电信用户下载1  Audio download

电信用户下载2  Audio download

网通/教育下载  Audio download

请将您的听写稿直接在此贴下跟帖。如果您是根据已贴出的听写稿进行修改，请在您的跟帖中用红笔注明修改之处，具体的听写规则请查看新手指南版块或者听写版块置顶贴。

下载常用网上听写复读机，请点击此处


提示：本站将保留最近2个月内的听力音频视频资料，如果以上听力文件无法播放则表示已经在论坛删除，请到博客英语网听力库下载以前的文件，点击此处进入听力库

homework


YouTube’s multi-billion-pound success was built initially on user-generated content; so successful has it become that the company’s owner Google recently announced plans to pay contributors shares of advertising revenue. But as anyone who uses the site knows, and who doesn’t, there are also vast amounts of professionally made material, so why, says one film and TV giant, shouldn’t it be paid as well?


Viacom’s cases are far from being user-generated. Much of YouTube’s most popular content is actually made at great expense on a commercial basis by film and television companies. And that for such material simply to be regurgitated free of charge on what essentially is a rival channel amounts to copyright theft.


A New York court has granted Viacom access to Google’s records of Internet Protocol addresses—every individual signature of every individual computer that has been used to watch clips on the site. Viacom has given what it calls unequivocal promise not to use the information to uncover users’ identities; it says it simply wants to find out how much of YouTube’s business is predicated on people watching copyrighted material. So is there a real risk of privacy?


It’s actually much harder than it might seem to truly anonymize this quantity of data. It’s not just a matter of taking off the usernames or even replacing the IP addresses with random-looking numbers. If you’ve got records of individuals viewing tens or hundreds or in some cases thousands of different YouTube videos, it actually can be quite easy to link those together and then to link them back to a given individual.


Google says it’s disappointed that the court granted what it calls Viacom’s overreaching demand for viewing history, and it’s pressing to be allowed to anonymize the information before it hands it over. But the search engine company has come into criticism itself from electronic privacy campaigners for keeping user data for commercial purposes. These high stakes bet between old and new media giants has thrown a light on wider-reaching issues of privacy and anonymity on the Internet.

on sylvia_qian

YouTube's multibillion-pound success was built initially on user-generated content; so successful has it become that the company's owner Google recently announced plans to pay contributors shares of advertising revenue. But as anyone who uses the site knows, and who doesn't, there are also vast amounts of professionally made material, so why, says one film and TV giant, shouldn't it be paid as well?

Viacom's cases are far from being user-generated. Much of YouTube's most popular content is actually made at great expense on a commercial basis by film and television companies. And that for such material simply to be regurgitated free of charge on what essentially is a rival channel amounts to copyright theft.

A New York court has granted Viacom access to Google's records of Internet Protocol addresses—every individual signature of every individual computer which has been used to watch clips on the site. Viacom has given what it calls unequivocal promise not to use the information to uncover users' identities; it says it simply wants to find out how much of YouTube's business is predicated on people watching copyrighted material. So is there a real risk to privacy?

It's actually much harder than it might seem to, to truly anonymize this quantity of data. It's not just a matter of taking off the usernames or even replacing the IP addresses with random-looking numbers. If you've got records of individuals viewing tens or hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of different YouTube videos, it actually can be quite easy to link those together and then to link them back to a given individual.

Google says it's disappointed that the court granted what it calls Viacom's overreaching demand for viewing history, and it's pressing to be allowed to anonymize the information before it hands it over. But the search engine company has come into criticism itself from electronic privacy campaigners for keeping user data for commercial purposes. These high stakes bet between old and new media giants has thrown a light on wider-reaching issues of privacy and anonymity on the Internet.

ktdid

YouTube's multibillion-pound success was built initially on user-generated content; so successful has it become that the company's owner Google recently announced plans to pay contributors shares of advertising revenue. But as anyone who uses the site knows, and who doesn't, there are also vast amounts of professionally made material, so why, says one film and TV giant, shouldn't it be paid as well?

Hello, and welcome to This Week In God.

Viacom's cases are far from being user-generated. Much of YouTube's most popular content is actually made at great expense on a commercial basis by film and television companies. And that for such material simply to be regurgitated free of charge on what essentially is a rival channel amounts to copyright theft.

A New York court has granted Viacom access to Google's records of Internet Protocol addresses—every individual signature of every individual computer which has been used to watch clips on the site. Viacom has given what it calls unequivocal promise not to use the information to uncover users' identities; it says it simply wants to find out how much of YouTube's business is predicated on people watching copyrighted material. So is there a real risk to privacy?

It's actually much harder than it might seem to, to truly anonymize this quantity of data. It's not just a matter of taking off the usernames or even replacing the IP addresses with random-looking numbers. If you've got records of individuals viewing tens or hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of different YouTube videos, it actually can be quite easy to link those together and then to link them back to a given individual.

Google says it's disappointed that the court granted what it proves Viacom's overreaching demand for viewing history, and it's pressing to be allowed to anonymize the information before it hands it over. But the search engine company has come into criticism itself from electronic privacy campaigners for keeping user data for commercial purposes. This high-stakes bet between old and new media giants has thrown a light on wider-reaching issues of privacy and anonymity on the Internet.

on jason

YouTube's multibillion-pound success was built initially on user-generated content; so successful has it become that the company's owner Google recently announced plans to pay contributors shares of advertising revenue. But as anyone who uses the site knows, and who doesn't, there are also vast amounts of professionally-made material, so why, says one film and TV giant, shouldn't it be paid as well?
Hello, and welcome to This Week In God.
Viacom's cases are far from being user-generated. Much of YouTube's most popular content is actually made at great expense on a commercial basis by film and television companies. And that for such material simply to be regurgitated free of charge on what essentially is a rival channel amounts to copyright theft.
A New York court has granted Viacom access to Google's records of Internet Protocol addresses—every individual signature of every individual computer which has been used to watch clips on the site. Viacom has given what it calls an unequivocal promise not to use the information to uncover users' identities; it says it simply wants to find out how much of YouTube's business is predicated on people watching copyrighted material. So is there a real risk for privacy?
It's actually much harder than it might seem to, to truly anonymize this quantity of data. It's not just a matter of taking off the usernames or even replacing the IP addresses with random-looking numbers. If you've got records of individuals viewing tens or hundreds or, in some cases, thousands of different YouTube videos, it actually can be quite easy to link those together and then to link them back to a given individual.
Google says it's disappointed that the court granted what it calls Viacom's overreaching demand for viewing history, and is pressing to be allowed to anonymize the information before it hands it over. But the search engine company has come into criticism itself from electronic privacy campaigners for keeping user data for commercial purposes. This high-stakes bet between old and new media giants has thrown a light on wider-reaching issues of privacy and anonymity on the Internet.

HW

Youtube's multi-million pounds access was built initially on user-generated content. So successful it has become, the company zona, Google recently announced plans to A contribute shares on advertising revenue. But as anyone who used this site knows it doesn't, there're also vast amounts of professionally made material. So Via says, one film TV giant should it be paid as well.
Hello and welcome to this weekend guide.
Viacom's cases are far from being user-generated, much of youtube's most popular content is actually made at great expense on a commercial bases by film and television companies. And for such material, simply to be regurgitated free of charge on what essentially is rival channel, amongst copyright thieft.
Viacom
The New York court has granted viacom access to google's records, internet protocol addresses, every individual signature over every individual computer which has been used to watch clips on the site. Viacom has given what's called unequivocal promise, not using information to uncover user's indentities. It says simply wants to find out how much youtube business is predicate on people watching copyright material. So is there real risk to privacy?
In fact it's much harder than it might see to truly anonymous this quantity of data. It's not just a matter of taking off the usernames, or even replacing the ip addresses with random looking numbers. If you got records of individuals viewing tens of hundreds of, some cases thousands of different youtube vidoes, it actuall can be quite easy to link those together and then to link back to given individual.
Google says it's disappointed that the court granted what causes viacom overreaching demand for viewing history. It is pressing to alter the anonymous information before it hands over. But the searching engine company comes for criticism itself for the electronic privacy campaigners for keeping using data for commercial purposes. This high stakes * between old and new media giants threw a light on right-reaching issues of privacy and anonymity on the internet.