大学体验英语第三版综合教程4 Unit3答案

Unit3

Listen

1. exclusive

2. fixed

3. authorize

4. distributor

5. raised

6. downloading

7. products

8. ordered it to pay $25 000 9. An exact number of CDs and total damages will be determined at a November hearing 10. We believe that everyone should have the right to listen to the music they purchase

think about it

1. This is a controversial issue. On the one hand, those who are positive about it believe that downloading music for free is something that most of us have engaged in one time or another. It is certainly no high crime. Sharing music files online for free is a mini-consumer revolution and boon for artists — it is definitively ethical. On the other hand, those who are against it argue that it's no different from going into the artist's house and stealing his CD off the shelf. By stealing music, you are not only hurting musicians but also breaking the law.

2. This question has two different but valid answers. If one answers the question from a strictly legal point of view, copyright infringement is clearly not theft. It is only a violation of one or more specific statutes, violation is different from theft. In general, the legal definition of theft involves the unauthorized taking of another’s property. Even though we use the phrase Intellectual Property rather casually, making a copy of a protected work does not involve taking that property —it involves violating the owners’ right to control copying of the property. Others who are willing to rely on a more informal definition of the word “theft” assert that copyright infringement is theft. It may not meet the standard for statutory theft, but violating someone’s right to control copying at a minimum represents an ethereal opportunity cost, and in many cases tangible economic loss. To the person who finds their work stolen, the feeling of theft is quite real.

3. The purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress of useful arts and science by protecting the exclusive right of authors and inventors to benefi t from their works of authorship.

Passage A

网络版权执法——赚钱之道

丹佛——布莱恩•希尔，一位北卡罗来纳州20岁的博主，去年12月在他自己的博客上发布了一张机场保安人员搜身的照片，没想到由此引来了一场法律战。

一个月后，希尔先生收到一封电子邮件，发件人是《拉斯维加斯太阳报》的一位记者，他正在调查一家专为报社代理版权诉讼的内华达公司。电子邮件通知希尔先生，他也是Righthaven公司起诉的对象之一。尽管那张机场照片在希尔先生从网上撤下之前就早已在网上疯传，但这张照片却是《丹佛邮报》11月18日首次刊发的。

希尔先生撤下了照片，但为时已晚。法院的传票送到了他的家里。该诉讼要求法律赔偿。尽管没有提出赔偿的具体数字，但希尔先生被控“故意”侵权，根据联邦版权法，在这种情况下诉讼方可获得高达15 000美元的赔偿。

“我很震惊，”希尔先生说。“我想，也许这是一个玩笑或者只是用来吓唬我的。我真不知道那张照片是受版权保护的。”

在过去一年，各大报纸一直在想方设法保护它们投放在网上的信息内容。Righthaven公司在科罗拉多和内华达州针对未经《丹佛邮报》或《拉斯维加斯评论期刊》的授权直接在网上转贴的资料所提起的类似的联邦诉讼就超过了200起。

旗下拥有《丹佛邮报》的新闻媒体集团的副总裁莎拉•格兰斯在一封电子邮件中说，搜身的照片已在300多个网站上转载使用，而这些网站均未注明照片版权属于《邮报》或其摄影师。

《评论期刊》的投资人兼斯蒂芬斯媒体的法律总顾问马克•西纽贝尔赞同格兰斯的观点，说剪贴文章就是“窃取我们所编辑材料的潜在读者和网络流量。”

然而，一些批评家却争辩说，Righthaven公司的做法过于严厉，他们希望在人们还没有搞清楚是否违反了联邦版权法之前就速战速决。通常情况下，他们不会对当事人进行警示就提起诉讼。Righthaven公司很少预先发出通知，要求网站撤下不属于自己的信息资料，而是直接索要赔偿，并要求取消该网站域名。

根据一些对此类案件兴趣日益浓厚的互联网法律专家的观察，这种行径十分简单:Righthaven公司搜寻在网络上转贴的报刊材料，通常是一篇文章、摘录或是一幅照片，再去获取版权，然后由公司就提起诉讼。

圣克拉拉大学法学院高科技法律研究所主任埃里克•戈德曼说，在网上重新粘贴已发布的材料，如果未减少其原有市场价值，就适用“公平使用”的原则。关注该诉讼的其他评论家也认为，出于讨论的目的而重新粘贴的资料不构成侵权。

“许多被告对版权法知之甚少”，戈德曼先生说。“他们不是要与报纸竞争，而仅仅是不知道有关规定。”戈德曼先生