instruction:
Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.
question:
CONTEXT: It's simply a way to be able to search the full movie title without them [quite, though I'd check with a lawyer] breaking copyright. As these days most people use internet searches rather than physically browsing disks on a shelf, it gives them better chance of a hit. It's also a way of saving them having to think up anything vaguely clever or amusing. In the old days, they used to have to come up with vaguely similar titles that would be recognisable to their intended audience.. Jurassic Poke Saving Ryan's Privates Flesh Gordon Sex Family Robinson ...I think you get the idea.  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of "This Isn't" in porn parody titles? A: It's simply a way to be able to search the full movie title without them  Q: Is that legal for them to do? A: copyright  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: is there a way to tell the difference between a porn parody and the real movies?
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: It seems as though you answered your own questions, and that's the answer I was going to give: Caleb knew (or suspected) that Nathan had heard his conversations with Ava. If Caleb hadn't tried to get Nathan drunk that morning, Nathan would have known that Caleb ALREADY completed his plan, and he would have undone the computer code that Caleb altered.  <sep>  Q: Was Nathan listening in on his conversations with Ava? A: Nathan had heard his conversations with Ava  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What were the conversations about?
answer:
Yes


question:
CONTEXT: These days it is more common for people to 'buy' themselves a credit on TV and film productions through financial backing, sponsorship or other enabling methods. Traditionally (at least on film), the executive producer(s) coughed up the money to get the production rolling - they generally wouldn't have any other impact on the production. Of course, there are a few horror stories about executive producers only providing finances on the proviso that their terrible niece got a role, or they could sit in on the set (and interfere). In the case of AGT, I suspect that this roster of EPs is made up mostly of financial backers.  <sep>  Q: Why does America's Got Talent have so many executive producers?
answer:

Yes