CNN News:美最高院提審網(wǎng)絡(luò)電視侵權(quán)案

A Supreme Court decision concerning race and college admissions. It's our first story today on CNNSTUDENT NEWS. We are happy to have you watching.

最高法院就種族問(wèn)題和大學(xué)招生的一項(xiàng)決定。今天的CNN學(xué)生新聞我們首先關(guān)注這一事件。感謝你一如既往的守候。

Back in 2006, 58 percent of voters in the state of Michigan decided that race shouldn't factor into college admissions. That public colleges can't give preferential treatment to people based on race, gender or where they are from.

早在2006年, 密歇根州58%的選民投票決定種族問(wèn)題不應(yīng)該列入大學(xué)招生的考慮范圍內(nèi)。公立大學(xué)不能基于種族、性別或國(guó)籍給予人們優(yōu)惠待遇。

But last year, a lower court struck down the law saying it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of equal protection.

但是去年,一家下級(jí)法院駁回該法律稱其違反了美國(guó)憲法所承諾的同等保護(hù)權(quán)。

Well, this went to the Supreme Court, the final legal authority in the U.S. It ruled six to two that the lower court didn't have the right to overturn Michigan's law. So, it wasn't a decision directly about affirmative action, but about who has the power to resolve the controversy. Because of the ruling, Michigan's law against preferential treatment can't stay in place.

這要獲得美國(guó)法律的最權(quán)威機(jī)構(gòu)最高法院批準(zhǔn)方能施行。而這一機(jī)構(gòu)以6:2裁決下級(jí)法院沒(méi)有推翻密歇根法律的權(quán)利。所以,這并不是對(duì)于平權(quán)法案的直接決定,而是誰(shuí)有解決爭(zhēng)議的能力。因?yàn)榇舜尾脹Q，密歇根反對(duì)優(yōu)惠待遇的法律已經(jīng)站不住腳。

Yesterday, the high court also heard the case involving Aereo. It's a company that allows subscribers to watch and record TV channels without having to get cable, which is more expensive. Aereo has thousands of TV antennas. They captured the free over the air signals of TV stations, connect them to a DVR and then allows subscribers to watch them from a mobiledevice.

昨天最高法院也就涉及Aereo的案件舉行了聽(tīng)證會(huì)。這家公司允許沒(méi)有有線電視用戶觀看及錄制的電視頻道，而且這種方式價(jià)格相對(duì)低廉。Aereo有成千上萬(wàn)的電視天線。他們獲得免費(fèi)的電視臺(tái)信號(hào),將它們連接到DVR上,然后允許用戶從移動(dòng)設(shè)備上觀看。

Now, it's time for the nine justices of the Supreme Court to rule on whether Aereo is legal or not.

現(xiàn)在輪到最高法院的9位大法官裁決Aereo是否合法。

On Tuesday, the justices heard oral arguments in this case, which has been bubbling up for two years. Ever since Aereo came on to the market in New York City offering customers a new way to watch over the airwaves television stations via the Internet. Aereo charges $8 a month, and it disrupts the existing ecosystem for television in the United States. Because stations, local stations in New York City have gotten used to receiving retransmission fees from cable and satellite companies that want to rebroadcast their content.

周二法官們聽(tīng)取了已經(jīng)沸沸揚(yáng)揚(yáng)鬧騰2年這一事件的口頭辯論。自那時(shí)起Aereo在紐約市場(chǎng)上為客戶提供一種通過(guò)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)觀看電視廣播電視臺(tái)的全新方式。Aereo對(duì)此收取每月8美元費(fèi)用，就是這樣的行為被認(rèn)為破壞了現(xiàn)有美國(guó)電視的生存方式。因?yàn)榧~約當(dāng)?shù)仉娕_(tái),電視臺(tái)已經(jīng)習(xí)慣了從希望重播自家內(nèi)容的有線電視和衛(wèi)星電視公司收取轉(zhuǎn)播費(fèi)。

While Aereo works around that system, it has its own array of tiny antennas that allow customers to watch TV without having to pay for cable or satellite and thus, without having to pay for those retransmission fees. All of the broadcasters say, this is a blatant copyright violation. And here on Tuesday, we heard a vigorous debate about what Aereo really is. The broadcasters say it's a gimmick that should be essentially ruled to be illegal and made extinct. Aereo says it's - this is not about copyright at all. They say what they are doing is perfectly legal because of the way they've set up the array of antennas.

雖然Aereo的運(yùn)作也需要該系統(tǒng),但它自己的一系列小天線允許客戶收看電視而無(wú)需支付有線或衛(wèi)星電視轉(zhuǎn)播費(fèi)。所有的廣播公司表示這是公然侵犯版權(quán)。而在這周二我們聽(tīng)到一場(chǎng)關(guān)于Aereo到底是什么的激烈辯論。廣播公司表示這是一個(gè)噱頭,應(yīng)該基本上裁定為非法并且需要根除。然而Aereo表示這不是關(guān)于版權(quán)問(wèn)題。他們自己的所作所為完全合法,因?yàn)樗麄円呀?jīng)設(shè)置了一系列的天線。