(单词翻译:单击)
听力文本
Hari Sreenivasan: This week, the music streaming service Spotify removed R&B singer R. Kelly from its playlists, which means fewer listeners will discover or hear his music. Why R. Kelly? In part, because of the online campaign #Mute Kelly. There are demands for investigations into allegations he abused women of color over the past 20 years. Kelly performed last night in North Carolina. The singer is not currently charged with any crimes. Spotify cited its new hate content and hateful conduct policy as justification, and other streaming services have also removed r. Kelly from playlists, although his music is still available on these platforms. Joining me now is Joan Solsman, senior reporter for CNET, who is following this issue. This isn't necessarily a conversation about R. Kelly, but really about the... the step that Spotify as taken. What makes this such a big deal?
Joan Solsman: Well, for one, Spotify is the biggest streaming music service at a time when music streaming is becoming the most popular, most common way that people are listening to music. So, it's a stake in the ground, a very definitive step that it will make editorial judgments about not only the content of music but the conduct of the artist itself. And those judgments can have real repercussions on artists' livelihood.
Hari Srinivasan: There's a part of their policy that I want to pull out. It says, What about hateful conduct by an artist? It says: We don't censor content because of an artist's or creator's behavior, but we want our editorial decisions, what we choose to program, to reflect our values. When an artist or creator does something that is especially harmful or hateful (for example, violence against children and sexual violence), it may affect the ways we work with or support that artist or creator. That's a portion of this conduct policy that they changed. That seems well and good, but what is the threshold for when it's determined that someone actually did something? If he hasn't been convicted of a crime, usually you can say, well, this is a criminal conviction. A jury of your peers have found that you did this wrong. This isn't that.
Joan Solsman: Exactly. That's why it's interesting. R. Kelly hasn't had a criminal conviction. He's not charged with anything right now. And there's another artist that they have also said at the same time that they're not going to be promoting. He hasn't been convicted of any crime, either. So, what it does, even though it makes a firm stake in the ground that Spotify is willing to exert this editorial judgment, it muddies the waters about what that judgment is and how they're going to be applying it.
Hari Sreenivasan: And what kind of revenue are we talking about when... I mean, on the one hand, artists always complain that they're getting such little money from royalty. But if you're not somebody who's like R. Kelly and who's still touring, how much does Spotify actually end up helping your music?
Joan Solsman: Spotify is not critical, but it's a crucial element to an artist's livelihood, especially as consumption of music migrates over to streaming rather than getting an itunes download or buying a CD. Touring, of course, is a giant element to how... how artists make money. But that recurring revenue comes from, more often, streaming. And in the case of Spotify, it's the biggest streaming subscription service. And its subscriptions pay a lot better than if you were to stream an R. Kelly song on YouTube and just watch the video, watch the video, but listen to the song. That pays a lot less than what you would get paid as an artist if a subscriber listens to your music.
Hari Sreenivasan: There's a long list of artists whose behavior we have either tolerated or set aside to enjoy their music, right? So, what is the... kind of how far back do they go? Is Spotify willing to put all of these different artists and all of that music off of their playlists if that's the step that they're willing to take?
Joan Solsman: These popular playlists, they can make and break artists. And so, if spotify is going to use conduct as a decision-making tool in whether or not they want to promote an artist, then it raises questions about will the artists that become huge be different? Will we have different art because of these decisions?
Hari Sreenivasan: All right. These are all important questions. Joan Solsman from Cnet, thanks so much for joining us.
Joan Solsman: Thank you.
重点解析
1.demand for 要求
The demand for places at some schools exceeds the supply
某些学校的入学申请人数超过了招生。
2.set aside 放置一旁
Some doctors advise setting aside a certain hour each day for worry.
一些医生建议每天留出一点时间来解决烦心事。
3.be convicted of 判罪
They were shot yesterday after being convicted of mutiny and high treason.
在被宣判犯有叛乱罪和叛国罪后，他们昨天被枪决了。
4.either or 要么...要么
They gave money to the Conservative Party either personally or through their companies.
他们要么以个人名义要么通过他们的公司捐钱给了保守党。
5.decision-making 决策
She wants to see more women involved in decision making.
她希望看到有更多的女性参与决策。
参考译文
哈里·斯雷尼瓦桑：本周，音乐流媒体服务Spotify将R&B歌手罗伯特·西尔维斯特·凯利从其播放列表中删除，这意味着发现或听到他音乐的听众将会更少。为什么是罗伯特·西尔维斯特·凯利？在某种程度上，是因为网络上的“静音凯利”运动。在过去的20年里，有人要求对其辱骂有色人种妇女的指控进行调查。昨晚凯利在北卡罗莱纳州演出。这位歌手近日没有遭受任何犯罪指控。Spotify将其新的政策“憎恨内容和可恶行为”作为理由，其他流媒体服务也将罗伯特·西尔维斯特·凯利从播放列表中删除，尽管他的音乐在这些平台上仍然可以播放。现在加入我们的是Cnet资深记者琼·索尔斯曼，他正在对此问题进行跟进。这未必是一场关于罗伯特·西尔维斯特·凯利的谈话，实际上这场谈话关乎Spotify采取的步骤。是什么使这件事如此重大？
琼·索尔斯曼：嗯，首先，Spotify是最大的流媒体音乐服务，而目前人们最流行、最常见的听音乐方式正是音乐流媒体。不可否认，编辑的判断不仅仅是音乐内容，更是音乐家的所作所为。而这些判断会对艺术家们的生计产生真正的反响。
哈里·斯雷尼瓦桑：他们的政策中，有一部分我想说一下。它说艺术家的可恶行为呢？比如儿童暴力或性暴力，那么我们的决定将反应我们与艺术家或创作者的关系。来反应我们的价值，如果艺术家或创作者做了一些让人厌恶或受到伤害的事情，我们不会因为艺术家或创作者的行为去审查他的作品，但我们希望编辑的决定，以及我们选择的程序。这是他们改变行为政策的一部分。这似乎是好的，但是，当确定某人确实做了某事时，阈值是什么？如果他没有被判有罪，通常你可以说，这是一个刑事定罪。你的同事会判断并发现你做错了。事实并非如此。
琼·索尔斯曼：的确。这就是为什么它很有趣。罗伯特·西尔维斯特·凯利没有刑事定罪。他现在没有受到任何指控。还有一个艺术家，他们同时也说，他们不会再去推他。他也没有被判有罪。所以毫无疑问，Spotify愿意做这个编辑判断，但对于那个判断是什么以及如何运用那个判断，它也会混淆。
哈里·斯雷尼瓦桑：我们在谈论的收入如何呢？我的意思是，一方面，艺术家们总抱怨他们从版税中获得的收入少之又少。但是，如果你不是像罗伯特·西尔维斯特·凯利这样的人，也不开巡回演唱会，那么Spotify到底帮了你多少忙？
琼·索尔斯曼：Spotify并不重要，但它是维持艺术家生计的一个关键因素，尤其现在，音乐消费转到流媒体，而不是获得iTunes下载或购买CD。开巡回演唱会，当然，是艺术家们赚钱的一个重大要素。但经常性收入则来自于流媒体。在Spotify的案例中，它是最大的流媒体订阅服务。相比在YouTube上看视频，用Spotify订阅听凯利歌曲的收益要高得多。而如果一个用户听你的音乐，你作为艺术家，这个报酬要少得多。
哈里·斯雷尼瓦桑：有很多艺术家，我们听他们的音乐或是因为我们可以容忍他们的行为或是我们把他们的行为放在一边，单纯享受他们的音乐，对吧？他们退了多远？Spotify是否愿意把所有这些不同的艺术家和所有的音乐从他们的播放列表中删除，如果这是他们愿意采取的步骤？
琼·索尔斯曼：这些流行的播放列表，它们可以缔造艺术家也可以毁掉艺术家。因此，如果Spotify在是否推艺术家的问题上，将行为作为一个决策工具，那么会产生一个问题，这对成为了大明星的艺术家有什么不同？我们是否会因为这些决定，感受到不同的艺术？
哈里·斯雷尼瓦桑：好的。这些都是重要的问题。Cnet的琼·索尔斯曼，非常感谢你加入我们。
琼·索尔斯曼：谢谢你。
译文为可可英语翻译，未经授权请勿转载！
