① 求英文好的高手帮我翻译下这段文字（拒绝使用翻译软件），演讲用的 ....谢谢
Karaoke is now a fairly common leisure activities, many people may go to a ballroom sung. But have you ever considered one of the right problem. In a ballroom singing karaoke, first is BanChang ballroom operators need to play with, with right law BanChang prescribed audio-visual belongs to work. And the BanChang ballroom operator broadcasting with the way on transfer images behavior to convey the contents of public works, belong to play behavior, and play the rights belong to the work with BanChang who enjoy the rights, so BanChang take ballroom operators to broadcast live with the half resial: the owner of the right permission, in real life, because BanChang belt itself is a kind of video procts, according to the provisions of this right law, the right to the procer of the LinJieQuan video procts. But if the tape recordings made in using a work of another video procts, still must obtain permission of the right owner and pay compensation in the circumstances, can obtain the LinJieQuan. Of course most video procts, its video recordings, has won the consent of the right owner and performers. So BanChang ballroom operators should be awarded with major broadcast a video recording procer to agree. In addition, to sing karaoke ballroom, as the singer will occur with right music song is relation, because by the works of the right law, protection, and to sing the way to transfer the contents of their works belongs to the performance, the behavior of the rights of this performance is to belong to songwriter. So to a ballroom singing karaoke whether to the consent of the right holder agree? Actually don't need, only attention because under right law article 22 the regulation, as indivial shall have the right to use in appreciating purpose work of another. Therefore, as long as you're not profit-oriented and performance of other people's work, will not constitute an infringement of Copyright Act.
借用词典翻译的,希望能对你有帮助
② 关于版权问题的英语演讲
The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), a trade group, warned the American negotiator, the US Patent Office, of the “dangerous precedent” an agreement might set. Though the treaty hardly affects Hollywood, it fears that unclear clauses could be abused, says Chris Marcich of the Motion Picture Association of America. The MPAA tried to remove the fair-use provision in the treaty, preferring other existing rules which stipulate that “special cases” should not affect “normal exploitation” of a work, or “unreasonably prejudice” the owner’ interest. Business Europe, a lobby, wrote to the European Commission to try to delay the signing. Hollywood also rustled up support from foreign friends: Nollywood (Nigeria) and Bollywood (India).