Verdict, a True Victory C:Piracy out of Control. D:Tech Firms, How Far to Go

The statement "victory has many fathers and defeat is an orphan" (Para. 1) is used to introduce

A:the victory of suffering representatives. B:the failure of WTO's opening meeting. C:the role of international free trade. D:the dynamics of economic growth.

Victory is just ______

A:round the comer B:at the comer C:in the comer D:with the comer

It is the Party ______ has been leading us from victory to victory.

A:since B:which C:who D:that

It is the Party ______ has been leading us from victory to victory.

A:since B:which C:who D:that

Victory is just ______

A:round the comer B:at the comer C:in the comer D:with the comer