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 favor 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 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 copingright infringement by their customers. Two lower courts had said that the firms were nor liable， citing a 1984 ruling in favor of Sony‘ Betamax vidil recorder， this held that a technology firm is immune from liability so long as the device concerned is “capable of substantial non-infringing uses”。 The court die 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 StrwarnCast induced users to violate copurights and chose not to take the simple steps available to prevent it. Such behavior 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 trivial.

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. But the Supreme Court‘s narrow ruling makes this unlikely –indeed， the justices noted the technology’s widespread legitimate use. Yet their decision will surely emcolden 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， 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.

1. The ruling of America‘s Supreme Court

[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.

2. 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.

3. The word “Pyrrhic” (Para. 5) can be replaced by

[A] undeserving

[B] unacceptable

[C] pointless

[D] unreasonable

4. In the last paragraph， the author suggests that

[A] piracy to some extent be advocated.

[B] content providers promot tech innovation.

[C] all entertainment firms protect the sopyright.

[D] better fee-based services be offered to combat piracy.

5. The best title for the text might be

[A] Copyright， to Be Protected Urgently

[B] The Pro-copyright Holder Verdict， a True Victory?

[C] Piracy out of Control.

[D] Tech Firms， How Far to Go?

　　词汇注释

1. peer-to-peer 对等网络

2. ostensibly 表面上地

3. stamp out 扑灭，踩灭

4. squelch 妨碍

5. embolden 鼓励

6. knowingly 有意识地

7. plaster 粘贴

8. Pyrrhic victory 得不偿失的胜利

　　难句讲解

1. 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 technological innovation that is threatening the current business models of media firms.

[简析] 本句话的主干是“The court’s decision is nevertheless unlikely to stamp out file sharing or stop technological innovation…”。Though引导短语是插入语，作让步状语;破折号里面的内容是在解释file sharing; or 引导的定语从句修饰innovation。

2. Instead the justices ruled that the case raised a far narrower issue: whether Grokster and StrwarnCast induced users to violate copyrights and chose not to take the simple steps available to prevent it.

[简析] 本句话的主干是“the justices ruled that…”。That引导的是宾语从句;冒号后面的句子是在解释issue，其中的it指的是violate copyrights这件事。

3. 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.

[简析] 本句话的主干是“it should certainly make IT and electronics firms more cautious…”。Although引导的是让步状语从句，其中的as much as引导的是比较状语从句;it 指的是the Grokster decision;how 引导的是宾语从句;破折号里面的内容是在进一步说明前面的句子。

　　答案与解析

1. B 细节题。本题的问题是“美国最高法院的裁决 ”。题干中的“America’s Supreme court”出自文章第二段第一句话中，表明本题与第二段有关。第二段首先提到了最高法院的裁决，接着指出，虽然表面上看来是网络资源供应商的胜利，但是，法院的裁决却不可能消除文件共享。[B]“对资源共享没有产生什么影响”与此意符合，为正确答案。虽然第二段第一句话提到，裁决有利于版权所有者、不利于两家公司，但第二句话却说“法院的裁决却不可能消除文件共享”，而文件共享是盗版的重要前提，说明[A]“确实沉重打击了盗版业”与文意不符;该段第二句话说“法院的裁决不可能阻止技术革新”，并且第四段提到，针对Grokster公司一案的裁决可能不会妨碍革新，说明[C]“可能阻碍科技公司的创新”不对;根据第二段可知，裁决对娱乐业有利是表面现象，并不是事实，所以[D]“可能引导娱乐业走向繁荣”与文意不符。

2. B 细节题。本题的问题是“针对Groksier公司一案的裁决是基于这样的证据,Grokster公司”。题干中的“Grokster”，出自文章第三段第一句话中，表明本题与第三段有关。第三段首先介绍了最高法院的裁决，接着指出，本案提出了一个狭隘得多的问题，即Grokster和StreamCast这两家公司是否引诱用户侵犯版权，并且故意不采取任何简单可行的措施来防止这种事情的发生，而最高法院认为，有充分的理由使人相信存在这种诱导。这说明，裁决的依据是该公司可能引诱用户侵犯版权。[B]“允许用户未经许可共享文件”与此意符合，为正确答案。该段第一句话提到，最高法院被要求就Grokster和StreamCast这两家公司是否应该为其用户侵犯版权的行为负责一案做出裁决，说明销售P2P软件并不是法院裁决的依据，所以[A]“非法销售P2P软件”与文意不符;根据第三段可知，侵犯版权的是该公司的顾客，不是公司本身，所以[C]“侵犯了娱乐公司的版权”与文意不符;该段提到，即使是按照Betamax牌录像机一案的裁决标准，公司也应该对侵犯版权的行为承担责任，说明[D]“利用了Betamax一案的标准”与文意不符。

3. A 词义题。本题的问题是“单词‘Pyrrhic’(第五段)可以被 代替”。第四段介绍了裁决的影响，第五段接着指出，从长远看，版权所有者本周的胜利似乎可能被证明是一场得不偿失的胜利，随后分析说，因特网和文件共享是破坏性的技术，这些技术使得用户更能使用各种有版权的或没版权的传媒资源。这说明，版权所有者的胜利可能是一场不值得的胜利。[Al tt不值得的”是对此意的改写，为正确答案。[B]“无法接受的”、[C]“没有意义的”、[D]“不合理的”都不准确。

4. D 细节题。本题的问题是“在最后一段，作者提出， ”。最后一段提到，侵犯版权的行为似乎已经促使资源公司通过提供更好的收费服务来竞争，资源供应商面临的挑战就是利用新技术为用户创造价值。[D]“应该提供更好的付费服务来对付盗版行为”是对此意的概括，为正确答案。文中说的是“只要技术以允许分享合法资源的方式继续发展那么侵犯版权的行为也将继续下去”，说明[A]“应该在一定程度上提倡盗版”与文意不符;文中说的是“资源供应商面临的挑战就是利用新技术为用户创造价值”，[B]“资源供应商应该促进技术创新”是对此意的曲解;作者在最后一段并没有提出要娱乐公司保护版权的问题，所以[C]“所有娱乐公司都应该保护版权”属于无中生有。

5. B 主旨题。本题的问题是“本文的最佳标题可能是 ”。文章首先提到了最高法院的裁决，接着指出，虽然表面上看来是网络资源供应商的胜利，但是，法院的裁决却不可能消除文件共享，随后的段落介绍了法院的裁决，指出，从长远看，版权所有者的胜利可能被证明是一场得不偿失的胜利，接着分析了原因。这说明，本文主要是在解释法院的裁决是否真的对版权所有者有利。[B]“对版权所有者有利的裁决是一场真正的胜利吗?”是对本文内容的恰当概括，可以表达本文的主题，为正确答案。本文虽然提出应该保护版权，但是并没有强调保护版权的紧迫性，所以[A]“应该立即保护版权”不能表达本文的主题;最后一段虽然提到“侵犯版权的行为也将继续下去”，但并没有说盗版行为失去控制，所以[C]“盗版行为失去了控制”不能表达本文的主题;科技公司只是文中在介绍裁决时提到的细节，所以[D]“科技公司可以走多远?”不能表达本文的主题。