Question: Who stated that sites not on Open Directory were still being saved but would not be released until the Archive was reindexed?

Answer: Jeff Kaplan

After August 2008 sites had to be listed on the Open Directory in order to be included. <hl> According to Jeff Kaplan of the Internet Archive in November 2010, other sites were still being archived, but more recent captures would become visible only after the next major indexing, an infrequent operation. <hl>

After August 2008 sites had to be listed on the Open Directory in order to be included. According to <hl> Jeff Kaplan <hl> of the Internet Archive in November 2010, other sites were still being archived, but more recent captures would become visible only after the next major indexing, an infrequent operation.


Question: When did Kaplan make comments about the status of non-Open Directory sites?

After August 2008 sites had to be listed on the Open Directory in order to be included. According to Jeff Kaplan of the Internet Archive in November 2010, other sites were still being archived, but more recent captures would become visible only after the next major indexing, an infrequent operation.

Answer: November 2010

After August 2008 sites had to be listed on the Open Directory in order to be included. <hl> According to Jeff Kaplan of the Internet Archive in November 2010 , other sites were still being archived, but more recent captures would become visible only after the next major indexing, an infrequent operation. <hl>

After August 2008 sites had to be listed on the Open Directory in order to be included. According to Jeff Kaplan of the Internet Archive in <hl> November 2010 <hl>, other sites were still being archived, but more recent captures would become visible only after the next major indexing, an infrequent operation.

According to Jeff Kaplan of the Internet Archive in <hl> November 2010 <hl> , other sites were still being archived, but more recent captures would become visible only after the next major indexing, an infrequent operation.


Question: In 2009, what size did the data saved by Wayback Machine reach?

As of 2009[update], the Wayback Machine contained approximately three petabytes of data and was growing at a rate of 100 terabytes each month; the growth rate reported in 2003 was 12 terabytes/month. The data is stored on PetaBox rack systems manufactured by Capricorn Technologies.

Answer: three petabytes

<hl> As of 2009[update], the Wayback Machine contained approximately three petabytes of data and was growing at a rate of 100 terabytes each month; the growth rate reported in 2003 was 12 terabytes/month. <hl> The data is stored on PetaBox rack systems manufactured by Capricorn Technologies.

As of 2009[update], the Wayback Machine contained approximately <hl> three petabytes <hl> of data and was growing at a rate of 100 terabytes each month; the growth rate reported in 2003 was 12 terabytes/month. The data is stored on PetaBox rack systems manufactured by Capricorn Technologies.


Question: As of 2003, what was the rate of increase in the amount of data recorded by the Wayback Machine?

Answer: 12 terabytes/month

<hl> As of 2009[update], the Wayback Machine contained approximately three petabytes of data and was growing at a rate of 100 terabytes each month; the growth rate reported in 2003 was 12 terabytes/month . <hl> The data is stored on PetaBox rack systems manufactured by Capricorn Technologies.

As of 2009[update], the Wayback Machine contained approximately three petabytes of data and was growing at a rate of 100 terabytes each month; the growth rate reported in 2003 was <hl> 12 terabytes/month <hl>. The data is stored on PetaBox rack systems manufactured by Capricorn Technologies.

As of 2009[update], the Wayback Machine contained approximately three petabytes of data and was growing at a rate of 100 terabytes each month; the growth rate reported in 2003 was <hl> 12 terabytes/month <hl> .


Question: Where does Wayback Machine keep its information stored?

Answer: PetaBox rack systems

As of 2009[update], the Wayback Machine contained approximately three petabytes of data and was growing at a rate of 100 terabytes each month; the growth rate reported in 2003 was 12 terabytes/month. <hl> The data is stored on PetaBox rack systems manufactured by Capricorn Technologies. <hl>

As of 2009[update], the Wayback Machine contained approximately three petabytes of data and was growing at a rate of 100 terabytes each month; the growth rate reported in 2003 was 12 terabytes/month. The data is stored on <hl> PetaBox rack systems <hl> manufactured by Capricorn Technologies.


Question: Who makes PetaBox rack systems?

Answer: Capricorn Technologies

As of 2009[update], the Wayback Machine contained approximately three petabytes of data and was growing at a rate of 100 terabytes each month; the growth rate reported in 2003 was 12 terabytes/month. <hl> The data is stored on PetaBox rack systems manufactured by Capricorn Technologies . <hl>

As of 2009[update], the Wayback Machine contained approximately three petabytes of data and was growing at a rate of 100 terabytes each month; the growth rate reported in 2003 was 12 terabytes/month. The data is stored on PetaBox rack systems manufactured by <hl> Capricorn Technologies <hl>.

The data is stored on PetaBox rack systems manufactured by <hl> Capricorn Technologies <hl> .


Question: When did Internet Archive chance its platform for data storage?

In 2009, the Internet Archive migrated its customized storage architecture to Sun Open Storage, and hosts a new data center in a Sun Modular Datacenter on Sun Microsystems' California campus.

Answer: 2009

<hl> In 2009 , the Internet Archive migrated its customized storage architecture to Sun Open Storage, and hosts a new data center in a Sun Modular Datacenter on Sun Microsystems' California campus. <hl>

In <hl> 2009 <hl>, the Internet Archive migrated its customized storage architecture to Sun Open Storage, and hosts a new data center in a Sun Modular Datacenter on Sun Microsystems' California campus.

In <hl> 2009 <hl> , the Internet Archive migrated its customized storage architecture to Sun Open Storage, and hosts a new data center in a Sun Modular Datacenter on Sun Microsystems' California campus.


Question: Which platform did Internet Archive adopt in 2009?

Answer: Sun Open Storage

<hl> In 2009, the Internet Archive migrated its customized storage architecture to Sun Open Storage , <hl> and hosts a new data center in a Sun Modular Datacenter on Sun Microsystems' California campus.

In 2009, the Internet Archive migrated its customized storage architecture to <hl> Sun Open Storage <hl>, and hosts a new data center in a Sun Modular Datacenter on Sun Microsystems' California campus.

In 2009, the Internet Archive migrated its customized storage architecture to <hl> Sun Open Storage <hl> ,


Question: Where does Internet archive run a datacenter?

Answer: Sun Microsystems' California campus

<hl> In 2009, the Internet Archive migrated its customized storage architecture to Sun Open Storage, and hosts a new data center in a Sun Modular Datacenter on Sun Microsystems' California campus . <hl>

In 2009, the Internet Archive migrated its customized storage architecture to Sun Open Storage, and hosts a new data center in a Sun Modular Datacenter on <hl> Sun Microsystems' California campus <hl>.

In 2009, the Internet Archive migrated its customized storage architecture to Sun Open Storage, and hosts a new data center in a Sun Modular Datacenter on <hl> Sun Microsystems' California campus <hl> .


Question: When was an upgrade of the Wayback Machine released for testing?

Answer: 2011

<hl> In 2011 a new, improved version of the Wayback Machine, with an updated interface and fresher index of archived content, was made available for public testing. <hl>

In <hl> 2011 <hl> a new, improved version of the Wayback Machine, with an updated interface and fresher index of archived content, was made available for public testing.


Question: When were details of the test version of the updated Wayback Machine released?

In March 2011, it was said on the Wayback Machine forum that "The Beta of the new Wayback Machine has a more complete and up-to-date index of all crawled materials into 2010, and will continue to be updated regularly. The index driving the classic Wayback Machine only has a little bit of material past 2008, and no further index updates are planned, as it will be phased out this year".

Answer: March 2011

<hl> In March 2011 , it was said on the Wayback Machine forum that "The Beta of the new Wayback Machine has a more complete and up-to-date index of all crawled materials into 2010, and will continue to be updated regularly. <hl> The index driving the classic Wayback Machine only has a little bit of material past 2008, and no further index updates are planned, as it will be phased out this year".

In <hl> March 2011 <hl>, it was said on the Wayback Machine forum that "The Beta of the new Wayback Machine has a more complete and up-to-date index of all crawled materials into 2010, and will continue to be updated regularly. The index driving the classic Wayback Machine only has a little bit of material past 2008, and no further index updates are planned, as it will be phased out this year".

In <hl> March 2011 <hl> , it was said on the Wayback Machine forum that "The Beta of the new Wayback Machine has a more complete and up-to-date index of all crawled materials into 2010, and will continue to be updated regularly.


Question: The older version of Wayback Machine did not have much new data past what year?

Answer: 2008

In March 2011, it was said on the Wayback Machine forum that "The Beta of the new Wayback Machine has a more complete and up-to-date index of all crawled materials into 2010, and will continue to be updated regularly. <hl> The index driving the classic Wayback Machine only has a little bit of material past 2008 , and no further index updates are planned, as it will be phased out this year". <hl>

In March 2011, it was said on the Wayback Machine forum that "The Beta of the new Wayback Machine has a more complete and up-to-date index of all crawled materials into 2010, and will continue to be updated regularly. The index driving the classic Wayback Machine only has a little bit of material past <hl> 2008 <hl>, and no further index updates are planned, as it will be phased out this year".

The index driving the classic Wayback Machine only has a little bit of material past <hl> 2008 <hl> , and no further index updates are planned, as it will be phased out this year".


Question: The newer version of the Wayback Machine included date up to and including what year?

Answer: 2010

<hl> In March 2011, it was said on the Wayback Machine forum that "The Beta of the new Wayback Machine has a more complete and up-to-date index of all crawled materials into 2010 , and will continue to be updated regularly. <hl> The index driving the classic Wayback Machine only has a little bit of material past 2008, and no further index updates are planned, as it will be phased out this year".

In March 2011, it was said on the Wayback Machine forum that "The Beta of the new Wayback Machine has a more complete and up-to-date index of all crawled materials into <hl> 2010 <hl>, and will continue to be updated regularly. The index driving the classic Wayback Machine only has a little bit of material past 2008, and no further index updates are planned, as it will be phased out this year".

In March 2011, it was said on the Wayback Machine forum that "The Beta of the new Wayback Machine has a more complete and up-to-date index of all crawled materials into <hl> 2010 <hl> , and will continue to be updated regularly.


Question: What was the functionality called that gave users the ability to save a snapshot of a site?

In October 2013, the company announced the "Save a Page" feature which allows any Internet user to archive the contents of a URL. This became a threat of abuse by the service for hosting malicious binaries.

Answer: Save a Page

<hl> In October 2013, the company announced the " Save a Page " feature which allows any Internet user to archive the contents of a URL. <hl> This became a threat of abuse by the service for hosting malicious binaries.

In October 2013, the company announced the "<hl> Save a Page <hl>" feature which allows any Internet user to archive the contents of a URL. This became a threat of abuse by the service for hosting malicious binaries.

In October 2013, the company announced the " <hl> Save a Page <hl> " feature which allows any Internet user to archive the contents of a URL.


Question: When was Save a Page made available?

Answer: October 2013

<hl> In October 2013 , the company announced the "Save a Page" feature which allows any Internet user to archive the contents of a URL. <hl> This became a threat of abuse by the service for hosting malicious binaries.

In <hl> October 2013 <hl>, the company announced the "Save a Page" feature which allows any Internet user to archive the contents of a URL. This became a threat of abuse by the service for hosting malicious binaries.

In <hl> October 2013 <hl> , the company announced the "Save a Page" feature which allows any Internet user to archive the contents of a URL.


Question: What 2009 court battle involved the Wayback Machine?

In a 2009 case, Netbula, LLC v. Chordiant Software Inc., defendant Chordiant filed a motion to compel Netbula to disable the robots.txt file on its web site that was causing the Wayback Machine to retroactively remove access to previous versions of pages it had archived from Nebula's site, pages that Chordiant believed would support its case.

Answer: Netbula, LLC v. Chordiant Software Inc.

<hl> In a 2009 case, Netbula, LLC v. Chordiant Software Inc. , defendant Chordiant filed a motion to compel Netbula to disable the robots.txt file on its web site that was causing the Wayback Machine to retroactively remove access to previous versions of pages it had archived from Nebula's site, pages that Chordiant believed would support its case. <hl>

In a 2009 case, <hl> Netbula, LLC v. Chordiant Software Inc. <hl>, defendant Chordiant filed a motion to compel Netbula to disable the robots.txt file on its web site that was causing the Wayback Machine to retroactively remove access to previous versions of pages it had archived from Nebula's site, pages that Chordiant believed would support its case.

In a 2009 case, <hl> Netbula, LLC v. Chordiant Software Inc. <hl> , defendant Chordiant filed a motion to compel Netbula to disable the robots.txt file on its web site that was causing the Wayback Machine to retroactively remove access to previous versions of pages it had archived from Nebula's site, pages that Chordiant believed would support its case.


Question: Which company thought that Wayback Machine data was important for its argument?

Answer: Chordiant

In a 2009 case, Netbula, LLC v. <hl> Chordiant Software Inc., defendant Chordiant filed a motion to compel Netbula to disable the robots.txt file on its web site that was causing the Wayback Machine to retroactively remove access to previous versions of pages it had archived from Nebula's site, pages that Chordiant believed would support its case. <hl>

In a 2009 case, Netbula, LLC v. <hl> Chordiant <hl> Software Inc., defendant Chordiant filed a motion to compel Netbula to disable the robots.txt file on its web site that was causing the Wayback Machine to retroactively remove access to previous versions of pages it had archived from Nebula's site, pages that Chordiant believed would support its case.


Question: What did Chordiant request that the court deactivate on Netbula's website?

Answer: the robots.txt file

<hl> In a 2009 case, Netbula, LLC v. Chordiant Software Inc., defendant Chordiant filed a motion to compel Netbula to disable the robots.txt file on its web site that was causing the Wayback Machine to retroactively remove access to previous versions of pages it had archived from Nebula's site, pages that Chordiant believed would support its case. <hl>

In a 2009 case, Netbula, LLC v. Chordiant Software Inc., defendant Chordiant filed a motion to compel Netbula to disable <hl> the robots.txt file <hl> on its web site that was causing the Wayback Machine to retroactively remove access to previous versions of pages it had archived from Nebula's site, pages that Chordiant believed would support its case.


Question: Who did Netbula believe was the entity that should be responsible for the availability of its snapshots?

Netbula objected to the motion on the ground that defendants were asking to alter Netbula's web site and that they should have subpoenaed Internet Archive for the pages directly. An employee of Internet Archive filed a sworn statement supporting Chordiant's motion, however, stating that it could not produce the web pages by any other means "without considerable burden, expense and disruption to its operations."

Answer: Internet Archive

<hl> Netbula objected to the motion on the ground that defendants were asking to alter Netbula's web site and that they should have subpoenaed Internet Archive for the pages directly. <hl> An employee of Internet Archive filed a sworn statement supporting Chordiant's motion, however, stating that it could not produce the web pages by any other means "without considerable burden, expense and disruption to its operations."

Netbula objected to the motion on the ground that defendants were asking to alter Netbula's web site and that they should have subpoenaed <hl> Internet Archive <hl> for the pages directly. An employee of Internet Archive filed a sworn statement supporting Chordiant's motion, however, stating that it could not produce the web pages by any other means "without considerable burden, expense and disruption to its operations."


Question: Which party did Internet Archive side with?

Answer: Chordiant

Netbula objected to the motion on the ground that defendants were asking to alter Netbula's web site and that they should have subpoenaed Internet Archive for the pages directly. <hl> An employee of Internet Archive filed a sworn statement supporting Chordiant 's motion, however, stating that it could not produce the web pages by any other means "without considerable burden, expense and disruption to its operations." <hl>

Netbula objected to the motion on the ground that defendants were asking to alter Netbula's web site and that they should have subpoenaed Internet Archive for the pages directly. An employee of Internet Archive filed a sworn statement supporting <hl> Chordiant <hl>'s motion, however, stating that it could not produce the web pages by any other means "without considerable burden, expense and disruption to its operations."

An employee of Internet Archive filed a sworn statement supporting <hl> Chordiant <hl> 's motion, however, stating that it could not produce the web pages by any other means "without considerable burden, expense and disruption to its operations."


Question: Which judge presided over the Netbula v. Chordiant case?

Answer: Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd

<hl> Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, rejected Netbula's arguments and ordered them to disable the robots.txt blockage temporarily in order to allow Chordiant to retrieve the archived pages that they sought. <hl>

<hl> Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd <hl> in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, rejected Netbula's arguments and ordered them to disable the robots.txt blockage temporarily in order to allow Chordiant to retrieve the archived pages that they sought.


Question: In what jurisdiction was the Netbula v. Chordiant case tried?

Answer: Northern District of California, San Jose Division

<hl> Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division , rejected Netbula's arguments and ordered them to disable the robots.txt blockage temporarily in order to allow Chordiant to retrieve the archived pages that they sought. <hl>

Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd in the <hl> Northern District of California, San Jose Division <hl>, rejected Netbula's arguments and ordered them to disable the robots.txt blockage temporarily in order to allow Chordiant to retrieve the archived pages that they sought.

Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd in the <hl> Northern District of California, San Jose Division <hl> , rejected Netbula's arguments and ordered them to disable the robots.txt blockage temporarily in order to allow Chordiant to retrieve the archived pages that they sought.


Question: Which party won its argument regarding Netbula's robots.txt file?

Answer: Chordiant

<hl> Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, rejected Netbula's arguments and ordered them to disable the robots.txt blockage temporarily in order to allow Chordiant to retrieve the archived pages that they sought. <hl>

Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, rejected Netbula's arguments and ordered them to disable the robots.txt blockage temporarily in order to allow <hl> Chordiant <hl> to retrieve the archived pages that they sought.


Question: What does Telewizja Polska operate?

In an October 2004 case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, No. 02 C 3293, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 673 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time. Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates the Dish Network. Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the past content of Telewizja Polska's web site. Telewizja Polska brought a motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source, but Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Telewizja Polska's assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial. At the trial, however, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman, the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings,[citation needed] and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported web page printouts were not self-authenticating.[citation needed]

Answer: TVP Polonia

In an October 2004 case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, No. 02 C 3293, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 673 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time. <hl> Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates the Dish Network. <hl> Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the past content of Telewizja Polska's web site. Telewizja Polska brought a motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source, but Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Telewizja Polska's assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial. At the trial, however, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman, the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings,[citation needed] and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported web page printouts were not self-authenticating.[citation needed]

In an October 2004 case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, No. 02 C 3293, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 673 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time. Telewizja Polska is the provider of <hl> TVP Polonia <hl> and EchoStar operates the Dish Network. Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the past content of Telewizja Polska's web site. Telewizja Polska brought a motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source, but Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Telewizja Polska's assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial. At the trial, however, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman, the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings,[citation needed] and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported web page printouts were not self-authenticating.[citation needed]


Question: What is EchoStar's platform?

Answer: the Dish Network

In an October 2004 case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, No. 02 C 3293, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 673 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time. <hl> Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates the Dish Network . <hl> Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the past content of Telewizja Polska's web site. Telewizja Polska brought a motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source, but Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Telewizja Polska's assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial. At the trial, however, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman, the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings,[citation needed] and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported web page printouts were not self-authenticating.[citation needed]

In an October 2004 case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, No. 02 C 3293, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 673 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time. Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates <hl> the Dish Network <hl>. Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the past content of Telewizja Polska's web site. Telewizja Polska brought a motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source, but Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Telewizja Polska's assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial. At the trial, however, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman, the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings,[citation needed] and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported web page printouts were not self-authenticating.[citation needed]

Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates <hl> the Dish Network <hl> .


Question: Which judge denied Telewizja Polska's attempt to block the use of Internet Archive contents as evidence?

Answer: Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys

In an October 2004 case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, No. 02 C 3293, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 673 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time. Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates the Dish Network. Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the past content of Telewizja Polska's web site. <hl> Telewizja Polska brought a motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source, but Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Telewizja Polska's assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial. <hl> At the trial, however, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman, the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings,[citation needed] and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported web page printouts were not self-authenticating.[citation needed]

In an October 2004 case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, No. 02 C 3293, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 673 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time. Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates the Dish Network. Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the past content of Telewizja Polska's web site. Telewizja Polska brought a motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source, but <hl> Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys <hl> rejected Telewizja Polska's assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial. At the trial, however, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman, the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings,[citation needed] and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported web page printouts were not self-authenticating.[citation needed]


Question: Which judge overturned Keys' ruling?

Answer: district Court Judge Ronald Guzman

In an October 2004 case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, No. 02 C 3293, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 673 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time. Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates the Dish Network. Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the past content of Telewizja Polska's web site. Telewizja Polska brought a motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source, but Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Telewizja Polska's assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial. <hl> At the trial, however, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman , the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings,[citation needed] and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. <hl> Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported web page printouts were not self-authenticating.[citation needed]

In an October 2004 case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, No. 02 C 3293, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 673 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time. Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates the Dish Network. Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the past content of Telewizja Polska's web site. Telewizja Polska brought a motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source, but Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Telewizja Polska's assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial. At the trial, however, <hl> district Court Judge Ronald Guzman <hl>, the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings,[citation needed] and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported web page printouts were not self-authenticating.[citation needed]

At the trial, however, <hl> district Court Judge Ronald Guzman <hl> , the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings,[citation needed] and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence.


Question: When are Internet Archive timestamps useful for patent offices?

Provided some additional requirements are met (e.g. providing an authoritative statement of the archivist), the United States patent office and the European Patent Office will accept date stamps from the Internet Archive as evidence of when a given Web page was accessible to the public. These dates are used to determine if a Web page is available as prior art for instance in examining a patent application.

Answer: in examining a patent application

Provided some additional requirements are met (e.g. providing an authoritative statement of the archivist), the United States patent office and the European Patent Office will accept date stamps from the Internet Archive as evidence of when a given Web page was accessible to the public. <hl> These dates are used to determine if a Web page is available as prior art for instance in examining a patent application . <hl>

Provided some additional requirements are met (e.g. providing an authoritative statement of the archivist), the United States patent office and the European Patent Office will accept date stamps from the Internet Archive as evidence of when a given Web page was accessible to the public. These dates are used to determine if a Web page is available as prior art for instance <hl> in examining a patent application <hl>.

These dates are used to determine if a Web page is available as prior art for instance <hl> in examining a patent application <hl> .


Question: What is an example of a condition that must be met for the Internet Archive data to be considered acceptable for submission to patent offices in the US and Europe?

Answer: authoritative statement of the archivist

<hl> Provided some additional requirements are met (e.g. providing an authoritative statement of the archivist ), the United States patent office and the European Patent Office will accept date stamps from the Internet Archive as evidence of when a given Web page was accessible to the public. <hl> These dates are used to determine if a Web page is available as prior art for instance in examining a patent application.

Provided some additional requirements are met (e.g. providing an <hl> authoritative statement of the archivist <hl>), the United States patent office and the European Patent Office will accept date stamps from the Internet Archive as evidence of when a given Web page was accessible to the public. These dates are used to determine if a Web page is available as prior art for instance in examining a patent application.

Provided some additional requirements are met (e.g. providing an <hl> authoritative statement of the archivist <hl> ), the United States patent office and the European Patent Office will accept date stamps from the Internet Archive as evidence of when a given Web page was accessible to the public.


Question: What kind of limitations exist in keeping copies of a website?

There are technical limitations to archiving a web site, and as a consequence, it is possible for opposing parties in litigation to misuse the results provided by web site archives. This problem can be exacerbated by the practice of submitting screen shots of web pages in complaints, answers, or expert witness reports, when the underlying links are not exposed and therefore, can contain errors. For example, archives such as the Wayback Machine do not fill out forms and therefore, do not include the contents of non-RESTful e-commerce databases in their archives.

Answer: technical

<hl> There are technical limitations to archiving a web site, and as a consequence, it is possible for opposing parties in litigation to misuse the results provided by web site archives. <hl> This problem can be exacerbated by the practice of submitting screen shots of web pages in complaints, answers, or expert witness reports, when the underlying links are not exposed and therefore, can contain errors. For example, archives such as the Wayback Machine do not fill out forms and therefore, do not include the contents of non-RESTful e-commerce databases in their archives.

There are <hl> technical <hl> limitations to archiving a web site, and as a consequence, it is possible for opposing parties in litigation to misuse the results provided by web site archives. This problem can be exacerbated by the practice of submitting screen shots of web pages in complaints, answers, or expert witness reports, when the underlying links are not exposed and therefore, can contain errors. For example, archives such as the Wayback Machine do not fill out forms and therefore, do not include the contents of non-RESTful e-commerce databases in their archives.


Question: The omission of what element in screenshots can make them unreliable as evidence?

Answer: underlying links

There are technical limitations to archiving a web site, and as a consequence, it is possible for opposing parties in litigation to misuse the results provided by web site archives. <hl> This problem can be exacerbated by the practice of submitting screen shots of web pages in complaints, answers, or expert witness reports, when the underlying links are not exposed and therefore, can contain errors. <hl> For example, archives such as the Wayback Machine do not fill out forms and therefore, do not include the contents of non-RESTful e-commerce databases in their archives.

There are technical limitations to archiving a web site, and as a consequence, it is possible for opposing parties in litigation to misuse the results provided by web site archives. This problem can be exacerbated by the practice of submitting screen shots of web pages in complaints, answers, or expert witness reports, when the <hl> underlying links <hl> are not exposed and therefore, can contain errors. For example, archives such as the Wayback Machine do not fill out forms and therefore, do not include the contents of non-RESTful e-commerce databases in their archives.


Question: What elements of webpages are not used by Wayback Machine?

Answer: forms

There are technical limitations to archiving a web site, and as a consequence, it is possible for opposing parties in litigation to misuse the results provided by web site archives. This problem can be exacerbated by the practice of submitting screen shots of web pages in complaints, answers, or expert witness reports, when the underlying links are not exposed and therefore, can contain errors. <hl> For example, archives such as the Wayback Machine do not fill out forms and therefore, do not include the contents of non-RESTful e-commerce databases in their archives. <hl>

There are technical limitations to archiving a web site, and as a consequence, it is possible for opposing parties in litigation to misuse the results provided by web site archives. This problem can be exacerbated by the practice of submitting screen shots of web pages in complaints, answers, or expert witness reports, when the underlying links are not exposed and therefore, can contain errors. For example, archives such as the Wayback Machine do not fill out <hl> forms <hl> and therefore, do not include the contents of non-RESTful e-commerce databases in their archives.


Question: What kind of sites contain information that the Wayback Machine does not record?

Answer: e-commerce

There are technical limitations to archiving a web site, and as a consequence, it is possible for opposing parties in litigation to misuse the results provided by web site archives. This problem can be exacerbated by the practice of submitting screen shots of web pages in complaints, answers, or expert witness reports, when the underlying links are not exposed and therefore, can contain errors. <hl> For example, archives such as the Wayback Machine do not fill out forms and therefore, do not include the contents of non-RESTful e-commerce databases in their archives. <hl>

There are technical limitations to archiving a web site, and as a consequence, it is possible for opposing parties in litigation to misuse the results provided by web site archives. This problem can be exacerbated by the practice of submitting screen shots of web pages in complaints, answers, or expert witness reports, when the underlying links are not exposed and therefore, can contain errors. For example, archives such as the Wayback Machine do not fill out forms and therefore, do not include the contents of non-RESTful <hl> e-commerce <hl> databases in their archives.


Question: What kinds of laws could the Wayback Machine be viewed as breaking in Europe?

In Europe the Wayback Machine could be interpreted as violating copyright laws. Only the content creator can decide where their content is published or duplicated, so the Archive would have to delete pages from its system upon request of the creator. The exclusion policies for the Wayback Machine may be found in the FAQ section of the site. The Wayback Machine also retroactively respects robots.txt files, i.e., pages that currently are blocked to robots on the live web temporarily will be made unavailable from the archives as well.

Answer: copyright laws

<hl> In Europe the Wayback Machine could be interpreted as violating copyright laws . <hl> Only the content creator can decide where their content is published or duplicated, so the Archive would have to delete pages from its system upon request of the creator. The exclusion policies for the Wayback Machine may be found in the FAQ section of the site. The Wayback Machine also retroactively respects robots.txt files, i.e., pages that currently are blocked to robots on the live web temporarily will be made unavailable from the archives as well.

In Europe the Wayback Machine could be interpreted as violating <hl> copyright laws <hl>. Only the content creator can decide where their content is published or duplicated, so the Archive would have to delete pages from its system upon request of the creator. The exclusion policies for the Wayback Machine may be found in the FAQ section of the site. The Wayback Machine also retroactively respects robots.txt files, i.e., pages that currently are blocked to robots on the live web temporarily will be made unavailable from the archives as well.

In Europe the Wayback Machine could be interpreted as violating <hl> copyright laws <hl> .


Question: What would the Internet Archive have to do if requested by someone whose content is available on Wayback Machine?

Answer: delete pages from its system

In Europe the Wayback Machine could be interpreted as violating copyright laws. <hl> Only the content creator can decide where their content is published or duplicated, so the Archive would have to delete pages from its system upon request of the creator. <hl> The exclusion policies for the Wayback Machine may be found in the FAQ section of the site. The Wayback Machine also retroactively respects robots.txt files, i.e., pages that currently are blocked to robots on the live web temporarily will be made unavailable from the archives as well.

In Europe the Wayback Machine could be interpreted as violating copyright laws. Only the content creator can decide where their content is published or duplicated, so the Archive would have to <hl> delete pages from its system <hl> upon request of the creator. The exclusion policies for the Wayback Machine may be found in the FAQ section of the site. The Wayback Machine also retroactively respects robots.txt files, i.e., pages that currently are blocked to robots on the live web temporarily will be made unavailable from the archives as well.


Question: In what part of the website are Wayback Machine's rules regarding removing content?

Answer: FAQ

In Europe the Wayback Machine could be interpreted as violating copyright laws. Only the content creator can decide where their content is published or duplicated, so the Archive would have to delete pages from its system upon request of the creator. <hl> The exclusion policies for the Wayback Machine may be found in the FAQ section of the site. <hl> The Wayback Machine also retroactively respects robots.txt files, i.e., pages that currently are blocked to robots on the live web temporarily will be made unavailable from the archives as well.

In Europe the Wayback Machine could be interpreted as violating copyright laws. Only the content creator can decide where their content is published or duplicated, so the Archive would have to delete pages from its system upon request of the creator. The exclusion policies for the Wayback Machine may be found in the <hl> FAQ <hl> section of the site. The Wayback Machine also retroactively respects robots.txt files, i.e., pages that currently are blocked to robots on the live web temporarily will be made unavailable from the archives as well.


Question: Web pages that contained content critical of what religous movement were taken off of the Internet Archive in 2002?

In late 2002, the Internet Archive removed various sites that were critical of Scientology from the Wayback Machine. An error message stated that this was in response to a "request by the site owner." Later, it was clarified that lawyers from the Church of Scientology had demanded the removal and that the site owners did not want their material removed.

Answer: Scientology

<hl> In late 2002, the Internet Archive removed various sites that were critical of Scientology from the Wayback Machine. <hl> An error message stated that this was in response to a "request by the site owner." Later, it was clarified that lawyers from the Church of Scientology had demanded the removal and that the site owners did not want their material removed.

In late 2002, the Internet Archive removed various sites that were critical of <hl> Scientology <hl> from the Wayback Machine. An error message stated that this was in response to a "request by the site owner." Later, it was clarified that lawyers from the Church of Scientology had demanded the removal and that the site owners did not want their material removed.


Question: Who was mistakenly credited for having the sites with criticism of Scientology removed from the Internet Archive?

Answer: the site owner

In late 2002, the Internet Archive removed various sites that were critical of Scientology from the Wayback Machine. <hl> An error message stated that this was in response to a "request by the site owner ." <hl> Later, it was clarified that lawyers from the Church of Scientology had demanded the removal and that the site owners did not want their material removed.

In late 2002, the Internet Archive removed various sites that were critical of Scientology from the Wayback Machine. An error message stated that this was in response to a "request by <hl> the site owner <hl>." Later, it was clarified that lawyers from the Church of Scientology had demanded the removal and that the site owners did not want their material removed.

An error message stated that this was in response to a "request by <hl> the site owner <hl> ."


Question: Who was the actual party that requested the critical sites be taken down?

Answer: Church of Scientology

In late 2002, the Internet Archive removed various sites that were critical of Scientology from the Wayback Machine. An error message stated that this was in response to a "request by the site owner." <hl> Later, it was clarified that lawyers from the Church of Scientology had demanded the removal and that the site owners did not want their material removed. <hl>

In late 2002, the Internet Archive removed various sites that were critical of Scientology from the Wayback Machine. An error message stated that this was in response to a "request by the site owner." Later, it was clarified that lawyers from the <hl> Church of Scientology <hl> had demanded the removal and that the site owners did not want their material removed.


Question: Which law firm leveraged Wayback Machine to protect their client in 2003?

In 2003, Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey defended a client from a trademark dispute using the Archive's Wayback Machine. The attorneys were able to demonstrate that the claims made by the plaintiff were invalid, based on the content of their web site from several years prior. The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates, then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Healthcare Advocates claimed that, since they had installed a robots.txt file on their web site, even if after the initial lawsuit was filed, the Archive should have removed all previous copies of the plaintiff web site from the Wayback Machine. The lawsuit was settled out of court.

Answer: Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey

<hl> In 2003, Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey defended a client from a trademark dispute using the Archive's Wayback Machine. <hl> The attorneys were able to demonstrate that the claims made by the plaintiff were invalid, based on the content of their web site from several years prior. The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates, then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Healthcare Advocates claimed that, since they had installed a robots.txt file on their web site, even if after the initial lawsuit was filed, the Archive should have removed all previous copies of the plaintiff web site from the Wayback Machine. The lawsuit was settled out of court.

In 2003, <hl> Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey <hl> defended a client from a trademark dispute using the Archive's Wayback Machine. The attorneys were able to demonstrate that the claims made by the plaintiff were invalid, based on the content of their web site from several years prior. The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates, then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Healthcare Advocates claimed that, since they had installed a robots.txt file on their web site, even if after the initial lawsuit was filed, the Archive should have removed all previous copies of the plaintiff web site from the Wayback Machine. The lawsuit was settled out of court.


Question: Which company filed suit against Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey's client?

Answer: Healthcare Advocates

In 2003, Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey defended a client from a trademark dispute using the Archive's Wayback Machine. The attorneys were able to demonstrate that the claims made by the plaintiff were invalid, based on the content of their web site from several years prior. <hl> The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates , then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. <hl> Healthcare Advocates claimed that, since they had installed a robots.txt file on their web site, even if after the initial lawsuit was filed, the Archive should have removed all previous copies of the plaintiff web site from the Wayback Machine. The lawsuit was settled out of court.

In 2003, Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey defended a client from a trademark dispute using the Archive's Wayback Machine. The attorneys were able to demonstrate that the claims made by the plaintiff were invalid, based on the content of their web site from several years prior. The plaintiff, <hl> Healthcare Advocates <hl>, then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Healthcare Advocates claimed that, since they had installed a robots.txt file on their web site, even if after the initial lawsuit was filed, the Archive should have removed all previous copies of the plaintiff web site from the Wayback Machine. The lawsuit was settled out of court.

The plaintiff, <hl> Healthcare Advocates <hl> , then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.


Question: Who did Healthcare advocates change their case to include as a defendant?

Answer: Internet Archive

In 2003, Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey defended a client from a trademark dispute using the Archive's Wayback Machine. The attorneys were able to demonstrate that the claims made by the plaintiff were invalid, based on the content of their web site from several years prior. <hl> The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates, then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive , accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. <hl> Healthcare Advocates claimed that, since they had installed a robots.txt file on their web site, even if after the initial lawsuit was filed, the Archive should have removed all previous copies of the plaintiff web site from the Wayback Machine. The lawsuit was settled out of court.

In 2003, Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey defended a client from a trademark dispute using the Archive's Wayback Machine. The attorneys were able to demonstrate that the claims made by the plaintiff were invalid, based on the content of their web site from several years prior. The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates, then amended their complaint to include the <hl> Internet Archive <hl>, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Healthcare Advocates claimed that, since they had installed a robots.txt file on their web site, even if after the initial lawsuit was filed, the Archive should have removed all previous copies of the plaintiff web site from the Wayback Machine. The lawsuit was settled out of court.

The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates, then amended their complaint to include the <hl> Internet Archive <hl> , accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.


Question: What laws did Healthcare Advocates accuse Internet Archive of having broken?

Answer: the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

In 2003, Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey defended a client from a trademark dispute using the Archive's Wayback Machine. The attorneys were able to demonstrate that the claims made by the plaintiff were invalid, based on the content of their web site from several years prior. <hl> The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates, then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act . <hl> Healthcare Advocates claimed that, since they had installed a robots.txt file on their web site, even if after the initial lawsuit was filed, the Archive should have removed all previous copies of the plaintiff web site from the Wayback Machine. The lawsuit was settled out of court.

In 2003, Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey defended a client from a trademark dispute using the Archive's Wayback Machine. The attorneys were able to demonstrate that the claims made by the plaintiff were invalid, based on the content of their web site from several years prior. The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates, then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of <hl> the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act <hl>. Healthcare Advocates claimed that, since they had installed a robots.txt file on their web site, even if after the initial lawsuit was filed, the Archive should have removed all previous copies of the plaintiff web site from the Wayback Machine. The lawsuit was settled out of court.

The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates, then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of <hl> the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act <hl> .


Question: What kind of protocol is the Robots Exclusion Standard?

Robots.txt is used as part of the Robots Exclusion Standard, a voluntary protocol the Internet Archive respects that disallows bots from indexing certain pages delineated by its creator as off-limits. As a result, the Internet Archive has rendered unavailable a number of web sites that now are inaccessible through the Wayback Machine. Currently, the Internet Archive applies robots.txt rules retroactively; if a site blocks the Internet Archive, such as Healthcare Advocates, any previously archived pages from the domain are rendered unavailable as well. In cases of blocked sites, only the robots.txt file is archived.

Answer: voluntary

<hl> Robots.txt is used as part of the Robots Exclusion Standard, a voluntary protocol the Internet Archive respects that disallows bots from indexing certain pages delineated by its creator as off-limits. <hl> As a result, the Internet Archive has rendered unavailable a number of web sites that now are inaccessible through the Wayback Machine. Currently, the Internet Archive applies robots.txt rules retroactively; if a site blocks the Internet Archive, such as Healthcare Advocates, any previously archived pages from the domain are rendered unavailable as well. In cases of blocked sites, only the robots.txt file is archived.

Robots.txt is used as part of the Robots Exclusion Standard, a <hl> voluntary <hl> protocol the Internet Archive respects that disallows bots from indexing certain pages delineated by its creator as off-limits. As a result, the Internet Archive has rendered unavailable a number of web sites that now are inaccessible through the Wayback Machine. Currently, the Internet Archive applies robots.txt rules retroactively; if a site blocks the Internet Archive, such as Healthcare Advocates, any previously archived pages from the domain are rendered unavailable as well. In cases of blocked sites, only the robots.txt file is archived.


Question: What file is utilized to exercise the rights promoted by the Robots Exclusion Standard?

Answer: Robots.txt

<hl> Robots.txt is used as part of the Robots Exclusion Standard, a voluntary protocol the Internet Archive respects that disallows bots from indexing certain pages delineated by its creator as off-limits. <hl> As a result, the Internet Archive has rendered unavailable a number of web sites that now are inaccessible through the Wayback Machine. Currently, the Internet Archive applies robots.txt rules retroactively; if a site blocks the Internet Archive, such as Healthcare Advocates, any previously archived pages from the domain are rendered unavailable as well. In cases of blocked sites, only the robots.txt file is archived.

<hl> Robots.txt <hl> is used as part of the Robots Exclusion Standard, a voluntary protocol the Internet Archive respects that disallows bots from indexing certain pages delineated by its creator as off-limits. As a result, the Internet Archive has rendered unavailable a number of web sites that now are inaccessible through the Wayback Machine. Currently, the Internet Archive applies robots.txt rules retroactively; if a site blocks the Internet Archive, such as Healthcare Advocates, any previously archived pages from the domain are rendered unavailable as well. In cases of blocked sites, only the robots.txt file is archived.


Question: If a site prevents Internet Archive from recording it, what file is still saved?

Answer: Robots.txt

<hl> Robots.txt is used as part of the Robots Exclusion Standard, a voluntary protocol the Internet Archive respects that disallows bots from indexing certain pages delineated by its creator as off-limits. <hl> As a result, the Internet Archive has rendered unavailable a number of web sites that now are inaccessible through the Wayback Machine. Currently, the Internet Archive applies robots.txt rules retroactively; if a site blocks the Internet Archive, such as Healthcare Advocates, any previously archived pages from the domain are rendered unavailable as well. In cases of blocked sites, only the robots.txt file is archived.

<hl> Robots.txt <hl> is used as part of the Robots Exclusion Standard, a voluntary protocol the Internet Archive respects that disallows bots from indexing certain pages delineated by its creator as off-limits. As a result, the Internet Archive has rendered unavailable a number of web sites that now are inaccessible through the Wayback Machine. Currently, the Internet Archive applies robots.txt rules retroactively; if a site blocks the Internet Archive, such as Healthcare Advocates, any previously archived pages from the domain are rendered unavailable as well. In cases of blocked sites, only the robots.txt file is archived.


Question: Who asserts that they will respond to direct contacts requesting material be removed from the archive?

The Internet Archive states, however, "Sometimes a website owner will contact us directly and ask us to stop crawling or archiving a site. We comply with these requests." In addition, the web site says: "The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection."

Answer: Internet Archive

<hl> The Internet Archive states, however, "Sometimes a website owner will contact us directly and ask us to stop crawling or archiving a site. <hl> We comply with these requests." In addition, the web site says: "The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection."

The <hl> Internet Archive <hl> states, however, "Sometimes a website owner will contact us directly and ask us to stop crawling or archiving a site. We comply with these requests." In addition, the web site says: "The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection."


Question: Who sued Internet Archive in 2005?

In December 2005, activist Suzanne Shell filed suit demanding Internet Archive pay her US $100,000 for archiving her web site profane-justice.org between 1999 and 2004. Internet Archive filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 20, 2006, seeking a judicial determination that Internet Archive did not violate Shell's copyright. Shell responded and brought a countersuit against Internet Archive for archiving her site, which she alleges is in violation of her terms of service. On February 13, 2007, a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed all counterclaims except breach of contract. The Internet Archive did not move to dismiss copyright infringement claims Shell asserted arising out of its copying activities, which would also go forward.

Answer: Suzanne Shell

<hl> In December 2005, activist Suzanne Shell filed suit demanding Internet Archive pay her US $100,000 for archiving her web site profane-justice.org between 1999 and 2004. <hl> Internet Archive filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 20, 2006, seeking a judicial determination that Internet Archive did not violate Shell's copyright. Shell responded and brought a countersuit against Internet Archive for archiving her site, which she alleges is in violation of her terms of service. On February 13, 2007, a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed all counterclaims except breach of contract. The Internet Archive did not move to dismiss copyright infringement claims Shell asserted arising out of its copying activities, which would also go forward.

In December 2005, activist <hl> Suzanne Shell <hl> filed suit demanding Internet Archive pay her US $100,000 for archiving her web site profane-justice.org between 1999 and 2004. Internet Archive filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 20, 2006, seeking a judicial determination that Internet Archive did not violate Shell's copyright. Shell responded and brought a countersuit against Internet Archive for archiving her site, which she alleges is in violation of her terms of service. On February 13, 2007, a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed all counterclaims except breach of contract. The Internet Archive did not move to dismiss copyright infringement claims Shell asserted arising out of its copying activities, which would also go forward.


Question: What was the URL owned by Suzanne Shell?

Answer: profane-justice.org

<hl> In December 2005, activist Suzanne Shell filed suit demanding Internet Archive pay her US $100,000 for archiving her web site profane-justice.org between 1999 and 2004. <hl> Internet Archive filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 20, 2006, seeking a judicial determination that Internet Archive did not violate Shell's copyright. Shell responded and brought a countersuit against Internet Archive for archiving her site, which she alleges is in violation of her terms of service. On February 13, 2007, a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed all counterclaims except breach of contract. The Internet Archive did not move to dismiss copyright infringement claims Shell asserted arising out of its copying activities, which would also go forward.

In December 2005, activist Suzanne Shell filed suit demanding Internet Archive pay her US $100,000 for archiving her web site <hl> profane-justice.org <hl> between 1999 and 2004. Internet Archive filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 20, 2006, seeking a judicial determination that Internet Archive did not violate Shell's copyright. Shell responded and brought a countersuit against Internet Archive for archiving her site, which she alleges is in violation of her terms of service. On February 13, 2007, a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed all counterclaims except breach of contract. The Internet Archive did not move to dismiss copyright infringement claims Shell asserted arising out of its copying activities, which would also go forward.


Question: In what jurisdiction were Internet Archive's counterclaims filed?

Answer: Northern District of California

In December 2005, activist Suzanne Shell filed suit demanding Internet Archive pay her US $100,000 for archiving her web site profane-justice.org between 1999 and 2004. <hl> Internet Archive filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 20, 2006, seeking a judicial determination that Internet Archive did not violate Shell's copyright. <hl> Shell responded and brought a countersuit against Internet Archive for archiving her site, which she alleges is in violation of her terms of service. On February 13, 2007, a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed all counterclaims except breach of contract. The Internet Archive did not move to dismiss copyright infringement claims Shell asserted arising out of its copying activities, which would also go forward.

In December 2005, activist Suzanne Shell filed suit demanding Internet Archive pay her US $100,000 for archiving her web site profane-justice.org between 1999 and 2004. Internet Archive filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the <hl> Northern District of California <hl> on January 20, 2006, seeking a judicial determination that Internet Archive did not violate Shell's copyright. Shell responded and brought a countersuit against Internet Archive for archiving her site, which she alleges is in violation of her terms of service. On February 13, 2007, a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed all counterclaims except breach of contract. The Internet Archive did not move to dismiss copyright infringement claims Shell asserted arising out of its copying activities, which would also go forward.


Question: In what jurisdiction where counterclaims nullified by the court?

Answer: District of Colorado

In December 2005, activist Suzanne Shell filed suit demanding Internet Archive pay her US $100,000 for archiving her web site profane-justice.org between 1999 and 2004. Internet Archive filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 20, 2006, seeking a judicial determination that Internet Archive did not violate Shell's copyright. Shell responded and brought a countersuit against Internet Archive for archiving her site, which she alleges is in violation of her terms of service. <hl> On February 13, 2007, a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed all counterclaims except breach of contract. <hl> The Internet Archive did not move to dismiss copyright infringement claims Shell asserted arising out of its copying activities, which would also go forward.

In December 2005, activist Suzanne Shell filed suit demanding Internet Archive pay her US $100,000 for archiving her web site profane-justice.org between 1999 and 2004. Internet Archive filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 20, 2006, seeking a judicial determination that Internet Archive did not violate Shell's copyright. Shell responded and brought a countersuit against Internet Archive for archiving her site, which she alleges is in violation of her terms of service. On February 13, 2007, a judge for the United States District Court for the <hl> District of Colorado <hl> dismissed all counterclaims except breach of contract. The Internet Archive did not move to dismiss copyright infringement claims Shell asserted arising out of its copying activities, which would also go forward.


Question: When did Suzanne Shell's suit against Internet Archive come to an end?

On April 25, 2007, Internet Archive and Suzanne Shell jointly announced the settlement of their lawsuit. The Internet Archive said it "...has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived. We recognize that Ms. Shell has a valid and enforceable copyright in her Web site and we regret that the inclusion of her Web site in the Wayback Machine resulted in this litigation." Shell said, "I respect the historical value of Internet Archive's goal. I never intended to interfere with that goal nor cause it any harm."

Answer: April 25, 2007

<hl> On April 25, 2007 , Internet Archive and Suzanne Shell jointly announced the settlement of their lawsuit. <hl> The Internet Archive said it "...has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived. We recognize that Ms. Shell has a valid and enforceable copyright in her Web site and we regret that the inclusion of her Web site in the Wayback Machine resulted in this litigation." Shell said, "I respect the historical value of Internet Archive's goal. I never intended to interfere with that goal nor cause it any harm."

On <hl> April 25, 2007 <hl>, Internet Archive and Suzanne Shell jointly announced the settlement of their lawsuit. The Internet Archive said it "...has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived. We recognize that Ms. Shell has a valid and enforceable copyright in her Web site and we regret that the inclusion of her Web site in the Wayback Machine resulted in this litigation." Shell said, "I respect the historical value of Internet Archive's goal. I never intended to interfere with that goal nor cause it any harm."

On <hl> April 25, 2007 <hl> , Internet Archive and Suzanne Shell jointly announced the settlement of their lawsuit.


Question: Who stated that they had no wish to violate individuals' copyrights?

Answer: Internet Archive

<hl> On April 25, 2007, Internet Archive and Suzanne Shell jointly announced the settlement of their lawsuit. <hl> The Internet Archive said it "...has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived. We recognize that Ms. Shell has a valid and enforceable copyright in her Web site and we regret that the inclusion of her Web site in the Wayback Machine resulted in this litigation." Shell said, "I respect the historical value of Internet Archive's goal. I never intended to interfere with that goal nor cause it any harm."

On April 25, 2007, <hl> Internet Archive <hl> and Suzanne Shell jointly announced the settlement of their lawsuit. The Internet Archive said it "...has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived. We recognize that Ms. Shell has a valid and enforceable copyright in her Web site and we regret that the inclusion of her Web site in the Wayback Machine resulted in this litigation." Shell said, "I respect the historical value of Internet Archive's goal. I never intended to interfere with that goal nor cause it any harm."


Question: Who stated that they did not want to cause damage to the Internet Archive?

Answer: Suzanne Shell

<hl> On April 25, 2007, Internet Archive and Suzanne Shell jointly announced the settlement of their lawsuit. <hl> The Internet Archive said it "...has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived. We recognize that Ms. Shell has a valid and enforceable copyright in her Web site and we regret that the inclusion of her Web site in the Wayback Machine resulted in this litigation." Shell said, "I respect the historical value of Internet Archive's goal. I never intended to interfere with that goal nor cause it any harm."

On April 25, 2007, Internet Archive and <hl> Suzanne Shell <hl> jointly announced the settlement of their lawsuit. The Internet Archive said it "...has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived. We recognize that Ms. Shell has a valid and enforceable copyright in her Web site and we regret that the inclusion of her Web site in the Wayback Machine resulted in this litigation." Shell said, "I respect the historical value of Internet Archive's goal. I never intended to interfere with that goal nor cause it any harm."


Question: What was the first method used by the actor in trying to get his images taken down?

Answer: DMCA requests

<hl> In 2013–14 a pornographic actor was trying to remove archived images of himself, first by sending multiple DMCA requests to the Archive and then in the Federal Court of Canada. <hl>

In 2013–14 a pornographic actor was trying to remove archived images of himself, first by sending multiple <hl> DMCA requests <hl> to the Archive and then in the Federal Court of Canada.


Question: What legal system did the actor use after filing DMCA petitions?

Answer: Federal Court of Canada

<hl> In 2013–14 a pornographic actor was trying to remove archived images of himself, first by sending multiple DMCA requests to the Archive and then in the Federal Court of Canada . <hl>

In 2013–14 a pornographic actor was trying to remove archived images of himself, first by sending multiple DMCA requests to the Archive and then in the <hl> Federal Court of Canada <hl>.

In 2013–14 a pornographic actor was trying to remove archived images of himself, first by sending multiple DMCA requests to the Archive and then in the <hl> Federal Court of Canada <hl> .


Question: What are some other names the Dutch Republic is known by?

The Dutch Republic, also known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden), Republic of the United Netherlands or Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën), was a republic in Europe existing from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795. It preceded the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands. Alternative names include the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinciën), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata).

Answer: the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinciën), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata)

The Dutch Republic, also known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden), Republic of the United Netherlands or Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën), was a republic in Europe existing from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795. It preceded the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands. <hl> Alternative names include the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinciën), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata) . <hl>

The Dutch Republic, also known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden), Republic of the United Netherlands or Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën), was a republic in Europe existing from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795. It preceded the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands. Alternative names include <hl> the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinciën), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata) <hl>.

Alternative names include <hl> the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinciën), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata) <hl> .


Question: The Dutch Republic was a republic of Europe during what time?

Answer: from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795

<hl> The Dutch Republic, also known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden), Republic of the United Netherlands or Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën), was a republic in Europe existing from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795 . <hl> It preceded the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands. Alternative names include the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinciën), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata).

The Dutch Republic, also known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden), Republic of the United Netherlands or Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën), was a republic in Europe existing <hl> from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795 <hl>. It preceded the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands. Alternative names include the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinciën), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata).

The Dutch Republic, also known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden), Republic of the United Netherlands or Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën), was a republic in Europe existing <hl> from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795 <hl> .


Question: What republics did the Dutch Republic come before?

Answer: Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands

The Dutch Republic, also known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden), Republic of the United Netherlands or Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën), was a republic in Europe existing from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795. <hl> It preceded the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands . <hl> Alternative names include the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinciën), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata).

The Dutch Republic, also known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden), Republic of the United Netherlands or Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën), was a republic in Europe existing from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795. It preceded the <hl> Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands <hl>. Alternative names include the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinciën), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata).

It preceded the <hl> Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands <hl> .


Question: The Low Countries were made up of which present day countries?

Answer: Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg

<hl> Until the 16th century, the Low Countries – corresponding roughly to the present-day Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg – consisted of a number of duchies, counties, and Prince-bishoprics, almost all of which were under the supremacy of the Holy Roman Empire, with the exception of the county of Flanders, which was under the Kingdom of France. <hl>

Until the 16th century, the Low Countries – corresponding roughly to the present-day <hl> Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg <hl> – consisted of a number of duchies, counties, and Prince-bishoprics, almost all of which were under the supremacy of the Holy Roman Empire, with the exception of the county of Flanders, which was under the Kingdom of France.


Question: Which counties in the Low Countries were not ruled by the Holy Roman Empire?

Answer: Flanders

<hl> Until the 16th century, the Low Countries – corresponding roughly to the present-day Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg – consisted of a number of duchies, counties, and Prince-bishoprics, almost all of which were under the supremacy of the Holy Roman Empire, with the exception of the county of Flanders , which was under the Kingdom of France. <hl>

Until the 16th century, the Low Countries – corresponding roughly to the present-day Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg – consisted of a number of duchies, counties, and Prince-bishoprics, almost all of which were under the supremacy of the Holy Roman Empire, with the exception of the county of <hl> Flanders <hl>, which was under the Kingdom of France.

Until the 16th century, the Low Countries – corresponding roughly to the present-day Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg – consisted of a number of duchies, counties, and Prince-bishoprics, almost all of which were under the supremacy of the Holy Roman Empire, with the exception of the county of <hl> Flanders <hl> , which was under the Kingdom of France.


Question: The majority of the Low Countries were ruled by which houses?

Most of the Low Countries had come under the rule of the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg. In 1549 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V issued the Pragmatic Sanction, which further unified the Seventeen Provinces under his rule. Charles was succeeded by his son, King Philip II of Spain. In 1568 the Netherlands, led by William I of Orange, revolted against Philip II because of high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces. This was the start of the Eighty Years' War.

Answer: the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg

<hl> Most of the Low Countries had come under the rule of the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg . <hl> In 1549 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V issued the Pragmatic Sanction, which further unified the Seventeen Provinces under his rule. Charles was succeeded by his son, King Philip II of Spain. In 1568 the Netherlands, led by William I of Orange, revolted against Philip II because of high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces. This was the start of the Eighty Years' War.

Most of the Low Countries had come under the rule of <hl> the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg <hl>. In 1549 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V issued the Pragmatic Sanction, which further unified the Seventeen Provinces under his rule. Charles was succeeded by his son, King Philip II of Spain. In 1568 the Netherlands, led by William I of Orange, revolted against Philip II because of high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces. This was the start of the Eighty Years' War.

Most of the Low Countries had come under the rule of <hl> the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg <hl> .


Question: Who issued the Pragmatic Sanction?

Answer: Holy Roman Emperor Charles V

Most of the Low Countries had come under the rule of the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg. <hl> In 1549 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V issued the Pragmatic Sanction, which further unified the Seventeen Provinces under his rule. <hl> Charles was succeeded by his son, King Philip II of Spain. In 1568 the Netherlands, led by William I of Orange, revolted against Philip II because of high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces. This was the start of the Eighty Years' War.

Most of the Low Countries had come under the rule of the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg. In 1549 <hl> Holy Roman Emperor Charles V <hl> issued the Pragmatic Sanction, which further unified the Seventeen Provinces under his rule. Charles was succeeded by his son, King Philip II of Spain. In 1568 the Netherlands, led by William I of Orange, revolted against Philip II because of high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces. This was the start of the Eighty Years' War.


Question: In what year did the Netherlands rise up against Philip II?

Answer: 1568

Most of the Low Countries had come under the rule of the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg. In 1549 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V issued the Pragmatic Sanction, which further unified the Seventeen Provinces under his rule. Charles was succeeded by his son, King Philip II of Spain. <hl> In 1568 the Netherlands, led by William I of Orange, revolted against Philip II because of high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces. <hl> This was the start of the Eighty Years' War.

Most of the Low Countries had come under the rule of the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg. In 1549 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V issued the Pragmatic Sanction, which further unified the Seventeen Provinces under his rule. Charles was succeeded by his son, King Philip II of Spain. In <hl> 1568 <hl> the Netherlands, led by William I of Orange, revolted against Philip II because of high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces. This was the start of the Eighty Years' War.


Question: Why did the people of the Netherlands rise up against Philip II?

Answer: high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces

Most of the Low Countries had come under the rule of the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg. In 1549 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V issued the Pragmatic Sanction, which further unified the Seventeen Provinces under his rule. Charles was succeeded by his son, King Philip II of Spain. <hl> In 1568 the Netherlands, led by William I of Orange, revolted against Philip II because of high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces . <hl> This was the start of the Eighty Years' War.

Most of the Low Countries had come under the rule of the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg. In 1549 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V issued the Pragmatic Sanction, which further unified the Seventeen Provinces under his rule. Charles was succeeded by his son, King Philip II of Spain. In 1568 the Netherlands, led by William I of Orange, revolted against Philip II because of <hl> high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces <hl>. This was the start of the Eighty Years' War.

In 1568 the Netherlands, led by William I of Orange, revolted against Philip II because of <hl> high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces <hl> .


Question: In what year was the Union of Utrecht signed?

In 1579 a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army. This was followed in 1581 by the Act of Abjuration, the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II.

Answer: 1579

<hl> In 1579 a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army. <hl> This was followed in 1581 by the Act of Abjuration, the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II.

In <hl> 1579 <hl> a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army. This was followed in 1581 by the Act of Abjuration, the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II.


Question: Who signed the Union of Utrecht?

Answer: a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries

<hl> In 1579 a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army. <hl> This was followed in 1581 by the Act of Abjuration, the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II.

In 1579 <hl> a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries <hl> signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army. This was followed in 1581 by the Act of Abjuration, the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II.


Question: What was the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II called?

Answer: the Act of Abjuration

In 1579 a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army. <hl> This was followed in 1581 by the Act of Abjuration , the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II. <hl>

In 1579 a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army. This was followed in 1581 by <hl> the Act of Abjuration <hl>, the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II.

This was followed in 1581 by <hl> the Act of Abjuration <hl> , the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II.


Question: In what year was the Act of Abjuration signed?

Answer: 1581

In 1579 a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army. <hl> This was followed in 1581 by the Act of Abjuration, the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II. <hl>

In 1579 a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army. This was followed in <hl> 1581 <hl> by the Act of Abjuration, the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II.


Question: What was the purpose of the Union of Utrecht?

Answer: to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army

<hl> In 1579 a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army . <hl> This was followed in 1581 by the Act of Abjuration, the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II.

In 1579 a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised <hl> to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army <hl>. This was followed in 1581 by the Act of Abjuration, the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II.

In 1579 a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised <hl> to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army <hl> .


Question: In what year did the United Provinces invite Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them?

In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583, the duke left the Netherlands again. After the assassination of William of Orange (10 July 1584), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Answer: 1582

<hl> In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583, the duke left the Netherlands again. <hl> After the assassination of William of Orange (10 July 1584), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

In <hl> 1582 <hl> the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583, the duke left the Netherlands again. After the assassination of William of Orange (10 July 1584), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.