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.
一级建造师二级建造师消防工程师造价工程师土建职称房地产经纪人公路检测工程师建筑八大员注册建筑师二级造价师监理工程师咨询工程师房地产估价师 城乡规划师结构工程师岩土工程师安全工程师设备监理师环境影响评价土地登记代理公路造价师公路监理师化工工程师暖通工程师给排水工程师计量工程师