Read the following text carefully and then translate the underlined segments into Chinese. Your translation should be written neatly on ANSWER SHEET 2. (10 points)
Hollywood and the music industry can file piracy lawsuits against technology companies caught encouraging customers to steal music and movies over the Internet. (46) The justices, aiming to curtail what they called a "staggering" volume of piracy online, largely set aside concerns that new lawsuits would inhibit technology companies from developing the next iPod or other high-tech gadgets or services. The unanimous ruling is expected to have little immediate impact on consumers, though critics said it could lead companies to include digital locks to discourage illegal behavior.
The justices left in place legal protections for companies that merely learn customers might be using products for illegal purposes. (47)Copying digital files such as movies, music or software programs "threatens copyright holders as never before" because it's so easy and popular, especially among young people. Entertainment companies maintain that online thieves trade 2.6 billion songs, movies and other digital files each month.
(48) The ruling represents a significant victory for Hollywood and record labels, which have resorted to suing individually the thousands of computer users caught sharing music and movies online. In a tweak at entertainment companies and a demonstration of legal purposes for file-sharing computer users circulated the court's published opinion over Internet file-sharing services. Government-produced documents generally are not protected by copyright.
(49)Grokster Ltd. and Streamcast Networks Inc., developers of leading Internet-file-sharing software, can be sued because they deliberately encouraged customers to download copyrighted files illegally so they could build a larger audience and sell more advertising. Writing for the court.
(50)But the court also said a technology company couldn't be sued if it merely learns its customers are using its products for illegal purposes. That balancing test, the court said, is necessary so that it "does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful promise." The court said it wanted to protect an inventor who must predict how consumers months or years in the future might use new technology.