2015年考研英语阅读理解测试题6

当前位置：

2015年考研英语阅读理解测试题6

发表时间：2014/8/31 22:00:38 来源：互联网点击关注微信：

As usual, Americas Supreme Court ended its annual term this week by delivering a clutch of controversial decisions. The one that caught the attention of businessmen, and plenty of music lovers, was a ruling concerning the violent downloading of free music from the internet.

This case is only the latest episode in a long-running battle between media and technology companies. In 1984, in a case involving Sony’s Betamax video recorder, the Supreme Court ruled that technology firms are not liable if their users infringe copyright, provided the device is “capable of substantial non-infringing uses”. For two decades, this served as a green light for innovations. Apple’s iTunes, the legal offspring of illegal internet file-sharing, is among the happy results. But lately, things have turned against the techies. In 2000, a California court shut down Napster, a distributor of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software. It had, the court decided, failed to stop copyright violations.

In its ruling this week, the court unanimously took the view that two other P2P firms, Grokster and StreamCast, could be held liable if they encourage users to infringe copyrights. The vast majority of content that is downloaded using their software infringes copyrights, which media firms say eats into their sales. Although the software firms argued they should not be responsible for their customers’ actions, the court found that they could be sued if they actually encouraged the infringement, and said that there was evidence that they had done so. On the other hand, the court did not go as far as media firms demanded: they wanted virtually any new technology to be vulnerable to legal action if it allowed any copyright infringement at all.

However, the music industry is only now embracing online sales and even experimenting itself with P2P because violent piracy has demonstrated what consumers really want, and forced these firms to respond. The Supreme Court tried to steer a middle path between these claims, and did a reasonable job. But the outcome of the case is nevertheless unsatisfactory. That’s not the court’s fault. It was struggling to apply a copyright law which has been worse than anachronistic in the digital age.

In America, the length of copyright protection has increased enormously over the past century, from around 28 years to as much as 95 years. The same trend can be seen in other countries. In June Britain signaled that it may extend its copyright term from 50 years to around 90 years. This makes no sense. Copyright was originally intended to encourage publication by granting publishers a temporary monopoly on works so they could earn a return on their investment. But the internet and new digital technologies have made the publication and distribution of works much easier and cheaper. Publishers should therefore need fewer, not more, property rights to protect their investment. Technology has tipped the balance in favour of the public domain.

A first, useful step would be a drastic reduction of copyright back to its original terms—14 years, renewable once. The Supreme Court has somewhat reluctantly clipped the wings of copyright pirates; it is time for Congress to do the same to the copyright holders. [536 words]

6. What were things like during the two decades since the 1984 Sony case?

[A] Technology firms were immune from copyright lawsuits.

[B] The doors to technological innovation were kept wide open.

[C] Copyright holders could expect protection from the legal system.

[D] The technology could be used for both legal purposes and illegal ones.

7. By citing the example of Grokster and StreamCast, the author intends to show that .

[A] some electronic products are no longer protected by the copyright law

[B] technology companies are exposed to risks of copyright violation suits

[C] the technological innovation is threatening the interests of media firms

[D] it becomes illegal to provide technological tools to pirates

8. The expression “worse than anachronistic” (Line 5, Paragraph 4) might probably means .

[A] misplaced in time 〖WB〗[B] hard to comply with