2015考研英语阅读理解精读P5—工学类.docVIP

2015考研英语阅读理解精读P5—工学类 Passage 5 　　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 揷apable 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梐nd quite right. But the Supreme Court抯 narrow ruling makes this unlikely 杋ndeed, the justices noted the technology抯 widespread legitimate u