★英語(yǔ)聽(tīng)力頻道為大家整理的英語(yǔ)聽(tīng)力下載：美國(guó)電視產(chǎn)業(yè) 廣播電視業(yè)界的強(qiáng)盜。更多閱讀請(qǐng)查看本站英語(yǔ)聽(tīng)力頻道。
Television in America
美國(guó)電視產(chǎn)業(yè)
The bandit of broadcast
廣播電視業(yè)界的強(qiáng)盜
The Supreme Court's decision on Aereo may affect more than the TV business
法院將對(duì)Aereo案件進(jìn)行裁決，而其影響范圍或許會(huì)超出電視產(chǎn)業(yè)本身
CHET KANOJIA, the founder of Aereo, wonders which actor will play him, when Hollywood makes a film about his startup disrupting the television industry. “Probably a white guy,” Mr Kanojia, who is Indian-American, says drolly. Whether his firm will feature on the big screen or rapidly be forgotten depends on the outcome of a lawsuit between Aereo and America's big free-to-air broadcast networks—such as ABC, CBS and Fox—which is being weighed by the Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the case were heard on April 22nd and a decision is due within months.
當(dāng)好萊塢的電影公司想要拍一部關(guān)于Aereo創(chuàng)始人Chet Kanojia如何瓦解整個(gè)電視產(chǎn)業(yè)的電影之時(shí)，這位老板也在思考著到底讓哪一位演員來(lái)扮演自己?！盎蛟S會(huì)挑個(gè)白人，”印度裔美國(guó)人Kanojia先生戲謔地說(shuō)道。最后他的電影到底是能成功登上大熒幕，抑或是迅速被大家所遺忘，要取決于一場(chǎng)官司的最終結(jié)果。法院正在對(duì)這場(chǎng)官司進(jìn)行權(quán)衡，而對(duì)抗雙方則是Aereo與美國(guó)免費(fèi)廣播電視巨頭，如美國(guó)廣播公司、哥倫比亞廣播公司和?？怂箯V播公司。案件的口頭辯論在4月22日已經(jīng)完成，而最終裁決將在數(shù)月之內(nèi)宣布。
\
Mr Kanojia and Aereo are not yet household names, but are the subject of much debate among geeks, copyright lawyers and TV executives. Aereo picks up the signals of free-to-air channels and streams them to its subscribers over the internet, so they can watch them with the same good picture quality as they get via cable, but for a fraction of the average monthly cable bill. Each subscriber is assigned one of a huge number of thumbnail-sized aerials in Aereo's warehouses. Aereo claims this is in principle no different—and thus no less legal—than the subscriber putting an antenna on his roof. But broadcast bosses see it differently. They say Aereo is violating copyright law by not paying them for a “public performance” of their content.
Kanojia與Aereo目前還不是一對(duì)家喻戶曉的名字，但對(duì)于極客、版權(quán)律師以及電視主管們來(lái)說(shuō)，這確實(shí)是極為火熱的話題。Aereo公司接收免費(fèi)廣播電視的頻道信號(hào)，并把這些頻道轉(zhuǎn)化成流媒體以供他們的付費(fèi)訂閱用戶在線觀看。因此，這些用戶在付出相當(dāng)于普通有線電視月租費(fèi)用的很小一部分，就可以享受跟有線電視一樣的高畫(huà)質(zhì)電視服務(wù)。相當(dāng)于在Aereo公司的倉(cāng)庫(kù)里，有數(shù)以百萬(wàn)計(jì)的“微縮遠(yuǎn)程天線”，而每個(gè)訂閱用戶都能分到其中一條。Aereo公司宣稱(chēng)，這與免費(fèi)廣播電視的服務(wù)沒(méi)什么不同，就像是讓他們的客戶在自己家的房頂安裝天線接收信號(hào)一樣，是非常合法的行為。但廣播電視公司的老板們卻不這么認(rèn)為。他們堅(jiān)持Aereo公司違反了版權(quán)法，因?yàn)楹笳邲](méi)有給他們提供的節(jié)目?jī)?nèi)容付費(fèi)，就進(jìn)行了“公開(kāi)傳播”。
So far Aereo is available in only 11 cities. But broadcasters worry that it threatens a fast-growing revenue stream: the fees they get from cable- and satellite-TV operators that retransmit their channels. Such fees came to about $3.3 billion in 2013, according to SNL Kagan, a data firm. The pay-TV companies would not want to keep paying these if Aereo did not have to. So broadcasters have threatened that if Aereo wins, they will take their content off the public airwaves and offer it through pay-TV only.
目前，Aereo的服務(wù)范圍僅限于11個(gè)城市。但是，廣播電視公司擔(dān)心這樣的服務(wù)會(huì)威脅到自身的快速增長(zhǎng)利潤(rùn)源：對(duì)有線或者衛(wèi)星電視運(yùn)營(yíng)商處所收取的轉(zhuǎn)播費(fèi)用。數(shù)據(jù)公司SNL Kagan所提供的資料顯示，2013年該轉(zhuǎn)播費(fèi)用總計(jì)為33億美元。如果Aereo公司無(wú)需為轉(zhuǎn)播權(quán)買(mǎi)單，那么其他付費(fèi)電視公司也將停止為自己的轉(zhuǎn)播權(quán)付費(fèi)。因此廣播電視公司對(duì)Aereo公司做出了相應(yīng)的警告：如果Aereo公司勝訴，那么他們將停止在公共無(wú)線頻道上提供電視轉(zhuǎn)播服務(wù)，轉(zhuǎn)交由付費(fèi)電視公司供應(yīng)給觀眾。
Aereo has raised around $100m from various investors, including Barry Diller, a veteran media executive. Mr Diller's volte-face is worthy of a prime-time drama: having launched Fox, one of America's four big broadcast networks, in the 1980s, he is now a booster for broadcast's bandit. But if Aereo loses it will probably shut down. The government has supported the big broadcasters, undermining Aereo's chances. As for the courts, so far their judgments on Aereo's legality have been mixed: last year two federal courts sided with Aereo, but in February a federal court in Utah ordered it to close its operations in that state.
Aereo已經(jīng)得到了各路投資者約1億美元的資金，這其中還包括傳媒大亨巴里·迪勒。迪勒先生截然不同的投資轉(zhuǎn)變就像是一出黃金時(shí)段的電視?。?0年代，他成立了?？怂箯V播公司，而現(xiàn)在他卻成了電視業(yè)大盜的贊助者。然而Aereo公司一旦敗訴，很可能對(duì)其意味著關(guān)門(mén)大吉。目前政府已經(jīng)與各大廣播電視巨頭在統(tǒng)一戰(zhàn)線，使Aereo公司的勝訴幾率大減。在法庭方面，他們對(duì)Aereo合法性的判決并沒(méi)有達(dá)成共識(shí)：去年兩個(gè)聯(lián)邦法庭支持Aereo公司，但今年2月猶他州的一個(gè)聯(lián)邦法庭則勒令其停止在本州內(nèi)的所有業(yè)務(wù)。
Legislation has not kept up with new technology. Cable in America is regulated by a 1992 law, and copyright by a 1976 one. Both were written before the rise of the commercial internet, notes Rich Greenfield of BTIG, a research firm.
法律法規(guī)沒(méi)有跟上新科技的步伐。有線電視產(chǎn)業(yè)受1992年出臺(tái)的法律管制，而版權(quán)問(wèn)題則受1976年的法律所管理。來(lái)自調(diào)查機(jī)構(gòu)BTIG的Rich Greenfield表示，在網(wǎng)絡(luò)商務(wù)興起之前這兩部法律就已經(jīng)制訂完成。
Many are watching the case to make sure the verdict does not imply that it is piracy to transfer any sort of content via the internet without a licence from whoever owns the copyright to it. That could be costly for firms that store media files in the “cloud” for paying clients, such as Apple and Google. As Stephen Breyer, one of the Supreme Court justices, said in this week's hearing, “What disturbs me…is I don't understand what the decision for you or against you…is going to do to all kinds of other technologies.”
許多人正關(guān)注著本案的進(jìn)展。他們要確定本次的宣判是否意味著在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上傳播任何未經(jīng)版權(quán)擁有者許可的內(nèi)容，都會(huì)被認(rèn)定為盜版行為。一旦如此，許多為付費(fèi)用戶提供“云端”影音資料儲(chǔ)存的公司將會(huì)出現(xiàn)極大的經(jīng)營(yíng)成本負(fù)擔(dān)，比如蘋(píng)果和谷歌。法院的法官之一斯蒂芬·布雷耶在本周的聆訊過(guò)程當(dāng)中表示：“困擾著我的問(wèn)題是...我不能確定本案的判決會(huì)對(duì)其他各類(lèi)科技產(chǎn)生什么樣的影響，無(wú)論好壞?！?
Television in America
美國(guó)電視產(chǎn)業(yè)
The bandit of broadcast
廣播電視業(yè)界的強(qiáng)盜
The Supreme Court's decision on Aereo may affect more than the TV business
法院將對(duì)Aereo案件進(jìn)行裁決，而其影響范圍或許會(huì)超出電視產(chǎn)業(yè)本身
CHET KANOJIA, the founder of Aereo, wonders which actor will play him, when Hollywood makes a film about his startup disrupting the television industry. “Probably a white guy,” Mr Kanojia, who is Indian-American, says drolly. Whether his firm will feature on the big screen or rapidly be forgotten depends on the outcome of a lawsuit between Aereo and America's big free-to-air broadcast networks—such as ABC, CBS and Fox—which is being weighed by the Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the case were heard on April 22nd and a decision is due within months.
當(dāng)好萊塢的電影公司想要拍一部關(guān)于Aereo創(chuàng)始人Chet Kanojia如何瓦解整個(gè)電視產(chǎn)業(yè)的電影之時(shí)，這位老板也在思考著到底讓哪一位演員來(lái)扮演自己?！盎蛟S會(huì)挑個(gè)白人，”印度裔美國(guó)人Kanojia先生戲謔地說(shuō)道。最后他的電影到底是能成功登上大熒幕，抑或是迅速被大家所遺忘，要取決于一場(chǎng)官司的最終結(jié)果。法院正在對(duì)這場(chǎng)官司進(jìn)行權(quán)衡，而對(duì)抗雙方則是Aereo與美國(guó)免費(fèi)廣播電視巨頭，如美國(guó)廣播公司、哥倫比亞廣播公司和?？怂箯V播公司。案件的口頭辯論在4月22日已經(jīng)完成，而最終裁決將在數(shù)月之內(nèi)宣布。
\
Mr Kanojia and Aereo are not yet household names, but are the subject of much debate among geeks, copyright lawyers and TV executives. Aereo picks up the signals of free-to-air channels and streams them to its subscribers over the internet, so they can watch them with the same good picture quality as they get via cable, but for a fraction of the average monthly cable bill. Each subscriber is assigned one of a huge number of thumbnail-sized aerials in Aereo's warehouses. Aereo claims this is in principle no different—and thus no less legal—than the subscriber putting an antenna on his roof. But broadcast bosses see it differently. They say Aereo is violating copyright law by not paying them for a “public performance” of their content.
Kanojia與Aereo目前還不是一對(duì)家喻戶曉的名字，但對(duì)于極客、版權(quán)律師以及電視主管們來(lái)說(shuō)，這確實(shí)是極為火熱的話題。Aereo公司接收免費(fèi)廣播電視的頻道信號(hào)，并把這些頻道轉(zhuǎn)化成流媒體以供他們的付費(fèi)訂閱用戶在線觀看。因此，這些用戶在付出相當(dāng)于普通有線電視月租費(fèi)用的很小一部分，就可以享受跟有線電視一樣的高畫(huà)質(zhì)電視服務(wù)。相當(dāng)于在Aereo公司的倉(cāng)庫(kù)里，有數(shù)以百萬(wàn)計(jì)的“微縮遠(yuǎn)程天線”，而每個(gè)訂閱用戶都能分到其中一條。Aereo公司宣稱(chēng)，這與免費(fèi)廣播電視的服務(wù)沒(méi)什么不同，就像是讓他們的客戶在自己家的房頂安裝天線接收信號(hào)一樣，是非常合法的行為。但廣播電視公司的老板們卻不這么認(rèn)為。他們堅(jiān)持Aereo公司違反了版權(quán)法，因?yàn)楹笳邲](méi)有給他們提供的節(jié)目?jī)?nèi)容付費(fèi)，就進(jìn)行了“公開(kāi)傳播”。
So far Aereo is available in only 11 cities. But broadcasters worry that it threatens a fast-growing revenue stream: the fees they get from cable- and satellite-TV operators that retransmit their channels. Such fees came to about $3.3 billion in 2013, according to SNL Kagan, a data firm. The pay-TV companies would not want to keep paying these if Aereo did not have to. So broadcasters have threatened that if Aereo wins, they will take their content off the public airwaves and offer it through pay-TV only.
目前，Aereo的服務(wù)范圍僅限于11個(gè)城市。但是，廣播電視公司擔(dān)心這樣的服務(wù)會(huì)威脅到自身的快速增長(zhǎng)利潤(rùn)源：對(duì)有線或者衛(wèi)星電視運(yùn)營(yíng)商處所收取的轉(zhuǎn)播費(fèi)用。數(shù)據(jù)公司SNL Kagan所提供的資料顯示，2013年該轉(zhuǎn)播費(fèi)用總計(jì)為33億美元。如果Aereo公司無(wú)需為轉(zhuǎn)播權(quán)買(mǎi)單，那么其他付費(fèi)電視公司也將停止為自己的轉(zhuǎn)播權(quán)付費(fèi)。因此廣播電視公司對(duì)Aereo公司做出了相應(yīng)的警告：如果Aereo公司勝訴，那么他們將停止在公共無(wú)線頻道上提供電視轉(zhuǎn)播服務(wù)，轉(zhuǎn)交由付費(fèi)電視公司供應(yīng)給觀眾。
Aereo has raised around $100m from various investors, including Barry Diller, a veteran media executive. Mr Diller's volte-face is worthy of a prime-time drama: having launched Fox, one of America's four big broadcast networks, in the 1980s, he is now a booster for broadcast's bandit. But if Aereo loses it will probably shut down. The government has supported the big broadcasters, undermining Aereo's chances. As for the courts, so far their judgments on Aereo's legality have been mixed: last year two federal courts sided with Aereo, but in February a federal court in Utah ordered it to close its operations in that state.
Aereo已經(jīng)得到了各路投資者約1億美元的資金，這其中還包括傳媒大亨巴里·迪勒。迪勒先生截然不同的投資轉(zhuǎn)變就像是一出黃金時(shí)段的電視?。?0年代，他成立了?？怂箯V播公司，而現(xiàn)在他卻成了電視業(yè)大盜的贊助者。然而Aereo公司一旦敗訴，很可能對(duì)其意味著關(guān)門(mén)大吉。目前政府已經(jīng)與各大廣播電視巨頭在統(tǒng)一戰(zhàn)線，使Aereo公司的勝訴幾率大減。在法庭方面，他們對(duì)Aereo合法性的判決并沒(méi)有達(dá)成共識(shí)：去年兩個(gè)聯(lián)邦法庭支持Aereo公司，但今年2月猶他州的一個(gè)聯(lián)邦法庭則勒令其停止在本州內(nèi)的所有業(yè)務(wù)。
Legislation has not kept up with new technology. Cable in America is regulated by a 1992 law, and copyright by a 1976 one. Both were written before the rise of the commercial internet, notes Rich Greenfield of BTIG, a research firm.
法律法規(guī)沒(méi)有跟上新科技的步伐。有線電視產(chǎn)業(yè)受1992年出臺(tái)的法律管制，而版權(quán)問(wèn)題則受1976年的法律所管理。來(lái)自調(diào)查機(jī)構(gòu)BTIG的Rich Greenfield表示，在網(wǎng)絡(luò)商務(wù)興起之前這兩部法律就已經(jīng)制訂完成。
Many are watching the case to make sure the verdict does not imply that it is piracy to transfer any sort of content via the internet without a licence from whoever owns the copyright to it. That could be costly for firms that store media files in the “cloud” for paying clients, such as Apple and Google. As Stephen Breyer, one of the Supreme Court justices, said in this week's hearing, “What disturbs me…is I don't understand what the decision for you or against you…is going to do to all kinds of other technologies.”
許多人正關(guān)注著本案的進(jìn)展。他們要確定本次的宣判是否意味著在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上傳播任何未經(jīng)版權(quán)擁有者許可的內(nèi)容，都會(huì)被認(rèn)定為盜版行為。一旦如此，許多為付費(fèi)用戶提供“云端”影音資料儲(chǔ)存的公司將會(huì)出現(xiàn)極大的經(jīng)營(yíng)成本負(fù)擔(dān)，比如蘋(píng)果和谷歌。法院的法官之一斯蒂芬·布雷耶在本周的聆訊過(guò)程當(dāng)中表示：“困擾著我的問(wèn)題是...我不能確定本案的判決會(huì)對(duì)其他各類(lèi)科技產(chǎn)生什么樣的影響，無(wú)論好壞?！?