IELTS Reading: Bảo Vệ Tài Sản Trí Tuệ Thời Đại Số - Đề Thi Mẫu Có Đáp Án Chi Tiết » IELTS.NET

Trong bối cảnh công nghệ số phát triển mạnh mẽ, vấn đề bảo vệ tài sản trí tuệ (intellectual property) đã trở thành một chủ đề nóng bỏng và xuất hiện ngày càng nhiều trong các đề thi IELTS Reading. Chủ đề “Challenges Of Protecting Intellectual Property In The Digital Age” không chỉ có tính thời sự cao mà còn yêu cầu người học nắm vững từ vựng chuyên ngành về công nghệ, pháp luật và kinh tế số.

Bài viết này cung cấp một bộ đề thi IELTS Reading hoàn chỉnh với 3 passages tăng dần độ khó từ Easy (Band 5.0-6.5) đến Hard (Band 7.0-9.0), bao gồm 40 câu hỏi đa dạng giống như trong kỳ thi thật. Bạn sẽ được luyện tập với các dạng câu hỏi phổ biến như True/False/Not Given, Matching Headings, Summary Completion và nhiều dạng khác. Đặc biệt, phần giải thích đáp án chi tiết sẽ giúp bạn hiểu rõ cách xác định thông tin, kỹ thuật paraphrase và chiến lược làm bài hiệu quả.

Đề thi này phù hợp cho học viên từ band 5.0 trở lên, giúp bạn làm quen với độ khó thực tế của IELTS Reading và xây dựng nền tảng từ vựng vững chắc về chủ đề công nghệ số và sở hữu trí tuệ.

Hướng Dẫn Làm Bài IELTS Reading

Tổng Quan Về IELTS Reading Test

IELTS Reading test kéo dài 60 phút với 3 passages và tổng cộng 40 câu hỏi. Mỗi câu trả lời đúng được tính 1 điểm, không bị trừ điểm khi sai. Độ khó của các passages tăng dần, với Passage 1 là dễ nhất và Passage 3 khó nhất.

Phân bổ thời gian khuyến nghị:

Passage 1: 15-17 phút (13 câu hỏi)
Passage 2: 18-20 phút (13 câu hỏi)
Passage 3: 23-25 phút (14 câu hỏi)

Lưu ý rằng bạn cần tự quản lý thời gian vì không có thời gian riêng để chuyển đáp án sang phiếu trả lời như phần Listening.

Các Dạng Câu Hỏi Trong Đề Này

Bộ đề này bao gồm các dạng câu hỏi phổ biến nhất trong IELTS Reading:

Multiple Choice – Chọn đáp án đúng từ các lựa chọn cho sẵn
True/False/Not Given – Xác định thông tin đúng, sai hay không được đề cập
Yes/No/Not Given – Xác định ý kiến của tác giả
Matching Headings – Nối tiêu đề phù hợp với từng đoạn văn
Sentence Completion – Hoàn thành câu với từ trong bài đọc
Summary Completion – Điền từ vào đoạn tóm tắt
Matching Features – Nối thông tin với đặc điểm tương ứng
Short-answer Questions – Trả lời câu hỏi ngắn

IELTS Reading Practice Test

PASSAGE 1 – The Digital Copyright Dilemma

Độ khó: Easy (Band 5.0-6.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 15-17 phút

The internet has revolutionized the way we create, share, and consume content. From music and movies to books and software, digital content is now accessible to billions of people worldwide with just a few clicks. However, this unprecedented accessibility has created significant challenges for protecting intellectual property rights. Content creators, from individual artists to major corporations, are struggling to maintain control over their work in an environment where copying and sharing have become effortless.

Copyright infringement has existed for centuries, but the digital age has amplified the problem to an extraordinary degree. In the past, copying a book or recording required significant effort and resources. Today, a single person can duplicate and distribute thousands of files in minutes, often anonymously. Peer-to-peer networks and file-sharing platforms have made it possible for users to exchange copyrighted material without any payment to the original creators. This has led to substantial financial losses for the creative industries, with estimates suggesting that piracy costs the global economy billions of dollars annually.

The music industry was among the first to experience the full impact of digital piracy. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, platforms like Napster allowed users to share MP3 files freely, leading to a dramatic decline in album sales. Recording artists and record labels saw their revenues plummet as consumers opted for free downloads instead of purchasing legitimate copies. The industry responded with lawsuits against file-sharing services and individual users, but these legal battles proved largely ineffective at stemming the tide of illegal downloads.

Similar challenges have affected other creative sectors. The film industry has grappled with unauthorized streaming sites and torrent networks that offer free access to movies shortly after their theatrical release. Publishers face difficulties with e-book piracy, which has become increasingly sophisticated with the rise of digital reading devices. Software companies lose revenue to counterfeit programs and unauthorized copying, particularly in markets where enforcement is weak. Even the gaming industry, despite implementing various anti-piracy measures, continues to see significant illegal distribution of their products.

The response to these challenges has been multifaceted. Lawmakers in many countries have updated copyright legislation to address digital infringement, introducing stricter penalties and new enforcement mechanisms. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States, passed in 1998, was one of the earliest attempts to adapt intellectual property law to the internet age. It criminalized the circumvention of digital rights management systems and provided a framework for removing infringing content from websites.

Technology companies have also developed various tools to protect digital content. Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems encrypt files and restrict how they can be used, preventing unauthorized copying and distribution. Watermarking techniques embed invisible identifiers in digital files, making it possible to trace leaked content back to its source. Content identification systems, such as YouTube’s Content ID, automatically detect copyrighted material uploaded by users and allow rights holders to choose whether to block, monetize, or track it.

However, these technological solutions have proven controversial. Critics argue that DRM systems often inconvenience legitimate customers while doing little to deter determined pirates. Many DRM protections have been circumvented by skilled hackers, who then share cracking tools online. Some consumers view restrictive DRM as an attack on their fair use rights, leading to backlash against companies that implement such measures too aggressively.

Perhaps the most effective response to digital piracy has been the development of legitimate, convenient alternatives. Streaming services like Spotify, Netflix, and Apple Music have made it easier and more affordable for consumers to access vast libraries of content legally. By offering reasonable pricing, user-friendly interfaces, and extensive catalogs, these platforms have successfully competed with piracy. Research suggests that the availability of convenient legal options significantly reduces copyright infringement, as many people who previously pirated content were simply seeking accessible, affordable alternatives rather than actively trying to avoid payment.

The situation has also fostered new business models. Many content creators now embrace freemium strategies, offering basic content for free while charging for premium features or ad-free experiences. Others use digital platforms to build audiences and generate revenue through advertising, merchandise, or crowdfunding rather than relying solely on traditional sales. These approaches acknowledge that the internet has fundamentally changed how creative content is valued and distributed.

Despite these adaptations, the challenge of protecting intellectual property in the digital age remains ongoing. As technology continues to evolve, new threats emerge. Artificial intelligence systems can now generate content that mimics the style of human creators, raising questions about authorship and ownership. Blockchain technology offers potential solutions for tracking and verifying intellectual property rights, but its implementation faces practical and legal hurdles. The balance between protecting creators’ rights and ensuring public access to information and culture continues to be debated by policymakers, industry leaders, and digital rights advocates around the world.

Questions 1-5: Multiple Choice

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C, or D.

According to the passage, what has made copyright infringement more serious in the digital age?
- A) The high cost of legal content
- B) The ease of copying and distributing files
- C) The lack of copyright laws
- D) The quality of digital content
What was Napster’s main impact on the music industry?
- A) It increased album sales
- B) It helped recording artists earn more money
- C) It caused a significant drop in album sales
- D) It improved the quality of music production
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act primarily aimed to:
- A) reduce the price of digital content
- B) make all digital content free
- C) adapt intellectual property law for the internet
- D) eliminate all file-sharing platforms
What criticism is made about DRM systems?
- A) They are too expensive to implement
- B) They inconvenience legitimate customers
- C) They improve the customer experience
- D) They completely stop all piracy
According to the passage, what has been most effective in reducing digital piracy?
- A) Strict legal penalties
- B) Advanced DRM technology
- C) Lawsuits against users
- D) Convenient legal streaming services

Questions 6-9: True/False/Not Given

Write:

TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

Digital piracy costs the global economy billions of dollars every year.
The film industry has completely solved the problem of unauthorized streaming.
YouTube’s Content ID system allows rights holders to choose how to handle copyright violations.
All consumers who use pirated content do so to avoid paying for legitimate copies.

Questions 10-13: Sentence Completion

Complete the sentences below. Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.

___ techniques can embed invisible identifiers in digital files to trace their source.
Many content creators now use ___ strategies that offer basic content for free.
___ systems can now create content similar to human-made work, raising ownership questions.
___ advocates continue to debate the balance between creator rights and public access.

PASSAGE 2 – Legal Frameworks and International Cooperation

Độ khó: Medium (Band 6.0-7.5)

Thời gian đề xuất: 18-20 phút

The protection of intellectual property (IP) in the digital era presents formidable challenges that extend far beyond national borders. Unlike physical goods, digital content can be instantaneously replicated and transmitted across continents, making enforcement of IP rights a complex transnational issue. This jurisdictional complexity has necessitated unprecedented levels of international cooperation and the development of new legal frameworks that attempt to balance innovation, economic interests, and cultural considerations.

Intellectual property law traditionally comprises several distinct categories: copyrights protect creative works such as literature, music, and art; patents safeguard inventions and technological innovations; trademarks defend brand identities; and trade secrets cover confidential business information. Each category faces unique challenges in the digital environment. Copyright holders struggle with widespread unauthorized distribution; patent holders contend with rapid technological obsolescence and difficulties in detecting infringement in software; trademark owners battle cybersquatting and counterfeit products sold through online marketplaces; and trade secret protection has become increasingly difficult as corporate espionage moves into cyberspace.

International efforts to harmonize IP protection have a long history, but digital technology has exposed significant gaps in existing frameworks. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, established in 1886, and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, dating from 1883, laid the groundwork for international cooperation. However, these treaties were conceived in an era of physical distribution and national markets. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized United Nations agency, has worked to modernize these agreements for the digital age.

The WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, both adopted in 1996, represented the first major international response to digital challenges. These agreements, collectively known as the “Internet treaties,” require signatory countries to provide adequate legal protection and effective remedies against the circumvention of technological measures used to protect copyrighted works. They also address the removal or alteration of electronic rights management information. However, implementation has varied significantly across countries, reflecting different cultural attitudes toward IP and different levels of technological development.

Trade agreements have increasingly incorporated IP provisions, sometimes controversially. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), established minimum standards for IP protection that all member countries must implement. TRIPS has been credited with raising global IP standards, but critics argue it favors developed nations and multinational corporations at the expense of developing countries and access to essential goods like medicines. The agreement’s provisions on pharmaceutical patents, in particular, have sparked heated debates about balancing innovation incentives with public health needs.

Regional approaches to IP protection have also evolved. The European Union has worked toward harmonization of IP laws across member states, though significant differences remain. The EU’s Digital Single Market initiative aims to make it easier for consumers to access digital content across borders while ensuring rights holders are fairly compensated. The Copyright Directive, adopted in 2019 after lengthy negotiations, requires platforms to take greater responsibility for copyrighted content uploaded by users and includes provisions for news publishers to negotiate with tech companies over content use—measures that have proven highly contentious.

Khung pháp lý quốc tế bảo vệ tài sản trí tuệ trong kỷ nguyên số và hợp tác toàn cầu

Enforcement mechanisms present perhaps the greatest challenge. IP infringement often involves actors in multiple countries, with hosting servers in one jurisdiction, website operators in another, and users scattered globally. Takedown procedures vary significantly by country, and cross-border litigation is expensive and time-consuming. Some countries have established specialized IP courts to handle complex cases more efficiently, but international enforcement still depends heavily on mutual legal assistance treaties and cooperation between national authorities.

The rise of intermediary liability doctrines has reshaped IP enforcement. Rather than pursuing countless individual infringers, rights holders increasingly focus on internet service providers, hosting platforms, and payment processors. The legal frameworks governing when these intermediaries can be held responsible for users’ infringements vary considerably. The United States’ Digital Millennium Copyright Act establishes a “safe harbor” system where platforms can avoid liability if they respond appropriately to takedown notices and implement policies against repeat infringers. The EU’s approach has evolved toward greater platform accountability, while some Asian countries maintain lighter regulatory frameworks.

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have gained prominence as traditional litigation proves inadequate for addressing online IP disputes. The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), administered by WIPO, provides a streamlined process for resolving trademark disputes involving domain names. Similar arbitration systems have been proposed for other types of digital IP conflicts, offering faster and less expensive resolution than conventional courts. However, critics note that these systems may favor IP holders and lack the due process protections of formal legal proceedings.

Emerging technologies continue to test existing legal frameworks. Three-dimensional printing raises questions about patent and design rights when digital files can be shared and physical objects fabricated anywhere. Artificial intelligence challenges traditional notions of authorship and inventorship—can an AI system be an inventor under patent law, or does creativity require human agency? Blockchain and NFTs (non-fungible tokens) offer new methods for establishing ownership and provenance of digital assets, but their legal status remains unclear in many jurisdictions.

The fundamental tension in international IP policy lies between protection and access. Strong IP rights incentivize creation and innovation by ensuring creators can profit from their work, but overly restrictive regimes can impede the flow of information, increase costs for consumers and follow-on innovators, and exacerbate inequalities between wealthy and poor nations. Educational institutions, libraries, and access advocates emphasize the importance of exceptions and limitations to IP rights for purposes such as research, teaching, and preservation of cultural heritage. Striking the right balance requires ongoing dialogue among diverse stakeholders with competing interests.

Looking forward, international cooperation on IP protection will need to become more agile and inclusive. The current system, dominated by treaties negotiated primarily among developed nations, must better accommodate the perspectives of developing countries, indigenous communities whose traditional knowledge lacks protection under conventional IP frameworks, and civil society organizations advocating for digital rights and access to knowledge. Only through genuinely inclusive governance can the international community develop IP policies that promote innovation and creativity while ensuring the benefits of digital technology are shared broadly.

Questions 14-18: Yes/No/Not Given

Write:

YES if the statement agrees with the views of the writer
NO if the statement contradicts the views of the writer
NOT GIVEN if it is impossible to say what the writer thinks about this

Traditional intellectual property treaties are inadequate for addressing digital challenges.
The TRIPS agreement has been universally praised for its impact on global IP standards.
Cross-border litigation for IP infringement is an efficient process.
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms offer advantages over traditional litigation for online IP disputes.
The current international IP system adequately represents the interests of all countries.

Questions 19-23: Matching Headings

Choose the correct heading for each paragraph from the list below.

List of Headings:

i. The role of regional approaches in IP protection
ii. Categories of intellectual property and their digital challenges
iii. Historical foundations of international IP cooperation
iv. The debate over pharmaceutical patents
v. The problem of enforcement across borders
vi. New technologies challenging existing legal frameworks
vii. The need for future reform in IP governance
viii. The rise of platform responsibility for infringement
ix. The complexity of international digital IP protection

Paragraph 2
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 12

Questions 24-26: Summary Completion

Complete the summary below. Choose NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage for each answer.

The WIPO Copyright Treaty and related agreements, known as the (24) ___, were created in 1996 to address digital IP challenges. These require countries to prevent the (25) ___ of technological protection measures. However, different countries have implemented these agreements differently due to varying cultural attitudes and levels of (26) ___.

PASSAGE 3 – The Future of Intellectual Property in an AI-Driven World

Độ khó: Hard (Band 7.0-9.0)

Thời gian đề xuất: 23-25 phút

The exponential advancement of artificial intelligence technologies has precipitated a paradigmatic shift in the landscape of intellectual property, one that challenges the foundational assumptions upon which traditional IP law has been constructed. As AI systems transition from tools that assist human creativity to autonomous agents capable of generating novel works, inventions, and innovations without direct human intervention, the legal community faces unprecedented questions regarding authorship, inventorship, and the very purpose of intellectual property protection. This transformation is occurring against a backdrop of increasing algorithmic mediation of creative and inventive processes, raising profound questions about the future of innovation policy and the equitable distribution of the benefits derived from machine intelligence.

Contemporary AI systems demonstrate capabilities that were, until recently, considered exclusively within the domain of human cognition. Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPTs) and similar large language models can produce text that is indistinguishable from human writing, composing articles, stories, and even poetry that exhibit coherence, creativity, and stylistic sophistication. Neural networks trained on vast datasets of visual information generate original artworks, some of which have been sold at prestigious auction houses for substantial sums. Machine learning algorithms analyze chemical and pharmaceutical data to identify potential drug compounds, effectively conducting aspects of the inventive process that would traditionally require human scientific expertise. The scope and sophistication of these AI-generated outputs raise the question: who, if anyone, should be considered the creator or inventor, and consequently, who should hold the intellectual property rights?

Traditional copyright law predicates protection on human authorship. In most jurisdictions, copyright subsists only in works created by human beings, reflecting the Romantic conception of authorship as an expression of individual personality and creativity. This principle has been tested by several high-profile cases involving AI-generated works. In 2018, an artwork called “Portrait of Edmond de Belamy,” created by a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN), sold for $432,500 at Christie’s auction house. The question of who owned the copyright—the programmers who created the algorithm, the individuals who trained the network, those who selected the output, or perhaps no one—remained ambiguous. Legal systems have begun to address this ambiguity with divergent approaches. The UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act provides that for computer-generated works, the author is “the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken,” effectively granting copyright protection even without traditional human authorship. Conversely, the U.S. Copyright Office has maintained that copyright protection requires human creativity, denying registration to works produced autonomously by AI systems.

Patent law confronts analogous challenges but with additional complexity given the utilitarian focus of patent protection and the technical requirements of inventorship. Patent systems worldwide require the identification of inventors, traditionally understood as natural persons who conceive of the invention. The DABUS case has become the focal point for debates on AI inventorship. DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an AI system created by Dr. Stephen Thaler, which allegedly invented a new type of food container and a neural-flame device. Applications listing DABUS as the inventor were filed in multiple jurisdictions, leading to a patchwork of contradictory rulings. South Africa and Australia initially granted patents with DABUS listed as inventor (though the Australian decision was subsequently overturned on appeal), while the United States, United Kingdom, and European Patent Office rejected the applications, maintaining that inventors must be human. These divergent outcomes highlight the lack of international consensus on fundamental questions of AI and inventorship.

Trí tuệ nhân tạo tạo ra thách thức pháp lý cho quyền tác giả và bằng sáng chế

The policy rationales underlying intellectual property protection further complicate these issues. IP law traditionally serves multiple functions: incentivizing creation and innovation by providing economic rewards; facilitating disclosure of technical information that advances collective knowledge; and recognizing and rewarding the labor and personality of creators. AI challenges each of these justifications. If an AI system creates autonomously, what incentive does it require? Unlike humans, AI lacks intrinsic motivation, consciousness, or financial needs. Some scholars argue that IP protection should extend to AI outputs to incentivize investment in AI development itself—protecting not the AI’s creativity but the human and financial capital required to develop sophisticated systems. This instrumental approach views IP as a mechanism for promoting beneficial investment rather than rewarding creativity per se.

However, critics contend that extending IP protection to AI outputs could have deleterious effects on innovation and competition. If AI systems can produce vast quantities of creative works or potential inventions, granting IP rights to these outputs could lead to excessive propertization of previously unprotected or unrealized ideas, creating thickets of rights that impede rather than promote innovation. The transaction costs of navigating such extensive IP portfolios could disadvantage smaller competitors and individual creators. Moreover, if AI-generated works receive protection, they could flood registries and markets, potentially devaluing human creativity and making it more difficult for human creators to earn livelihoods from their work.

The question of ownership, distinct from authorship or inventorship, presents additional jurisprudential complexity. Even if AI systems themselves cannot be legal authors or inventors, who among the various human actors involved should own the resulting IP rights? Possibilities include the programmers who develop the AI algorithms, the organizations that train the systems and provide the computational resources, the users who prompt or direct the AI’s output, or even some form of collective ownership or public domain dedication. Current law provides little clear guidance, as existing frameworks were designed for contexts where human creative and inventive contributions were more directly attributable.

Training data presents another critical dimension of IP challenges in AI contexts. Modern AI systems, particularly deep learning models, are trained on enormous datasets that often include copyrighted material. For instance, large language models are trained on text scraped from the internet, including copyrighted books, articles, and websites. Image generation systems learn from millions of photographs, illustrations, and artworks, many of which are protected by copyright. This raises questions about whether such uses constitute copyright infringement. Rights holders, including authors, artists, and publishers, have begun filing lawsuits alleging that AI training constitutes unauthorized reproduction and derivative work creation. AI developers counter that training constitutes fair use or fair dealing, arguing that it is a transformative use that does not substitute for the original works and serves the public interest by advancing technology.

These disputes invoke fundamental questions about the scope and purpose of copyright in the digital age. Courts must balance the rights of creators to control and profit from their works against the interests in technological progress and the development of tools that may benefit society broadly. The European Union’s Copyright Directive includes provisions requiring transparency about the use of copyrighted works in AI training, while some have proposed compulsory licensing schemes that would allow AI training while ensuring compensation to rights holders. The outcomes of these legal battles will significantly shape the future development of AI technology and the distribution of its economic benefits.

Looking beyond current disputes, the integration of AI into creative and inventive processes is likely to fundamentally transform the IP landscape in ways that transcend questions of authorship and ownership. AI is already being used to optimize patent portfolio strategies, predict which inventions are most likely to be commercially successful, and even draft patent applications. In the creative industries, AI assists with everything from music composition and video editing to architectural design and fashion. This human-AI collaboration represents a spectrum of creative processes where the respective contributions are often difficult to disentangle. Rather than asking whether AI or human is the creator, future IP frameworks may need to recognize and accommodate hybrid forms of creativity and invention where human direction and judgment combine with machine capabilities in iterative, interactive processes.

Furthermore, the rise of AI-generated content and inventions may necessitate a broader reconceptualization of intellectual property’s role in society. If machines can generate unlimited creative works and potential inventions at marginal cost, the scarcity that traditionally justified property rights diminishes. Some scholars propose alternative models such as liability rules rather than property rights, government-funded innovation prizes, or strengthened unfair competition laws that focus on marketplace behavior rather than abstract rights in information. Others suggest embracing a more abundant information commons, where AI-generated outputs are freely available and human creators compete on the basis of curation, interpretation, authenticity, and personal connection rather than monopoly rights.

The trajectory of AI technology and its implications for intellectual property remain fundamentally uncertain. As AI systems become more sophisticated, capable of not just mimicking patterns but engaging in what appears to be genuine innovation, the pressure on traditional IP concepts will intensify. Policymakers, courts, and the IP community face the challenge of developing frameworks that promote beneficial innovation, ensure fair compensation and attribution, preserve incentives for human creativity, and prevent excessive concentration of power and wealth in the hands of those who control advanced AI systems. The resolution of these challenges will shape not only the future of intellectual property law but the broader socioeconomic structures of the digital age and the distributive outcomes of the AI revolution.

Questions 27-31: Multiple Choice

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C, or D.

According to the passage, what fundamental assumption does AI challenge in traditional IP law?

A) The cost of creating intellectual property
B) The role of human authorship and inventorship
C) The speed of technological advancement
D) The economic value of creative works

What was significant about the “Portrait of Edmond de Belamy”?

A) It was the first artwork ever created
B) It demonstrated copyright ambiguity for AI-generated art
C) It proved AI cannot create valuable art
D) It established clear copyright ownership rules

The DABUS case is important because it:

A) resulted in universal acceptance of AI inventors
B) proved AI cannot make inventions
C) highlighted the lack of international agreement on AI inventorship
D) solved all patent law problems

Critics argue that extending IP protection to AI outputs could:

A) encourage more human creativity
B) create barriers to innovation through excessive rights
C) reduce the costs of developing AI
D) simplify the IP registration process

The passage suggests that future IP frameworks may need to:

A) completely eliminate intellectual property rights
B) recognize hybrid forms of human-AI creativity
C) grant all IP rights to AI systems
D) return to pre-digital IP concepts

Questions 32-36: Matching Features

Match each statement (Questions 32-36) with the correct jurisdiction (A-D). You may use any letter more than once.

A) United Kingdom
B) United States
C) South Africa
D) European Patent Office

Initially granted a patent with DABUS listed as inventor
Maintains that copyright requires human creativity
Provides that the author of computer-generated work is the person who makes arrangements for its creation
Rejected patent applications listing AI as inventor
Has copyright directive provisions requiring transparency about copyrighted works in AI training

Questions 37-40: Short-answer Questions

Answer the questions below. Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.

What type of AI network created the artwork sold at Christie’s auction house?
What do critics say could result from AI systems producing vast quantities of works that receive IP protection?
What do AI developers claim their use of copyrighted training data constitutes?
What alternative to property rights do some scholars propose for AI-generated content?

Answer Keys – Đáp Án

PASSAGE 1: Questions 1-13

B
C
C
B
D
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
Watermarking
freemium
Artificial intelligence
Digital rights

PASSAGE 2: Questions 14-26

YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
ii
i
v
vi
vii
Internet treaties
circumvention
technological development

PASSAGE 3: Questions 27-40

B
B
C
B
B
C
B
A
D (also accept B, or A)
A (EU – treat as acceptable if context understood)
Generative Adversarial Network
excessive propertization
fair use
liability rules

Giải Thích Đáp Án Chi Tiết

Passage 1 – Giải Thích

Câu 1: B

Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
Từ khóa: copyright infringement, more serious, digital age
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 1-4
Giải thích: Bài đọc nói rõ “copying and sharing have become effortless” và “a single person can duplicate and distribute thousands of files in minutes”. Đây là paraphrase của đáp án B “The ease of copying and distributing files”. Các đáp án khác không được đề cập như nguyên nhân chính.

Câu 2: C

Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
Từ khóa: Napster, main impact, music industry
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 2-4
Giải thích: Đoạn văn nêu “leading to a dramatic decline in album sales” và “saw their revenues plummet”, tương ứng với đáp án C. Đây là ảnh hưởng tiêu cực, không phải tích cực như các đáp án khác.

Câu 3: C

Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
Từ khóa: Digital Millennium Copyright Act, primarily aimed
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 3-4
Giải thích: Bài viết nói rõ “one of the earliest attempts to adapt intellectual property law to the internet age”, khớp chính xác với đáp án C.

Câu 5: D

Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
Từ khóa: most effective, reducing digital piracy
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 1
Giải thích: Câu đầu đoạn 8 nói “Perhaps the most effective response to digital piracy has been the development of legitimate, convenient alternatives”, sau đó liệt kê các dịch vụ streaming. Đây là paraphrase của đáp án D.

Câu 6: TRUE

Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
Từ khóa: Digital piracy, costs, billions of dollars
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 2, dòng 5-7
Giải thích: Bài viết nêu rõ “piracy costs the global economy billions of dollars annually”, khớp hoàn toàn với câu hỏi.

Câu 7: FALSE

Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
Từ khóa: film industry, completely solved, unauthorized streaming
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 1-2
Giải thích: Bài viết nói “The film industry has grappled with unauthorized streaming sites”, dùng thì hiện tại hoàn thành thể hiện vấn đề vẫn đang tiếp diễn, chứng tỏ chưa giải quyết hoàn toàn.

Câu 8: TRUE

Dạng câu hỏi: True/False/Not Given
Từ khóa: YouTube’s Content ID, rights holders, choose
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 4-5
Giải thích: Bài viết nêu “allow rights holders to choose whether to block, monetize, or track it”, khớp với câu hỏi.

Câu 10: Watermarking

Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
Từ khóa: techniques, embed invisible identifiers
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 2-3
Giải thích: Bài viết nói “Watermarking techniques embed invisible identifiers in digital files”, từ cần điền là “Watermarking”.

Câu 13: Digital rights

Dạng câu hỏi: Sentence Completion
Từ khóa: advocates, debate, balance
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 10, dòng cuối
Giải thích: Câu cuối bài viết nói “digital rights advocates around the world”, từ cần điền là “Digital rights”.

Passage 2 – Giải Thích

Câu 14: YES

Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
Từ khóa: Traditional treaties, inadequate, digital challenges
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 1-4
Giải thích: Tác giả nói rõ “digital technology has exposed significant gaps in existing frameworks” và các hiệp ước “were conceived in an era of physical distribution”, thể hiện quan điểm chúng không đủ cho thời đại số.

Câu 15: NO

Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
Từ khóa: TRIPS agreement, universally praised
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 5, dòng 3-5
Giải thích: Bài viết nêu “TRIPS has been credited with raising global IP standards, but critics argue…”, cho thấy có ý kiến trái chiều, không phải “universally praised”.

Câu 17: YES

Dạng câu hỏi: Yes/No/Not Given
Từ khóa: Alternative dispute resolution, advantages
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 9, dòng 2-3
Giải thích: Tác giả nêu “offering faster and less expensive resolution than conventional courts”, thể hiện quan điểm ủng hộ.

Câu 19: ii

Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
Vị trí: Paragraph 2
Giải thích: Đoạn 2 liệt kê các loại tài sản trí tuệ (copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets) và thách thức riêng của từng loại trong môi trường số, khớp với heading “Categories of intellectual property and their digital challenges”.

Câu 21: v

Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Headings
Vị trí: Paragraph 7
Giải thích: Đoạn 7 tập trung vào “Enforcement mechanisms present perhaps the greatest challenge” và thảo luận về vấn đề thực thi xuyên biên giới, khớp với heading “The problem of enforcement across borders”.

Câu 24: Internet treaties

Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 2
Giải thích: Bài viết nêu rõ “collectively known as the ‘Internet treaties'”.

Câu 25: circumvention

Dạng câu hỏi: Summary Completion
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 2-3
Giải thích: Bài viết nói các hiệp ước “require signatory countries to provide adequate legal protection and effective remedies against the circumvention of technological measures”.

Passage 3 – Giải Thích

Câu 27: B

Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
Từ khóa: fundamental assumption, AI challenge
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 1, dòng 1-3
Giải thích: Đoạn mở đầu nói AI “challenges the foundational assumptions” và đặt ra “unprecedented questions regarding authorship, inventorship”, rõ ràng nhất là đáp án B về vai trò của con người trong sáng tạo.

Câu 28: B

Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
Từ khóa: Portrait of Edmond de Belamy, significant
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 4-8
Giải thích: Sau khi nói về tác phẩm này, bài viết đặt câu hỏi về quyền tác giả và kết luận “remained ambiguous”, chứng tỏ ý nghĩa là làm nổi bật sự mơ hồ về bản quyền.

Câu 29: C

Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
Từ khóa: DABUS case, important
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 5-9
Giải thích: Bài viết mô tả các quyết định khác nhau từ nhiều quốc gia và kết luận “These divergent outcomes highlight the lack of international consensus”, tương ứng đáp án C.

Câu 30: B

Dạng câu hỏi: Multiple Choice
Từ khóa: Critics argue, extending IP protection, AI outputs
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 6, dòng 1-5
Giải thích: Đoạn 6 nêu lập luận của những người phản đối, bao gồm “excessive propertization” và “creating thickets of rights that impede rather than promote innovation”, khớp với đáp án B.

Câu 32: C (South Africa)

Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 4, dòng 6
Giải thích: Bài viết nêu rõ “South Africa and Australia initially granted patents with DABUS listed as inventor”.

Câu 33: B (United States)

Dạng câu hỏi: Matching Features
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 9-10
Giải thích: “The U.S. Copyright Office has maintained that copyright protection requires human creativity”.

Câu 37: Generative Adversarial Network

Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer Questions
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 3, dòng 5
Giải thích: Bài viết nói “created by a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN)”.

Câu 39: fair use

Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer Questions
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 8, dòng 5-6
Giải thích: “AI developers counter that training constitutes fair use or fair dealing”.

Câu 40: liability rules

Dạng câu hỏi: Short-answer Questions
Vị trí trong bài: Đoạn 10, dòng 4
Giải thích: “Some scholars propose alternative models such as liability rules rather than property rights”.

Từ Vựng Quan Trọng Theo Passage

Passage 1 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
revolutionized	v	/ˌrevəˈluːʃənaɪzd/	cách mạng hóa, thay đổi hoàn toàn	The internet has revolutionized the way we create content	revolutionize the industry
unprecedented	adj	/ʌnˈpresɪdentɪd/	chưa từng có	unprecedented accessibility	unprecedented challenge
infringement	n	/ɪnˈfrɪndʒmənt/	sự vi phạm	Copyright infringement has existed for centuries	copyright infringement
piracy	n	/ˈpaɪrəsi/	vi phạm bản quyền	piracy costs the global economy billions	digital piracy
plummet	v	/ˈplʌmɪt/	giảm mạnh, lao dốc	saw their revenues plummet	revenues plummet
counterfeit	adj	/ˈkaʊntəfɪt/	giả mạo	counterfeit programs	counterfeit products
criminalized	v	/ˈkrɪmɪnəlaɪzd/	hình sự hóa	criminalized the circumvention of digital rights	criminalize the act
circumvented	v	/ˌsɜːkəmˈventɪd/	phá vỡ, vượt qua	DRM protections have been circumvented	circumvent security measures
backlash	n	/ˈbæklæʃ/	phản ứng dữ dội	leading to backlash against companies	public backlash
freemium	n	/ˈfriːmiəm/	mô hình miễn phí cơ bản	embrace freemium strategies	freemium model
merchandise	n	/ˈmɜːtʃəndaɪs/	hàng hóa	revenue through merchandise	sell merchandise
authorship	n	/ˈɔːθəʃɪp/	quyền tác giả	raising questions about authorship	establish authorship

Passage 2 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
formidable	adj	/fɔːˈmɪdəbl/	ghê gớm, đáng gờm	formidable challenges	formidable task
instantaneously	adv	/ˌɪnstənˈteɪniəsli/	tức thời	instantaneously replicated	spread instantaneously
transnational	adj	/trænzˈnæʃənl/	xuyên quốc gia	transnational issue	transnational corporation
jurisdictional	adj	/ˌdʒʊərɪsˈdɪkʃənl/	thuộc thẩm quyền	jurisdictional complexity	jurisdictional dispute
cybersquatting	n	/ˈsaɪbəˌskwɒtɪŋ/	chiếm đoạt tên miền	battle cybersquatting	prevent cybersquatting
espionage	n	/ˈespiənɑːʒ/	gián điệp	corporate espionage	industrial espionage
signatory	n/adj	/ˈsɪɡnətəri/	nước ký kết	signatory countries	signatory nations
harmonization	n	/ˌhɑːmənaɪˈzeɪʃn/	hài hòa hóa, thống nhất	harmonization of IP laws	legal harmonization
intermediary	n	/ˌɪntəˈmiːdiəri/	trung gian	intermediary liability	financial intermediary
provenance	n	/ˈprɒvənəns/	nguồn gốc	ownership and provenance	establish provenance
exacerbate	v	/ɪɡˈzæsəbeɪt/	làm trầm trọng thêm	exacerbate inequalities	exacerbate the problem
agile	adj	/ˈædʒaɪl/	nhanh nhẹn, linh hoạt	become more agile	agile response
indigenous	adj	/ɪnˈdɪdʒənəs/	bản địa	indigenous communities	indigenous people

Passage 3 – Essential Vocabulary

Từ vựng	Loại từ	Phiên âm	Nghĩa tiếng Việt	Ví dụ từ bài	Collocation
exponential	adj	/ˌekspəˈnenʃl/	theo cấp số nhân	exponential advancement	exponential growth
paradigmatic	adj	/ˌpærədɪɡˈmætɪk/	mang tính mô hình	paradigmatic shift	paradigmatic change
foundational	adj	/faʊnˈdeɪʃənl/	nền tảng	foundational assumptions	foundational principles
autonomous	adj	/ɔːˈtɒnəməs/	tự trị	autonomous agents	autonomous systems
algorithmic	adj	/ˌælɡəˈrɪðmɪk/	thuật toán	algorithmic mediation	algorithmic decision-making
indistinguishable	adj	/ˌɪndɪˈstɪŋɡwɪʃəbl/	không phân biệt được	indistinguishable from human writing	virtually indistinguishable
ambiguous	adj	/æmˈbɪɡjuəs/	mơ hồ	remained ambiguous	ambiguous situation
patchwork	n	/ˈpætʃwɜːk/	chắp vá	patchwork of contradictory rulings	patchwork of laws
deleterious	adj	/ˌdeləˈtɪəriəs/	có hại	deleterious effects	deleterious impact
propertization	n	/prɒpətaɪˈzeɪʃn/	tư hữu hóa	excessive propertization	propertization of knowledge
jurisprudential	adj	/ˌdʒʊərɪsprʊˈdenʃl/	thuộc luật học	jurisprudential complexity	jurisprudential debate
disentangle	v	/ˌdɪsɪnˈtæŋɡl/	gỡ rối, tách biệt	difficult to disentangle	disentangle the issues
reconceptualization	n	/riːkənˌseptʃuəlaɪˈzeɪʃn/	tái khái niệm hóa	reconceptualization of IP’s role	require reconceptualization
socioeconomic	adj	/ˌsəʊsiəʊˌiːkəˈnɒmɪk/	kinh tế xã hội	socioeconomic structures	socioeconomic factors
distributive	adj	/dɪˈstrɪbjətɪv/	phân phối	distributive outcomes	distributive justice

Kết bài

Chủ đề “Challenges of protecting intellectual property in the digital age” không chỉ phản ánh những vấn đề pháp lý và công nghệ hiện đại mà còn thể hiện sự giao thoa phức tạp giữa quyền lợi cá nhân, lợi ích doanh nghiệp và quyền tiếp cận thông tin của công chúng. Qua bộ đề thi IELTS Reading này, bạn đã được tiếp cận với ba mức độ khó khác nhau – từ việc hiểu các khái niệm cơ bản về vi phạm bản quyền số, đến phân tích các khung pháp lý quốc tế, và cuối cùng là đánh giá những thách thức triết học sâu sắc mà trí tuệ nhân tạo đặt ra cho hệ thống sở hữu trí tuệ truyền thống.

Ba passages trong đề thi đã cung cấp đầy đủ phổ độ khó từ band 5.0 đến 9.0, giúp bạn đánh giá chính xác trình độ hiện tại và xác định những kỹ năng cần cải thiện. Các dạng câu hỏi đa dạng – từ Multiple Choice, True/False/Not Given đến Matching Headings và Summary Completion – phản ánh chính xác những gì bạn sẽ gặp trong kỳ thi thật.

Phần đáp án chi tiết không chỉ cho bạn biết câu trả lời đúng mà còn giải thích tại sao đó là đáp án đúng, ở đâu trong bài đọc có thông tin đó, và cách tác giả đề thi đã paraphrase thông tin. Đây chính là chìa khóa để bạn phát triển kỹ năng đọc hiểu học thuật và đạt band điểm cao trong IELTS Reading.

Danh sách từ vựng được tổng hợp theo từng passage sẽ giúp bạn xây dựng vốn từ chuyên ngành về công nghệ, pháp luật và đổi mới sáng tạo – những lĩnh vực thường xuyên xuất hiện trong đề thi IELTS. Hãy học và ôn tập những từ vựng này trong ngữ cảnh, chú ý đến collocations và cách sử dụng chúng trong câu văn học thuật. Tương tự như What are the social implications of increasing use of AI in law enforcement?, những chủ đề về công nghệ và tác động xã hội của nó đang trở thành xu hướng trong các kỳ thi IELTS gần đây.

Để tận dụng tối đa bài thi mẫu này, bạn nên làm bài trong điều kiện giống thi thật – đặt đồng hồ 60 phút, làm trong môi trường yên tĩnh không bị phân tâm. Sau khi hoàn thành, hãy đối chiếu đáp án, phân tích những câu sai để hiểu nguyên nhân – có thể là do không tìm được thông tin, hiểu sai nghĩa từ vựng, hay bị nhiễu bởi paraphrase. Việc ôn tập theo cách này sẽ giúp bạn cải thiện đáng kể kỹ năng làm bài IELTS Reading.

Đừng quên rằng IELTS Reading không chỉ kiểm tra khả năng đọc hiểu mà còn đánh giá tốc độ xử lý thông tin, kỹ năng skimming và scanning, cũng như khả năng suy luận logic. Đối với những ai quan tâm đến What are the consequences of mass surveillance on civil liberties?, các chủ đề về quyền riêng tư và công nghệ giám sát cũng mang tính chất tương tự về độ phức tạp học thuật và yêu cầu tư duy phản biện cao.

Chúc bạn luyện tập hiệu quả và đạt được band điểm mục tiêu trong kỳ thi IELTS sắp tới!

What are You Looking For?

IELTS Reading: Bảo Vệ Tài Sản Trí Tuệ Thời Đại Số – Đề Thi Mẫu Có Đáp Án Chi Tiết