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?

　　詞匯注釋

　　1. peer-to-peer 對等網絡

　　2. ostensibly 表面上地

　　3. stamp out 撲滅，踩滅

　　4. squelch 妨礙

　　5. embolden 鼓勵

　　6. knowingly 有意識地

　　7. plaster 粘貼

　　8. Pyrrhic victory 得不償失的勝利

　　難句講解

　　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.

　　[簡析] 本句話的主干是“The court’s decision is nevertheless unlikely to stamp out file sharing or stop technological innovation…”。Though引導短語是插入語，作讓步狀語;破折號里面的內容是在解釋file sharing; or 引導的定語從句修飾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.

　　[簡析] 本句話的主干是“the justices ruled that…”。That引導的是賓語從句;冒號后面的句子是在解釋issue，其中的it指的是violate copyrights這件事。

　　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.

　　[簡析] 本句話的主干是“it should certainly make IT and electronics firms more cautious…”。Although引導的是讓步狀語從句，其中的as much as引導的是比較狀語從句;it 指的是the Grokster decision;how 引導的是賓語從句;破折號里面的內容是在進一步說明前面的句子。

　　答案與解析

　　1. B 細節題。本題的問題是“美國最高法院的裁決 ”。題干中的“America’s Supreme court”出自文章第二段第一句話中，表明本題與第二段有關。第二段首先提到了最高法院的裁決，接著指出，雖然表面上看來是網絡資源供應商的勝利，但是，法院的裁決卻不可能消除文件共享。[B]“對資源共享沒有產生什么影響”與此意符合，為正確答案。雖然第二段第一句話提到，裁決有利于版權所有者、不利于兩家公司，但第二句話卻說“法院的裁決卻不可能消除文件共享”，而文件共享是盜版的重要前提，說明[A]“確實沉重打擊了盜版業”與文意不符;該段第二句話說“法院的裁決不可能阻止技術革新”，并且第四段提到，針對Grokster公司一案的裁決可能不會妨礙革新，說明[C]“可能阻礙科技公司的創新”不對;根據第二段可知，裁決對娛樂業有利是表面現象，并不是事實，所以[D]“可能引導娛樂業走向繁榮”與文意不符。

　　2. B 細節題。本題的問題是“針對Groksier公司一案的裁決是基于這樣的證據,Grokster公司”。題干中的“Grokster”，出自文章第三段第一句話中，表明本題與第三段有關。第三段首先介紹了最高法院的裁決，接著指出，本案提出了一個狹隘得多的問題，即Grokster和StreamCast這兩家公司是否引誘用戶侵犯版權，并且故意不采取任何簡單可行的措施來防止這種事情的發生，而最高法院認為，有充分的理由使人相信存在這種誘導。這說明，裁決的依據是該公司可能引誘用戶侵犯版權。[B]“允許用戶未經許可共享文件”與此意符合，為正確答案。該段第一句話提到，最高法院被要求就Grokster和StreamCast這兩家公司是否應該為其用戶侵犯版權的行為負責一案做出裁決，說明銷售P2P軟件并不是法院裁決的依據，所以[A]“非法銷售P2P軟件”與文意不符;根據第三段可知，侵犯版權的是該公司的顧客，不是公司本身，所以[C]“侵犯了娛樂公司的版權”與文意不符;該段提到，即使是按照Betamax牌錄像機一案的裁決標準，公司也應該對侵犯版權的行為承擔責任，說明[D]“利用了Betamax一案的標準”與文意不符。

　　3. A 詞義題。本題的問題是“單詞‘Pyrrhic’(第五段)可以被 代替”。第四段介紹了裁決的影響，第五段接著指出，從長遠看，版權所有者本周的勝利似乎可能被證明是一場得不償失的勝利，隨后分析說，因特網和文件共享是破壞性的技術，這些技術使得用戶更能使用各種有版權的或沒版權的傳媒資源。這說明，版權所有者的勝利可能是一場不值得的勝利。[Al tt不值得的”是對此意的改寫，為正確答案。[B]“無法接受的”、[C]“沒有意義的”、[D]“不合理的”都不準確。

　　4. D 細節題。本題的問題是“在最后一段，作者提出， ”。最后一段提到，侵犯版權的行為似乎已經促使資源公司通過提供更好的收費服務來競爭，資源供應商面臨的挑戰就是利用新技術為用戶創造價值。[D]“應該提供更好的付費服務來對付盜版行為”是對此意的概括，為正確答案。文中說的是“只要技術以允許分享合法資源的方式繼續發展那么侵犯版權的行為也將繼續下去”，說明[A]“應該在一定程度上提倡盜版”與文意不符;文中說的是“資源供應商面臨的挑戰就是利用新技術為用戶創造價值”，[B]“資源供應商應該促進技術創新”是對此意的曲解;作者在最后一段并沒有提出要娛樂公司保護版權的問題，所以[C]“所有娛樂公司都應該保護版權”屬于無中生有。

　　5. B 主旨題。本題的問題是“本文的最佳標題可能是 ”。文章首先提到了最高法院的裁決，接著指出，雖然表面上看來是網絡資源供應商的勝利，但是，法院的裁決卻不可能消除文件共享，隨后的段落介紹了法院的裁決，指出，從長遠看，版權所有者的勝利可能被證明是一場得不償失的勝利，接著分析了原因。這說明，本文主要是在解釋法院的裁決是否真的對版權所有者有利。[B]“對版權所有者有利的裁決是一場真正的勝利嗎?”是對本文內容的恰當概括，可以表達本文的主題，為正確答案。本文雖然提出應該保護版權，但是并沒有強調保護版權的緊迫性，所以[A]“應該立即保護版權”不能表達本文的主題;最后一段雖然提到“侵犯版權的行為也將繼續下去”，但并沒有說盜版行為失去控制，所以[C]“盜版行為失去了控制”不能表達本文的主題;科技公司只是文中在介紹裁決時提到的細節，所以[D]“科技公司可以走多遠?”不能表達本文的主題。

　　編輯推薦：

　　2015年考研網上正式報名入口已開通 點擊進入

　　考試吧提醒：2015年考研十月大事記

　　2015年考研政治十大重要考點預測

　　2015考研英語閱讀理解模擬題及答案匯總

　　考試吧考研題庫(新增數學三) 智能做題首選 立即體驗!