经济学人中英双语版对照120篇 大师兄翻硕

                                          经济学人中英双语对照120篇
                                                        前言
          《经济学人》创办于1843年9月，创办者为英国人詹姆士·威尔逊。该杂志大多数文章机智幽默，有力度，严肃又不失诙谐。《经济学人》杂志以高质量的内容、有深度的文笔而著称，是社会精英必不可少的读物，也是考研、翻硕、翻译考试等重要出题来源。
            《经济学人中英双语版120篇·2016版》精选2005年—2016年时政、经济、科技、人文、社会、书评、财经等板块文章120篇。其中Passage 1-35为14年之前的文章；Passage 36-80为15年和16年文章；Passage 81-120为16年4月份之后文章。每篇均为精选，题材和篇幅适合翻译，难度大于翻译硕士考试和英语二级笔译。
             《经济学人中英双语版120篇·2016版》尚未全部翻译完成。此版本为80篇版本。部分文章借用了网络或ECO中文网的译文，特此表示感谢。注明为【大师兄翻硕原创翻译】的为本人原创。部分文章暂未提供译文，报名学员可在课堂听译文讲解和下载译文打印，非学员通过微博查看图片版译文。大师兄翻硕还整理有：
        《经济学人文章阅读250篇》（暂无译文，精选2014-2016年文章）、《大师兄英汉翻译练习精选100篇》（带高质量译文）、《大师兄翻译硕士词汇10000》、《习李演讲中英对照50篇·2016版》、《历年英语二三级笔译真题及译文 大师兄翻硕》等。
           本文档提供无水印PDF版和word版（需自行整理排版）。百度【经济学人中英对照120篇 大师兄】即可在贴吧和豆瓣看到连载的版本，复制即可。已经打印过35篇版本的同学此版本直接打印Passage 36-80。下一次更新将在2016年8-10月。新版本在质量和数量上都超过旧版本。此外为方便阅读，大师兄提供原文与译文分为两个文档的版本。经济学人的配套视频讲解正在制作中。加Q172580333获取本文档。
2017年1-6月经济学人官方译文40篇（2017年9月21日更新）：
链接：http://pan.baidu.com/s/1pLmKQYv
密码：kc0k
                                                               目录
Passage 1 Questions of equity银行高管限薪问题
Passage 2 The evolution of English 英语的进化
Passage 3 Tackling internet piracy 打击网络盗版
Passage 4 Outside directors and children first 外部董事和儿童优先
Passage 5 Nature likes biological weapons more than human villains do
          大自然比人类恶棍更喜欢生物武器
Passage 6 China and India: Contest of the century 中印的世纪之争
Passage 7 Google's corporate culture: Creative tension 谷歌的企业文化：创新危机
Passage 8 American newspapers: Not dead yet 美国报业：尚未完蛋
Passage 9 The third industrial revolution 第三次工业革命
Passage 10 Myriad's gene-patent battle 米瑞德的基因专利诉讼大战
Passage 11 It’ll cost you 苏格兰独立代价不菲
Passage 12 Messenger, shot 枪口之下会计准则制定者
Passage 13 The perils of panflation 泛膨胀的危险
Passage 14 Graft work: A new study lights up the shadows 新研究发现贿赂更隐蔽
Passage 15 Overfishing: Ocean's eleventh hour? 过度捕捞：海洋的危机时刻？
Passage 16 High, wide or handsome? 面对通胀预期我们能高枕无忧？
Passage 17 Can India become a great power? 印度能成为一个强国吗？
Passage 18 America’s lawyers: Guilty as charged 美国律师：罪名成立
Passage 19 Casino capitalism 赌场资本主义
Passage 20 Ominous: Bird flu spreads around the globe不祥之兆：禽流感在全球蔓延
Passage 21 Professionalising the professor 使教授队伍专业化
Passage 22 A modern Marx 皮凯蒂——当代的马克思
Passage 23 Enemies of progress 进步的敌人
Passage 24 The experience curve 经验曲线
Passage 25 Know your selfie 认识自拍
Passage 26 Scientific publishing: The paperless library 科研文章的发表：无纸化的论文库
Passage 27 Depression in the West: Tidal wave 西方人的抑郁症：汹势浪潮
Passage 28 Go forth and multiply 一往无前，生生不息
Passage 29 The weaker sex 走下坡路的男性
Passage 30 Fair and square动物也有公平与正直感
Passage 31 Cotton, a global history: Spinning tales 棉花，一部全球史：纺织传奇
Passage 32 Europe’s huddled masses 欧洲移民人满为患
Passage 33 The evolution of risk assessment 风险评估的进化
Passage 34 Smarter ways to spend 学会更聪明地花钱
Passage 35 Microsoft and privacy: Change of track 微软的隐私政策：改变追踪用户的行规
——————————————————分割线——————————————————————
《经济学人中英双语版120篇》之01
Passage 1
Questions of equity
Salary caps are a rotten idea; but the crisis also carries lessons for regulators and workers
Sep 25th 2008 | From the print edition
http://www.economist.com/node/12304785
It is easy to understand why many in Congress and beyond have demanded salary caps on bank executives as a condition of approving the Bush administration’s bail-out of the financial system. After all, many of the people who will be leading the effort to get the banks back on their feet were the very same masters of the universe whose greed and myopia brought the industry to its knees in the first place. Nonetheless the lawmakers’ apparent decision to impose some form of still unspecified wage limit, a demand reluctantly accepted by Hank Paulson and the Bush administration this week, is a mistake.
Just now, it is a struggle to keep a straight face when you read the words “talent” and “Wall Street” in the same sentence. And yet, precisely because it is in a mess, the financial system will need decent managers if it is to return to the health that benefits the rest of the economy. The sort of sums that would satisfy Congress as a cap may be far above the incomes of average Americans, but there is no surer way of driving finance offshore or into hedge funds where it is beyond the gaze of regulators. Besides, if ever there was a time when pay in banking and broking is likely to be depressed by the market, it is now. The bubble did not only inflate asset prices, it also inflated pay. Now the bubble has burst and hundreds of thousands of finance professionals want work.
American politicians have a lamentable record of intervening in setting executive pay. In the early years of the Clinton administration, Congress imposed a salary cap of $1m, beyond which firms faced a tax penalty. Pay rose, as one set of executives, beneath the cap, realised that they were “underpaid” and another set gained from an outpouring of creativity, as consultants invented myriad option schemes, perks and pension benefits to get around the limit. This only made it harder for shareholders to know who was getting what.
If the foolishness of Congress setting corporate pay levels is an old lesson, the financial crisis is teaching some new ones to shareholders. First, forget the received wisdom that paying people in large amounts of shares in their own firm ensures they take sensible value-maximising decisions. In the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, the management did not just take reckless gambles with other people’s money. Dick Fuld and Jimmy Cayne took reckless gambles with their own—and still they failed to do the right things and ended up losing most of their fortunes. Outside shareholders should remember that loading up the people at the top with shares can be an aid to corporate governance, but not a substitute for it.
Esop’s fables
For employees, the tale of Lehman, especially after Enron, is a reminder of the danger of having too many savings tied up in the firm where you work. More of the truly talented will now demand their bonuses in cash, or perhaps ask for even more shares. That surely will have an effect on the way that firms recruit staff and on employee share-ownership schemes. Paying ordinary workers in shares is expensive—because equity is costly to issue and discounted by employees. And the idea that ordinary workers who own shares in their firm will stop senior managers taking bad decisions has taken another knock.
The structure of bonus schemes is more important than their level—especially in finance. Foolish short-term risk-taking could be discouraged by matching the timing of bankers’ pay to the timing of the risks they are trading. Britain’s Financial Services Authority may ask banks to put up more capital if their pay structures are dangerously risky. That makes far more sense than capping pay. But in the end companies and shareholders are better at setting salaries than bureaucrats.
大师兄导读：
本文介绍美国政府在金融危机后救助银行业，但前提是要对银行高管的薪酬进行限制。作文对此举持否定态度。作者指出限制高管薪酬不可行的两点原因：其一，银行高管也是金融危机的受害者，许多高管失去工作；其二，过往的类似举措并不成功，而且很愚蠢。作者在最后指出比限制银行高管薪酬更重要的是银行业的“奖金分红机制”。
本文难度较大，因为涉及到2008年金融危机这一背景，文中出现了诸如Hank Paulson，Bear Stearns，Dick Fuld，James Cayne（详见注释）等大多数并不熟悉的名字，如果对本文背景和这些名字不了解，很难搞清楚文章的内容。
大师兄翻硕译文：
薪资问题
——设定薪资上限是个馊主意；但是这场危机也给监管者和金融从业者都上了一课
很容易理解为什么国会内外许多人都要求把限定银行高管的薪酬作为批准布什政府救助金融业的前提。毕竟，许多将带领银行重振旗鼓的人正是这些呼风唤雨的银行高管，起初也是他们的贪婪和短视才让金融业遭受灭顶之灾。然而立法者们对银行高管设定还尚不具体的薪资上限的决定是一个错误，这一限薪要求这周才被财长汉克·保尔森和布什政府勉强接受。
如今，当你在同一个句子里读到“人才”和“华尔街”两个字眼时，你会努力控制自己不要笑出声来。然而，恰恰由于其正处困境，金融业要想复苏就必须有优秀的高管，而它的复苏对其他行业也是大有裨益。尽管合国会心意的薪资上限应该比美国人均收入高很多，但没什么方法能比限制高管薪资更能促使他们把资金转移向国外或者对冲基金了，在这些地方监管者就无法监管其资金了。此外，如果说存在这样一个时期：银行业和经纪业薪资可能因市场而缩水，那么这个时期就是现在。房产泡沫不仅让房产价格膨胀，而且也让高管薪资猛涨。如今泡沫破灭了，数十万金融从业者处于待业状态。
美国政客在干预高管薪资设定上鲜有成效。在克林顿政府的早期，国会将高管薪资上限设定为100万美元，超过这个数字将会受到税收惩罚。但高管薪资还是提高了，因为一部分低于这个上限的高管意识到自己“拿钱少了”，从而要求加薪；而另一部分高管通过发挥各种歪点子也让薪资增加了，因为高管顾问们发明出了名目繁多的股权方案，津贴，退休金补贴来绕过这个限制。结果，限制高管薪资只是让股东们更难知道哪些高管拿了什么做薪水。
如果国会限制银行高管的愚蠢行为对股东们来说是个老教训的话，那么此次金融危机给了他们新的教训。首先，他们该忘掉这样一个广为接受的观点：给高管们大把公司股票就能保证他们能做出实现公司股票价值最大化的决定。在雷曼和贝尔斯登破产的破产事例中我们可以看到，管理层不仅仅是拿着别人钱的去鲁莽地冒险，迪克·富尔德和吉米·凯恩还拿着自己的钱去鲁莽地冒险。但最终他们都未能做出正确的抉择从而失掉了其绝大部分的财产。处于管理层外的股东要牢记，给那些管理者以股票能对公司管理有帮助，但是并不能代替公司管理。
伊索寓言/美丽的童话
对于员工来说，雷曼的故事——特别是安然倒闭之后——提醒了他们把所有储蓄都投到其工作的公司的危险。现在更多真正聪明的人会要求公司用现今给他们支付奖金，甚至可能要求用公司股票。这肯定会对公司招募新员工和员工持股计划产生影响。给普通员工股权会非常昂贵——因为股票发行代价很高，而且给员工的股票还要打折。而普通员工持股高管就不会做出错误决定的观点也饱受质疑。
奖金分配方案的结构比限定奖金额度更重要——尤其是在金融业。在银行高管要冒险的时候给其发薪资能促使他们不做短期的愚蠢冒险行为。如果银行薪资结构有很大危险的话，英国金融服务机构可要求银行用资金支付薪资。但是，终究公司和股东在设定薪资方面比官僚更在行。
注1：Hank Paulson，汉克·保尔森。1999年起担任高盛集团主席和首席执行官，2006年7月就任美国第74任财政部长。华尔街年薪最高者，仅2005年年薪就高达3830万美元。羡慕嫉妒恨吧！
注2：Lehman Brothers，雷曼兄弟。华尔街著名投资银行。该公司成立于1850年。2008年9月15日，由于受次贷危机影响，公司出现巨额亏损，申请破产保护。
注3：Bear Stearns，贝尔斯登公司。全球500强企业之一，成立于1923年，总部位于纽约市，主营金融服务、投资银行、投资管理。原美国华尔街第五大投资银行。2008年金融危机濒临破产，后被摩根大通收购。
注3：Dick Fuld，迪克·富尔德。从1993年起执掌雷曼兄弟公司CEO一职。
注5：James Cayne，吉米·凯恩。1985年成为贝尔斯登公司主席，1993年起兼任CEO。2008年黯然卸任。
词汇：
①bring sth/sb to its knees使……遭受毁灭
②take a knock: to be badly affected by something遭受打击
  His reputation has taken quite a knock following the revelations published in his recent biography.
《经济学人中英双语版120篇》之02
Passage 2
The evolution of English
Talking down
Jan 29th 2004 | From The Economist print edition
www.economist.com/node/21552564
In 1896, William Jennings Bryan, a three-time candidate for the American presidency, gave a speech on a relatively dry financial topic, criticising the gold standard. But his rhetoric was for the ages: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labour this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!"
Just over a hundred years later Sam Brownback, arguing for war against Iraq in a speech to the American Senate, said, "We go at Iraq and it says to countries that support terrorists, there remain six in the world that are as our definition state sponsors of terrorists, you say to those countries: 'We are serious about terrorism, we're serious about you not supporting terrorism on your own soil'."
What happened over the 20th century? Americans (and, to a lesser extent, Britons) no longer expect public figures, whether in oratory or in writing, to command the English language with skill and flair. Nor do they aspire to such command themselves. John McWhorter, a linguist and controversialist of mixed liberal and conservative views, sees the triumph of 1960s counterculture as responsible for the decline of formal English.
Blaming the permissive 1960s is nothing new, but this is not yet another screed against the decline in education. Mr McWhorter's academic speciality is language history and change, and he sees the gradual disappearance of "whom", for example, to be natural and no more lamentable than the loss of the case-endings of Beowulf-era English.
But the cult of the authentic and the personal, "doing our own thing", has spelt the death of formal speech, writing, poetry and music. While even the modestly educated sought an elevated tone when they put pen to paper before the 1960s, even the most well regarded writing since then has sought to capture spoken English on the page. Equally, in poetry, the highly personal, performative genre is the only form that could claim real vibrancy. In both oral and written English, talking is triumphing over speaking, spontaneity over craft.
Illustrated with an entertaining array of examples from both high and low culture, the trend that Mr McWhorter documents is unmistakable. But it is less clear, to take the question of his subtitle, why we should, like, care. As a linguist, he acknowledges that all varieties of human language, including non-standard ones like Black English, can be powerfully expressive-there exists no language or dialect in the world that cannot convey complex ideas. He is not arguing, as many do, that we can no longer think straight because we do not talk proper.
Russians have a deep love for their own language and carry large chunks of memorised poetry in their heads, while Italian politicians tend to elaborate oratory that would seem anachronistic to most English-speakers. Mr McWhorter acknowledges that formal language is not strictly necessary, and proposes no radical education reforms-he is really bemoaning the loss of something beautiful more than useful. We now take our English "on paper plates instead of china". A shame, perhaps, but probably an inevitable one.
大师兄导读：
本文讲述的是英语用法已经从高雅走向俗气这一现象，以前就连没受过多少教育的人都会用高雅的正式英语，而今连公众人物的写作和演讲都用越来越非正式的英语。作者认为是“只做自己的事情”这一心态导致英语用法走向俗气，作者认为这是很惋惜的事情，因为正式英语虽然不实用，但是很优美。
大师兄翻硕译文：
英语的进化
——英语越说越低俗
1896年，曾经三次当选美国总统候选人的威廉姆·詹宁森·布赖恩（William Jennings Bryan）就一个相对枯燥无味的金融话题作了一番演讲，他在其中批评了金本位制度。但他的花言巧语却是适用于那个年代的：“你们不该把带刺的王冠压在劳动人民的额头上；你们也不该将人类钉死在金制的十字架上！”
只不过一百多年后，萨姆·布朗贝克（Sam Brownback）在给美国上议院的发言中为攻打伊拉克辩护道：“我们进军了伊拉克，就支持恐怖分子的国家而言，世界上还有6个符合我们定义的恐怖分子的赞助政府。你们对这些国家说：'我们会严肃对待恐怖主义，我们会严肃对待你们在本国国土上不支持恐怖主义。”
20世纪发生了什么？美国人（还有程度稍轻一点的英国人）人不再期待公众人物能在演讲或者写作中用技巧和天赋来驾驭英语了，而公众人物自己也不渴求这种驾驭能力。John McWhorter，一位语言学家和混杂着自由派和保守派观点的好辩者，在其新书《做自己的事：语言的退化，以及我们为什么应该，呃，在意》一书中认为，20世纪60年的反文化运动的胜利是导致正式英语退化的原因。
责怪放纵的20世纪60年代并不是什么新鲜事，但这次却不是对教育衰落的又一场批判。McWhorter先生的学术专长是语言史和语言演变。例如，他认为“whom”一词在英语中的使用逐渐消失是自然的，和古语中各种词格的词尾的消失一样，都没什么好遗憾的。
然而，崇尚真实性和个人性——“做自己的事情”，导致了正式演讲、写作、诗歌及音乐的消亡。在20世纪60年代以前，即使受过一点点教育的人在提笔书写时也都会寻求一种高雅、正式的格调；而那之后，即便是最受好评的文章也都倾向于口语化。同样地，在诗歌方面，非常个性化、富有表现力的诗歌体裁成了能表现真正的生动性的唯一体裁形式。无论是在口语还是书面语中，随意言谈胜过了正式讲话，不假思索胜过了深思熟虑。
McWhorter先生从高雅和庸俗文化中找了一系列有趣的例子来证明他所记录到的正式英退化的这一趋势是确凿无误的。而他书的副标题提出的“我们为什么应该，呃，在意”。这个问题却不够明确。作为一个语言学家，他承认这一点：各种各样的人类语言，包括像黑人英语这样的非标准语言，都具有强大的表现力——世界上还没有传达不了复杂思想的语言或方言。他并像许多人那样不认为，由于我们说话方式不规范，我们就不能直率地思考。
俄罗斯人深爱自己的语言，他们的脑袋里装着大段诗歌，而意大利政客们则常常构思那些对大多数讲英语者来说语言老式的讲话。McWhorter先生承认正式英语并非不可或缺，也没有提出要进行彻底的改革——他其实只是在为美丽多于实用的正式英语的消失而哀叹。我们现在用“纸盘子”而非“瓷器”盛着我们的英语大餐。这或许令人遗憾，但可能也是不可避免的。
《经济学人中英双语版120篇》之03
Passage 3
Tackling internet piracy: The spider and the web
The latest effort to cut piracy is less dim than its predecessors
Aug 27th 2009, 10:44 | From the print edition
http://www.economist.com/node/14335996
Scottish legend has it that Robert the Bruce once took shelter in a cave, where he noticed a spider repeatedly trying, and failing, to build a web. The struggle against online piracy is beginning to feel the same way. On August 25th the department for business announced another effort to tackle a problem that has defeated lawmakers and media companies in several countries. Robert's spider eventually succeeded. Will Britain's government
The new approach would strengthen a plan laid out earlier this summer. “Digital Britain”, a government white paper, set out a rather relaxed timetable for tackling piracy. Ofcom, the telecommunications regulator, was to establish how much file-sharing was going on. Offenders would at first receive letters. If piracy did not drop by 70%, internet-service providers would be required to roll out stronger measures. Nothing much would happen until 2012.
That plan disappointed music executives. Retail music sales are falling so quickly, in part because of file-sharing, that there may not be much of an industry to protect in three years' time. And piracy is almost as tough to measure as it is to fight. So this week the government proposed giving itself the power to decide when ISPs would have to move against file-sharers. Penalties would be stiffened, too, with persistent pirates losing their broadband connections.
This new proposal has provoked outrage among ISPs, civil-liberties groups and even MPs (which suggests how socially acceptable file-sharing has become). If politicians do not wreck it, judges might. In June a French government plan to sever the connections of persistent pirates was struck down by that country's Constitutional Council. A revised measure has run into trouble with opposition politicians.
Yet the approach is at least less wrong-headed than most of the anti-piracy efforts that have been launched since the appearance of Napster in 1999. Attempts to shut down file-sharing websites have merely encouraged the growth of others. Cutting people's broadband connections, or slowing them down, is also much smarter than trying to imprison offenders; suing people has proven expensive, unpopular and ineffective. John Kennedy, who runs the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a trade group, reckons file-sharers are much more likely to be deterred by actions taken against their friends than by high-profile prosecutions of people they have never heard of.
Despite their protests, the ISPs have already conceded the principle that they can, and in some circumstances should, police what people do online. They commonly block access to child-pornography websites. And some may conclude that it is in their own interests to restrain file-sharing. Later this year Virgin Media and BSkyB are expected to launch music-subscription services allowing broadband customers to download music legally. That gives them a reason to crack down on the illegal stuff.
Such offerings may also succeed in reducing the demand for pirated music. The best way to wean people off illegal but free downloading is to supply them with legal music that appears to be free. For many young people, an unlimited downloading service bundled with an ISP subscription would fit the bill. A survey released earlier this month by the University of Hertfordshire revealed that 59% of people aged 18 to 24, and 96% of those aged 14 to 17, do not pay their own monthly internet-access bill. They may not worry about the consequences of digital piracy. Their parents, who pay the bills, probably do.
大师兄导读：
本文讲述的是英国打击盗版的种种努力。作者在第一段中用了苏格兰国王罗伯特一世看到一只蜘蛛坚持不懈结网的故事来类比今天英国打击盗版这一难题。作者指出起诉那些盗版的人这一方法来打击盗版并不可行，最有效的办法就是让唱片公司等提供免费合法的音乐下载服务。
参考译文：
打击网络盗版：蜘蛛结网的故事
——打击盗版的最新举措比之前的比稍好点
苏格兰有这样一个传说：国王罗伯特一世(Robert the Bruce)在一个山洞中休息，在那里他发现了一只蜘蛛正在不停地织网，它虽然一直没有成功，但它却从未放弃。打击网络盗版的过程与此也开始有了相似之处。8月25日，商业部门宣布了一项新举措，以应对网络盗版这一在有有些国家令立法者和媒体头疼的事情。罗伯特国王看到的蜘蛛最终获得了成功，而英国政府呢？
新方案是对今年夏天原有方案的改进。原方案是一个名叫“数码不列颠”的政府白皮书，其为打击盗版仅仅规定了一个非常宽松的时间表。英国的电讯监管机构英国通讯传播委员会（Ofcom)负责监督网络盗版的情况。违规者将首先收到警告信件。而如果盗版率没有下降到70%以下，互联网服务供应商（ISPs)才会被要求采取更强硬的措施。这一白皮书的有效期直至2012年。
这一计划令唱片销售商大为失望。零售唱片的销售下滑速度飞快，其中盗版就是部分原因，三年之内这一行业甚至也许有崩溃的危险。而打击盗版与发现盗版同样困难。因而政府本周提议由自己来决定互联网服务供应商何时采取措施。处罚也将变得更加严格，经常参与盗版活动的网站将失去网络链接。
 这一新提议引起了互联网服务供应商，民权人士乃至部分议员的愤怒，这表明了在人们心中盗版已经完全成为了一个可以接受的事实。如果政客打击盗版，法官都会为其辩护。在六月，法国宪法委员会驳回了政府对于切断盗版者网络连接的建议。而另一个修改后的计划遭到了反对派的抨击。
不过英国政府的这一提案至少比纳普斯特（Napster,1999年建立的著名音乐下载软件）出现以来的那些反盗版工作有所改进。之前那些关闭下载网站的方法都反而助长了其他下载网站的发展势头。切断网络连接或者降低网速的办法也比把嫌疑犯关进监狱更加明智，因为法律控告的手段过于昂贵，容易给别人留下不好的名声，而且效果不佳。贸易组织国际唱片产业联盟的经营者约翰·肯尼迪（John Kennedy)表示，如果我们对盗版使用者的朋友采取行动，那么这样的效果将大大好于指控那些他们从没听说过的人。
尽管对政府的措施表示抗议，但是互联网服务供应商也做出了让步，认为他们可以，并且在有些条件下应该监督人们在网上的行为。一般他们都封锁儿童色情网站。一些供应商还认为限制盗版符合他们自身利益。今年晚些时候维京传媒（Virgin Media)和英国天空广播公司（BSkyB)将会启动网上音乐订购服务，让宽带用户合法下载音乐。这也就给了人们抵制非法下载的理由。
这种服务的提供也可以使盗版音乐需求下降。最好的防止人们下载非法免费音乐的方法就是为他们提供合法且免费的音乐。对于许多年轻人来说，无限量包时段的下载模式应该是他们可以接受的。赫特福德大学（University of Hertfordshire）本月早期的一个调查显示，18至24岁间59%的人，和14至17岁间96%的人不由自己付每月的网费。他们也许不会对网络盗版的后果感到担忧。而真正担心的人，是为他们交网费的父母。