Answer: the U.S. Eighth Army

Context: By 30 November, the PVA 13th Army Group managed to expel the U.S. Eighth Army from northwest Korea. Retreating from the north faster than they had counter-invaded, the Eighth Army crossed the 38th parallel border in mid December. UN morale hit rock bottom when commanding General Walton Walker of the U.S. Eighth Army was killed on 23 December 1950 in an automobile accident. In northeast Korea by 11 December, the U.S. X Corps managed to cripple the PVA 9th Army Group while establishing a defensive perimeter at the port city of Hungnam. The X Corps were forced to evacuate by 24 December in order to reinforce the badly depleted U.S. Eighth Army to the south.

Question: Who did the PVA 13th Army Group force out of northwest Korea?


Answer: General Walton Walker

Question: Whose death was not a direct casualty of the war?


Answer: to reinforce the badly depleted U.S. Eighth Army

Question: Why did the X Corps leave Hungnam?


Answer: UN morale hit rock bottom

Question: What effect did the death of General Walton Walker have on the troops?


Answer: SS Meredith Victory

Context: During the Hungnam evacuation, about 193 shiploads of UN Command forces and matériel (approximately 105,000 soldiers, 98,000 civilians, 17,500 vehicles, and 350,000 tons of supplies) were evacuated to Pusan. The SS Meredith Victory was noted for evacuating 14,000 refugees, the largest rescue operation by a single ship, even though it was designed to hold 12 passengers. Before escaping, the UN Command forces razed most of Hungnam city, especially the port facilities; and on 16 December 1950, President Truman declared a national emergency with Presidential Proclamation No. 2914, 3 C.F.R. 99 (1953), which remained in force until 14 September 1978.[b] The next day (17 December 1950) Kim Il-sung was deprived of the right of command of KPA by China. After that, the leading part of the war became the Chinese army. Following that, on 1 February 1951, United Nations General Assembly adopted a draft resolution condemning China as an aggressor in the Korean War.

Question: What was the name of the ship responsible for undertaking the largest rescue operation by a single ship?


Answer: declared a national emergency

Question: What did the Presidential Proclamation No. 2914, 3 1950 do?


Answer: 1978

Question: What year was the Presidential Proclamation lifted?


Answer: Kim Il-sung

Question: Who was stripped of their commanding rights by China?


Answer: China

Question: What country was condemned for their participation in the conflict in Korea?


Answer: Chinese New Year's Offensive

Context: With Lieutenant-General Matthew Ridgway assuming the command of the U.S. Eighth Army on 26 December, the PVA and the KPA launched their Third Phase Offensive (also known as the "Chinese New Year's Offensive") on New Year's Eve of 1950. Utilizing night attacks in which UN Command fighting positions were encircled and then assaulted by numerically superior troops who had the element of surprise, the attacks were accompanied by loud trumpets and gongs, which fulfilled the double purpose of facilitating tactical communication and mentally disorienting the enemy. UN forces initially had no familiarity with this tactic, and as a result some soldiers panicked, abandoning their weapons and retreating to the south. The Chinese New Year's Offensive overwhelmed UN forces, allowing the PVA and KPA to conquer Seoul for the second time on 4 January 1951.

Question: What is the Third Phase Offensive also known as?


Answer: facilitating tactical communication and mentally disorienting the enemy

Question: Why goals were accomplished the the KPA and PVA's use gongs during these attacks?


Answer: some soldiers panicked, abandoning their weapons and retreating to the south

Question: How did some UN troops react to the use of noise?


Answer: Seoul

Question: What did the PVA and KPA gain by using the tactics during the Third Phase Offensive


Answer: Lieutenant-General Matthew Ridgway

Question: Who was commanding the U.S. Eight Army at the time of the Third Phase Offensive?


Answer: The PVA had outrun its logistics capability

Context: UN forces retreated to Suwon in the west, Wonju in the center, and the territory north of Samcheok in the east, where the battlefront stabilized and held. The PVA had outrun its logistics capability and thus were unable to press on beyond Seoul as food, ammunition, and matériel were carried nightly, on foot and bicycle, from the border at the Yalu River to the three battle lines. In late January, upon finding that the PVA had abandoned their battle lines, General Ridgway ordered a reconnaissance-in-force, which became Operation Roundup (5 February 1951). A full-scale X Corps advance proceeded, which fully exploited the UN Command's air superiority, concluding with the UN reaching the Han River and recapturing Wonju.

Question: Why was the PVA unable to advance beyond Seoul?


Answer: PVA had abandoned their battle lines

Question: What caused General Ridgway to initiate Operation Roundup?


Answer: UN Command's air superiority

Question: What facilitated the success of Operation Roundup?


Answer: Wonju

Question: What city was recaptured as a result of the Ridgway's operation?


Answer: on foot and bicycle

Question: How was the PVA transporting supplies at one point?


Answer: destroy the guerrillas and their sympathizer citizens in Southern Korea

Context: In early February, the South Korean 11th Division ran the operation to destroy the guerrillas and their sympathizer citizens in Southern Korea. During the operation, the division and police conducted the Geochang massacre and Sancheong-Hamyang massacre. In mid-February, the PVA counterattacked with the Fourth Phase Offensive and achieved initial victory at Hoengseong. But the offensive was soon blunted by the IX Corps positions at Chipyong-ni in the center. Units of the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division and the French Battalion fought a short but desperate battle that broke the attack's momentum. The battle is sometimes known as the Gettysburg of the Korean War. The battle saw 5,600 Korean, American and French troops defeat a numerically superior Chinese force. Surrounded on all sides, the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division Warrior Division's 23rd Regimental Combat Team with an attached French Battalion was hemmed in by more than 25,000 Chinese Communist forces. United Nations forces had previously retreated in the face of large Communist forces instead of getting cut off, but this time they stood and fought at odds of roughly 15 to 1.

Question: What to be achieved by the Sancheong-Hamyang and Geochang massacres in South Korea?


Answer: the PVA

Question: Who's attack resulted in victory at Hoengseong?


Answer: the Fourth Phase Offensive

Question: What is considered to be the the Korean War's equivalent to Gettysburg?


Answer: broke the attack's momentum

Question: What did the French Battalion's efforts do to the PVA forces?


Answer: more than 25,000

Question: How many PVA soldiers fought in this battle and lost?


Answer: Operation Killer

Context: In the last two weeks of February 1951, Operation Roundup was followed by Operation Killer, carried out by the revitalized Eighth Army. It was a full-scale, battlefront-length attack staged for maximum exploitation of firepower to kill as many KPA and PVA troops as possible. Operation Killer concluded with I Corps re-occupying the territory south of the Han River, and IX Corps capturing Hoengseong. On 7 March 1951, the Eighth Army attacked with Operation Ripper, expelling the PVA and the KPA from Seoul on 14 March 1951. This was the city's fourth conquest in a years' time, leaving it a ruin; the 1.5 million pre-war population was down to 200,000, and people were suffering from severe food shortages.

Question: What Operation was initiated after the successful Operation Roundup?


Answer: to kill as many KPA and PVA troops as possible

Question: What the the goal of the operation that followed Operation Roundup?


Answer: capturing Hoengseong

Question: What signified the end of Operation Killer?


Answer: This was the city's fourth conquest

Question: How many times was Seoul captured in a year?


Answer: severe food shortages

Question: Other than the drastic decrease in population, what other issue did the people in Seoul face?


Answer: the Chinese war effort

Context: On 1 March 1951 Mao sent a cable to Stalin, in which he emphasized the difficulties faced by Chinese forces and the urgent need for air cover, especially over supply lines. Apparently impressed by the Chinese war effort, Stalin finally agreed to supply two air force divisions, three anti-aircraft divisions, and six thousand trucks. PVA troops in Korea continued to suffer severe logistical problems throughout the war. In late April Peng Dehuai sent his deputy, Hong Xuezhi, to brief Zhou Enlai in Beijing. What Chinese soldiers feared, Hong said, was not the enemy, but that they had nothing to eat, no bullets to shoot, and no trucks to transport them to the rear when they were wounded. Zhou attempted to respond to the PVA's logistical concerns by increasing Chinese production and improving methods of supply, but these efforts were never completely sufficient. At the same time, large-scale air defense training programs were carried out, and the Chinese Air Force began to participate in the war from September 1951 onward.

Question: Why did Stalin send two air forces divisions and other assistance to the Chinese?


Answer: logistical problems

Question: What issues plagued the PVA throughout the war?


Answer: they had nothing to eat

Question: What was a great concern of many Chinese troops?


Answer: increasing Chinese production and improving methods of supply

Question: What was Zhou's ineffective response to the issue plaguing the PVA?


Answer: the Chinese Air Force

Question: What did China introduce to the war in 1951?


Answer: General MacArthur

Context: On 11 April 1951, Commander-in-Chief Truman relieved the controversial General MacArthur, the Supreme Commander in Korea. There were several reasons for the dismissal. MacArthur had crossed the 38th parallel in the mistaken belief that the Chinese would not enter the war, leading to major allied losses. He believed that whether or not to use nuclear weapons should be his own decision, not the President's. MacArthur threatened to destroy China unless it surrendered. While MacArthur felt total victory was the only honorable outcome, Truman was more pessimistic about his chances once involved in a land war in Asia, and felt a truce and orderly withdrawal from Korea could be a valid solution. MacArthur was the subject of congressional hearings in May and June 1951, which determined that he had defied the orders of the President and thus had violated the U.S. Constitution. A popular criticism of MacArthur was that he never spent a night in Korea, and directed the war from the safety of Tokyo.

Question: Who was relieved from his duties as Commander in Korea?


Answer: Truman

Question: Who did not have faith in MacArthur's claim that victory was the only respectable outcome?


Answer: the Chinese would not enter the war

Question: What mistake did MacArthur make regarding the 38th parallel?


Answer: a truce and orderly withdrawal

Question: What did Truman want to see happen in Korea?


Answer: . MacArthur

Question: Whose involvement in the war was found to be in violation of the Constitution?


Answer: General Ridgway

Context: General Ridgway was appointed Supreme Commander, Korea; he regrouped the UN forces for successful counterattacks, while General James Van Fleet assumed command of the U.S. Eighth Army. Further attacks slowly depleted the PVA and KPA forces; Operations Courageous (23–28 March 1951) and Tomahawk (23 March 1951) were a joint ground and airborne infilltration meant to trap Chinese forces between Kaesong and Seoul. UN forces advanced to "Line Kansas", north of the 38th parallel. The 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team's ("Rakkasans") second of two combat jumps was on Easter Sunday, 1951, at Munsan-ni, South Korea, codenamed Operation Tomahawk. The mission was to get behind Chinese forces and block their movement north. The 60th Indian Parachute Field Ambulance provided the medical cover for the operations, dropping an ADS and a surgical team and treating over 400 battle casualties apart from the civilian casualties that formed the core of their objective as the unit was on a humanitarian mission.

Question: Who was appointed Supreme Commander in Korea after the removal of General MacArthur?


Answer: get behind Chinese forces and block their movement north

Question: What was the goal of Operation Tomahawk?


Answer: The 60th Indian Parachute Field Ambulance

Question: Who was responsible for supply humanitarian aid to civilians?


Answer: depleted the PVA and KPA forces

Question: Under the guidance of Generals Van Fleet and Ridgway, joint forces were able to achieve what goal?


Answer: Chinese Spring Offensive

Context: The Chinese counterattacked in April 1951, with the Fifth Phase Offensive, also known as the Chinese Spring Offensive, with three field armies (approximately 700,000 men). The offensive's first thrust fell upon I Corps, which fiercely resisted in the Battle of the Imjin River (22–25 April 1951) and the Battle of Kapyong (22–25 April 1951), blunting the impetus of the offensive, which was halted at the "No-name Line" north of Seoul. On 15 May 1951, the Chinese commenced the second impulse of the Spring Offensive and attacked the ROK Army and the U.S. X Corps in the east at the Soyang River. After initial success, they were halted by 20 May. At month's end, the U.S. Eighth Army counterattacked and regained "Line Kansas", just north of the 38th parallel. The UN's "Line Kansas" halt and subsequent offensive action stand-down began the stalemate that lasted until the armistice of 1953.

Question: What was the Fifth Phase of the Chinese counter initiative called?


Answer: Line Kansas

Question: What may have began as an effective series of attacks by the Chinese regained what area?


Answer: the stalemate

Question: What ended with the armistice of 1953?


Answer: three field armies

Question: How many armies did the Chinese use in the Fifth Phase Offensive?


Answer: just north of the 38th parallel

Question: Where was Line Kansas located?


Answer: Kaesong

Context: For the remainder of the Korean War the UN Command and the PVA fought, but exchanged little territory; the stalemate held. Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued, and protracted armistice negotiations began 10 July 1951 at Kaesong. On the Chinese side, Zhou Enlai directed peace talks, and Li Kenong and Qiao Guanghua headed the negotiation team. Combat continued while the belligerents negotiated; the UN Command forces' goal was to recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory. The PVA and the KPA attempted similar operations, and later effected military and psychological operations in order to test the UN Command's resolve to continue the war.

Question: Where did armistice negotiations occur?


Answer: recapture all of South Korea and to avoid losing territory

Question: What did the UN Command want to achieve with the armistice talks?


Answer: military and psychological operations

Question: What tactics were used by the PVA to coax the UN Command to continuing the war?


Answer: Large-scale bombing of North Korea continued

Question: Was there a cease fire during the talks?


Answer: Zhou Enlai

Question: Who directed the armistice negotiation for the Chinese?


Answer: 6–15 October 1952

Context: The principal battles of the stalemate include the Battle of Bloody Ridge (18 August–15 September 1951), the Battle of the Punchbowl (31 August-21 September 1951), the Battle of Heartbreak Ridge (13 September–15 October 1951), the Battle of Old Baldy (26 June–4 August 1952), the Battle of White Horse (6–15 October 1952), the Battle of Triangle Hill (14 October–25 November 1952), the Battle of Hill Eerie (21 March–21 June 1952), the sieges of Outpost Harry (10–18 June 1953), the Battle of the Hook (28–29 May 1953), the Battle of Pork Chop Hill (23 March–16 July 1953), and the Battle of Kumsong (13–27 July 1953).

Question: When was the Battle of White Horse?


Answer: 1951

Question: What year was the Battle of Bloody Ridge?


Answer: the Battle of the Hook

Question: What was the shortest of the major battles fought during the stalemate?


Answer: Chinese troops

Context: Chinese troops suffered from deficient military equipment, serious logistical problems, overextended communication and supply lines, and the constant threat of UN bombers. All of these factors generally led to a rate of Chinese casualties that was far greater than the casualties suffered by UN troops. The situation became so serious that, on November 1951, Zhou Enlai called a conference in Shenyang to discuss the PVA's logistical problems. At the meeting it was decided to accelerate the construction of railways and airfields in the area, to increase the number of trucks available to the army, and to improve air defense by any means possible. These commitments did little to directly address the problems confronting PVA troops.

Question: Did the UN troops or Chinese troops experience more war casualties?


Answer: called a conference in Shenyang

Question: What did Zhou Enlai do as a result of the significant amount of Chinese casualties?


Answer: discuss the PVA's logistical problems

Question: What was the purpose of the Shengyang meeting?


Answer: These commitments did little to directly address the problems

Question: Did the actions of the Chinese fix their problems?


Answer: Peng Dehuai

Context: In the months after the Shenyang conference Peng Dehuai went to Beijing several times to brief Mao and Zhou about the heavy casualties suffered by Chinese troops and the increasing difficulty of keeping the front lines supplied with basic necessities. Peng was convinced that the war would be protracted, and that neither side would be able to achieve victory in the near future. On 24 February 1952, the Military Commission, presided over by Zhou, discussed the PVA's logistical problems with members of various government agencies involved in the war effort. After the government representatives emphasized their inability to meet the demands of the war, Peng, in an angry outburst, shouted: "You have this and that problem... You should go to the front and see with your own eyes what food and clothing the soldiers have! Not to speak of the casualties! For what are they giving their lives? We have no aircraft. We have only a few guns. Transports are not protected. More and more soldiers are dying of starvation. Can't you overcome some of your difficulties?" The atmosphere became so tense that Zhou was forced to adjourn the conference. Zhou subsequently called a series of meetings, where it was agreed that the PVA would be divided into three groups, to be dispatched to Korea in shifts; to accelerate the training of Chinese pilots; to provide more anti-aircraft guns to the front lines; to purchase more military equipment and ammunition from the Soviet Union; to provide the army with more food and clothing; and, to transfer the responsibility of logistics to the central government.

Question: Who believed that neither side would see a victory at the end of the Korean War?


Answer: the Military Commission,

Question: What meeting was conducted to discuss the PVA's problems?


Answer: PVA would be divided into three groups

Question: What actions were taken to help the PVA?


Answer: the central government

Question: Who ended up in charge of logistics as a result of the restructuring of the PVA?


Answer: two years

Context: The on-again, off-again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong, on the border between North and South Korea, and then at the neighbouring village of Panmunjom. A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war (POW) repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, signed on 27 July 1953, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission, under the chairman Indian General K. S. Thimayya, was set up to handle the matter.

Question: How long did the armistice talks last?


Answer: prisoner of war (POW) repatriation

Question: What issues stalled the armistice talks?


Answer: many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north

Question: What was deemed unacceptable to North Koreans and the Chinese during POW negotiations?


Answer: 27 July 1953

Question: When was the armistice agreement finally signed?


Answer: Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission,

Question: What was established to deal with the issues surrounding prisoners of war?


Answer: Dwight D. Eisenhower

Context: In 1952, the United States elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of India's proposed Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, United States, and Joint UN Commands.

Question: Who did the US elect as president during the Korean War?


Answer: the United Nations

Question: Who approved the Korean War armistice that officially declared a ceasefire?


Answer: Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)

Question: What area was created by the parties involved in the Korean conflict?


Answer: United States

Question: Along with the Joint UN Commands, ROKA and KPA, what country also still patrols the demilitarized zone?


Answer: went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War

Question: What was one of the first things that the newly-elected Dwight Eisenhower did after the election?


Answer: North Korea

Context: The Demilitarized Zone runs northeast of the 38th parallel; to the south, it travels west. The old Korean capital city of Kaesong, site of the armistice negotiations, originally was in pre-war South Korea, but now is part of North Korea. The United Nations Command, supported by the United States, the North Korean People's Army, and the Chinese People's Volunteers, signed the Armistice Agreement on 27 July 1953 to end the fighting. The Armistice also called upon the governments of South Korea, North Korea, China and the United States to participate in continued peace talks. The war is considered to have ended at this point, even though there was no peace treaty. North Korea nevertheless claims that it won the Korean War.

Question: Where is the capital city of Kaesong now located?


Answer: The Demilitarized Zone

Question: What area is directly north and south of the 38th parallel?


Answer: 27 July 1953

Question: When was the Armistice Agreement signed?


Answer: there was no peace treaty

Question: Was there ever an official peace treaty after the war?


Answer: North Korea

Question: Who believes that they were victorious in the war?


Answer: to allow combatant countries to exchange their dead

Context: After the war, Operation Glory was conducted from July to November 1954, to allow combatant countries to exchange their dead. The remains of 4,167 U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps dead were exchanged for 13,528 KPA and PVA dead, and 546 civilians dead in UN prisoner-of-war camps were delivered to the South Korean government. After Operation Glory, 416 Korean War unknown soldiers were buried in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific (The Punchbowl), on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) records indicate that the PRC and the DPRK transmitted 1,394 names, of which 858 were correct. From 4,167 containers of returned remains, forensic examination identified 4,219 individuals. Of these, 2,944 were identified as American, and all but 416 were identified by name. From 1996 to 2006, the DPRK recovered 220 remains near the Sino-Korean border.

Question: What was the point of Operation Glory?


Answer: 4,167

Question: How many US service members were exchanged during this operation?


Answer: National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific

Question: Where are the remains of the 416 unidentified soldiers who died in the Korean War?


Answer: 220

Question: How many remains were recovered from the Sino-Korean border between 1996 and 2006?


Answer: new wave of UN sanctions

Context: After a new wave of UN sanctions, on 11 March 2013, North Korea claimed that it had invalidated the 1953 armistice. On 13 March 2013, North Korea confirmed it ended the 1953 Armistice and declared North Korea "is not restrained by the North-South declaration on non-aggression". On 30 March 2013, North Korea stated that it had entered a "state of war" with South Korea and declared that "The long-standing situation of the Korean peninsula being neither at peace nor at war is finally over". Speaking on 4 April 2013, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, informed the press that Pyongyang had "formally informed" the Pentagon that it had "ratified" the potential usage of a nuclear weapon against South Korea, Japan and the United States of America, including Guam and Hawaii. Hagel also stated that the United States would deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-ballistic missile system to Guam, because of a credible and realistic nuclear threat from North Korea.

Question: Why is North Korea insisting that the 1953 armistice was violated?


Answer: 13 March 2013

Question: When did North Korea call an end to the armistice?


Answer: South Korea

Question: In 2013, who what country did North Korea declare war on?


Answer: a nuclear weapon

Question: What weapon does North Korea claim it now has the ability to use?


Answer: credible and realistic nuclear threat

Question: How does the United States view North Korea's threats?


Answer: ground attack aircraft

Context: The initial assault by North Korean KPA forces were aided by the use of Soviet T-34-85 tanks. A North Korean tank corps equipped with about 120 T-34s spearheaded the invasion. These drove against a ROK Army with few anti-tank weapons adequate to deal with the Soviet T-34s. Additional Soviet armor was added as the offensive progressed. The North Korean tanks had a good deal of early successes against South Korean infantry, elements of the 24th Infantry Division, and those United States built M24 Chaffee light tanks that they encountered. Interdiction by ground attack aircraft was the only means of slowing the advancing Korean armor. The tide turned in favour of the United Nations forces in August 1950 when the North Koreans suffered major tank losses during a series of battles in which the UN forces brought heavier equipment to bear, including M4A3 Sherman medium tanks backed by U.S. M26 heavy tanks, along with the British Centurion, Churchill, and Cromwell tanks.

Question: What form of attack was an effective measure of slowing Korean armor?


Answer: Soviet T-34-85 tanks

Question: What weapon did the the KPA use that was successful early in the Korean conflict?


Answer: the North Koreans suffered major tank losses

Question: What helped the UN forces and shifted the war in their favor?


Answer: the UN forces brought heavier equipment

Question: What actions of the UN also helped them improve their results during the war?


Answer: 120

Question: How many tanks were in the North Korean tank corps?


Answer: neither Korea had a significant navy

Context: Because neither Korea had a significant navy, the Korean War featured few naval battles. A skirmish between North Korea and the UN Command occurred on 2 July 1950; the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Juneau, the Royal Navy cruiser HMS Jamaica, and the frigate HMS Black Swan fought four North Korean torpedo boats and two mortar gunboats, and sank them. USS Juneau later sank several ammunition ships that had been present. The last sea battle of the Korean War occurred at Inchon, days before the Battle of Incheon; the ROK ship PC-703 sank a North Korean mine layer in the Battle of Haeju Island, near Inchon. Three other supply ships were sunk by PC-703 two days later in the Yellow Sea. Thereafter, vessels from the UN nations held undisputed control of the sea about Korea. The gun ships were used in shore bombardment, while the aircraft carriers provided air support to the ground forces.

Question: Why were naval skirmishes not really seen in the Korean War?


Answer: the UN nations

Question: Who pretty much gained and maintained control of the sea?


Answer: the UN Command

Question: Who dominated any battles that may have taken place at sea?


Answer: Inchon

Question: Where was the last sea battle of the Korean War?


Answer: supply and ammunition ships

Context: During most of the war, the UN navies patrolled the west and east coasts of North Korea, sinking supply and ammunition ships and denying the North Koreans the ability to resupply from the sea. Aside from very occasional gunfire from North Korean shore batteries, the main threat to United States and UN navy ships was from magnetic mines. During the war, five U.S. Navy ships were lost to mines: two minesweepers, two minesweeper escorts, and one ocean tug. Mines and gunfire from North Korean coastal artillery damaged another 87 U.S. warships, resulting in slight to moderate damage.

Question: What type of ships did the US spend most of its time sinking?


Answer: magnetic mines

Question: What weapon posed a significant threat to US navy ships?


Answer: 87

Question: How many US warships were damaged by gun fire and mines?


Answer: the west and east coasts of North Korea

Question: Where were the majority of US naval patrols of Korea?


Answer: the Soviet Union

Context: The Chinese intervention in late October 1950 bolstered the Korean People's Air Force (KPAF) of North Korea with the MiG-15, one of the world's most advanced jet fighters. The fast, heavily armed MiG outflew first-generation UN jets such as the F-80 (United States Air Force) and Gloster Meteors (Royal Australian Air Force), posing a real threat to B-29 Superfortress bombers even under fighter escort. Fearful of confronting the United States directly, the Soviet Union denied involvement of their personnel in anything other than an advisory role, but air combat quickly resulted in Soviet pilots dropping their code signals and speaking over the wireless in Russian. This known direct Soviet participation was a casus belli that the UN Command deliberately overlooked, lest the war for the Korean peninsula expand to include the Soviet Union, and potentially escalate into atomic warfare.

Question: Who denied having anything more than an advisory role in the Korean War?


Answer: UN Command

Question: Who ignored the direct participation of the Soviet Union to prevent expanding the Korean War to the Soviet Union?


Answer: atomic warfare

Question: What may have occurred if the war was expanded to the Soviet Union?


Answer: dropping their code signals and speaking over the wireless in Russian

Question: What did the Soviet pilots start doing when accused of playing an integral role in the Korean War?


Answer: Soviet Union

Question: Who feared engaging in direct conflict with the United States?


Answer: F-86 Sabre

Context: The USAF countered the MiG-15 by sending over three squadrons of its most capable fighter, the F-86 Sabre. These arrived in December 1950. The MiG was designed as a bomber interceptor. It had a very high service ceiling—50,000 feet (15,000 m) and carried very heavy weaponry: one 37 mm cannon and two 23 mm cannons. They were fast enough to dive past the fighter escort of P-80 Shooting Stars and F9F Panthers and could reach and destroy the U.S. heavy bombers. B-29 losses could not be avoided, and the Air Force was forced to switch from a daylight bombing campaign to the necessarily less accurate nighttime bombing of targets. The MiGs were countered by the F-86 Sabres. They had a ceiling of 42,000 feet (13,000 m) and were armed with six .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns, which were range adjusted by radar gunsights. If coming in at higher altitude the advantage of engaging or not went to the MiG. Once in a level flight dogfight, both swept-wing designs attained comparable maximum speeds of around 660 mph (1,100 km/h). The MiG climbed faster, but the Sabre turned and dived better.

Question: What plane did the US send to Korea to counter the power of the MiG-15?


Answer: switch from a daylight bombing campaign to the necessarily less accurate nighttime bombing

Question: To mitigate the loses of the B-29, what did the US Air Force do?


Answer: bomber interceptor

Question: What was the MiG designed to be?


Answer: February 1907

Context: In February 1907, the Royal Dutch Shell Group was created through the amalgamation of two rival companies: the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company of the Netherlands and the "Shell" Transport and Trading Company Ltd of the United Kingdom. It was a move largely driven by the need to compete globally with Standard Oil. The Royal Dutch Petroleum Company was a Dutch company founded in 1890 to develop an oilfield in Sumatra, and initially led by August Kessler, Hugo Loudon, and Henri Deterding. The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company (the quotation marks were part of the legal name) was a British company, founded in 1897 by Marcus Samuel, 1st Viscount Bearsted, and his brother Samuel Samuel. Their father had owned an antique company in Houndsditch, London, which expanded in 1833 to import and sell sea-shells, after which the company "Shell" took its name.

Question: When was Royal Shell Group Created?


Answer: 1890

Question: When was the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company founded?


Answer: 1897

Question: When WAS the "Shell" Transport and Trading Company founded?


Answer: the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company of the Netherlands and the "Shell" Transport and Trading Company Ltd of the United Kingdom

Question: The Royal Dutch Shell Group was created through the merger of which two rival companies?


Answer: the need to compete globally with Standard Oil

Question: What was the main reason for the creation of the Royal Dutch Shell Group?


Answer: 1907

Question: In what year was the Royal Dutch Shell Group created?


Answer: 1890

Question: In what year was the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company founded?


Answer: to develop an oilfield in Sumatra

Question: Why was the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company created?


Answer: wind

Context: Shell was vertically integrated and is active in every area of the oil and gas industry, including exploration and production, refining, distribution and marketing, petrochemicals, power generation and trading. It has minor renewable energy activities in the form of biofuels and wind. It has operations in over 90 countries, produces around 3.1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day and has 44,000 service stations worldwide. Shell Oil Company, its subsidiary in the United States, is one of its largest businesses.

Question: Aside from biofuels what other renewable energy activities is Shell involved with?


Answer: over 90

Question: How many countries does Shell operate in?


Answer: 3.1 million barrels

Question: How much oil per day does Shell produce?


Answer: 44,000 service stations

Question: How many services stations does Shell have?


Answer: over 90

Question: In how many countries does Shell have operations?


Answer: 3.1 million

Question: How many barrels of oil equivalent does Shell produce per day?


Answer: 44,000

Question: Shell has how many service stations worldwide?


Answer: Shell Oil Company

Question: What is the name of Shell's subsidiary in the United States?


Answer: biofuels and wind

Question: Shell has minor renewable energy activities in which two areas?


Answer: 60

Context: For various reasons, the new firm operated as a dual-listed company, whereby the merging companies maintained their legal existence, but operated as a single-unit partnership for business purposes. The terms of the merger gave 60 percent ownership of the new group to the Dutch arm and 40 percent to the British. National patriotic sensibilities would not permit a full-scale merger or takeover of either of the two companies. The Dutch company, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij, was in charge at The Hague of production and manufacture. A British company was formed, called the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company, based in London, to direct the transport and storage of the products.

Question: What percent of ownership did the merger award the Dutch branch?


Answer: National patriotic sensibilities

Question: What prevented a full-scale merger of the two companies?


Answer: to direct the transport and storage of the products

Question: What was the primary function of the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company?


Answer: a dual-listed company

Question: The new firm operated as what type of company?


Answer: 40

Question: What percent of ownership of the new company was awarded to the British?


Answer: 2004

Context: In November 2004, following a period of turmoil caused by the revelation that Shell had been overstating its oil reserves, it was announced that the Shell Group would move to a single capital structure, creating a new parent company to be named Royal Dutch Shell plc, with its primary listing on the London Stock Exchange, a secondary listing on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, its headquarters and tax residency in The Hague, Netherlands and its registered office in London. The unification was completed on 20 July 2005 and the original owners delisted their companies from the respective exchanges. On 20 July 2005, the Shell Transport & Trading Company plc was delisted from the LSE, where as, Royal Dutch Petroleum Company from NYSE on 18 November 2005. The shares of the company were issued at a 60/40 advantage for the shareholders of Royal Dutch in line with the original ownership of the Shell Group.

Question: In what year was it announced that the Shell Group would move to a single capital structure?


Answer: Royal Dutch Shell plc

Question: What was the name of the Shell Group's new parent company?


Answer: the London Stock Exchange

Question: On what exchange was the Shell Group's new parent company primarily listed?


Answer: The Hague, Netherlands

Question: Where was the Royal Dutch Shell plc headquartered?


Answer: the revelation that Shell had been overstating its oil reserves

Question: What was the cause of the period of turmoil prior to the announcement that the Shell Group would move to a single capital structure?


Answer: 2010

Context: In February 2010 Shell and Cosan formed a 50:50 joint-venture, Raízen, comprising all of Cosan's Brazilian ethanol, energy generation, fuel distribution and sugar activities, and all of Shell's Brazilian retail fuel and aviation distribution businesses. In March 2010, Shell announced the sale of some of its assets, including its liquid petroleum gas (LPG) business, to meet the cost of a planned $28bn capital spending programme. Shell invited buyers to submit indicative bids, due by 22 March, with a plan to raise $2–3bn from the sale. In June 2010, Royal Dutch Shell agreed to acquire all the business of East Resources for a cash consideration of $4.7 billion. The transaction included East Resources' tight gas fields.

Question: In what year did Shell and Cosan form a 50:50 joint venture?


Answer: Raízen

Question: What was the name of the 50:50 joint venture formed by Shell and Cosan?


Answer: to meet the cost of a planned $28bn capital spending programme

Question: Why did Shell sell some of its assets in March 2010?


Answer: $2–3bn

Question: How much did Shell plan to raise from the sale of its assets?


Answer: East Resources

Question: Royal Dutch Shell agreed to acquire all the business of what entity in June 2010?


Answer: US shale gas

Context: Over the course of 2013, the corporation began the sale of its US shale gas assets and cancelled a US$20 billion gas project that was to be constructed in the US state of Louisiana. A new CEO Ben van Beurden was appointed in January 2014, prior to the announcement that the corporation's overall performance in 2013 was 38 per cent lower than 2012—the value of Shell's shares fell by 3 per cent as a result. Following the sale of the majority of its Australian assets in February 2014, the corporation plans to sell a further US$15 billion worth of assets in the period leading up to 2015, with deals announced in Australia, Brazil and Italy.

Question: Which assets did the corporation begin to sell in 2013?


Answer: US$20 billion

Question: What was the value of the cancelled gas project that was to be contstructed in Louisiana?


Answer: the corporation's overall performance in 2013 was 38 per cent lower than 2012

Question: The appointment of a new CEO in 2014 came prior to what announcement?


Answer: 2014

Question: In what year did the corporation sell the majority of its Australian assets?


Answer: US$15 billion

Question: What was the value of assets the corporation planned to sell leading up to 2015?


Answer: The presence of companies like Shell

Context: The presence of companies like Shell in the Niger-Delta has led to extreme environmental issues in the Niger Delta. Many pipelines in the Niger-Delta owned by Shell are old and corroded. Shell has acknowledged its responsibility for keeping the pipelines new but has also denied responsibility for environmental causes. This has led to mass protests from the Niger-Delta inhabitants and Amnesty International against Shell and Friends of the Earth Netherlands. It has also led to action plans to boycott Shell by environmental groups, and human rights groups. In January 2013, a Dutch court rejected four out of five allegations brought against the firm over oil pollution in the Niger Delta but found a subsidiary guilty of one case of pollution, ordering compensation to be paid to a Nigerian farmer.

Question: What is a cause of severe environmental issues in the Niger Delta?


Answer: old and corroded

Question: Many pipelines owned by Shell in the Niger Delta are described as what?


Answer: new

Question: Shell has accepted responsibility for keeping its pipelines in what condition?


Answer: responsibility for environmental causes

Question: In contrast to its acceptance of responsibility for keeping the pipelines new, Shell has denied what?


Answer: boycott Shell

Question: Environmental and human rights groups have created action plans to do what?


Answer: The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company

Context: The name Shell is linked to The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company. In 1833, the founder's father, Marcus Samuel, founded an import business to sell seashells to London collectors. When collecting seashell specimens in the Caspian Sea area in 1892, the younger Samuel realised there was potential in exporting lamp oil from the region and commissioned the world's first purpose-built oil tanker, the Murex (Latin for a type of snail shell), to enter this market; by 1907 the company had a fleet. Although for several decades the company had a refinery at Shell Haven on the Thames, there is no evidence of this having provided the name.

Question: The name Shell is connected to what company?


Answer: to sell seashells to London collectors

Question: What was the purpose of the created of The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company?


Answer: there was potential in exporting lamp oil from the region

Question: What did the younger founder of The "Shell" Transport and Trading company discover while collecting seashell specimens in the Caspian Sea area?


Answer: 1907

Question: By what year did the company have a fleet of oil tankers operating in the Caspian Sea region?


Answer: Thames

Question: The company operated a refinery on what river for several decades?


Answer: the management of a vertically integrated oil company

Context: Shell's primary business is the management of a vertically integrated oil company. The development of technical and commercial expertise in all stages of this vertical integration, from the initial search for oil (exploration) through its harvesting (production), transportation, refining and finally trading and marketing established the core competencies on which the company was founded. Similar competencies were required for natural gas, which has become one of the most important businesses in which Shell is involved, and which contributes a significant proportion of the company's profits. While the vertically integrated business model provided significant economies of scale and barriers to entry, each business now seeks to be a self-supporting unit without subsidies from other parts of the company.

Question: What is Shell's primary business?


Answer: technical and commercial

Question: The development of what two types of exptertise established the core competencies on which the company was founded?


Answer: natural gas

Question: One of the most important business in which Shell is involved is what?


Answer: self-supporting

Question: Each business now seeks to become what type of unit?


Answer: vertically integrated

Question: The business model that provided significant economies of scale and barriers to entry is called what?


Answer: heavily decentralised

Context: Traditionally, Shell was a heavily decentralised business worldwide (especially in the downstream) with companies in over 100 countries, each of which operated with a high degree of independence. The upstream tended to be far more centralised with much of the technical and financial direction coming from the central offices in The Hague. Nevertheless, there were very large "exploration and production" companies in a few major oil and gas production centres such as the United Kingdom (Shell Expro, a Joint Venture with Exxon), Nigeria, Brunei, and Oman.

Question: Shell was traditionally considered what type of business worldwide?


Answer: over 100

Question: Shell operated companies in how many countries?


Answer: the central offices in The Hague

Question: A good deal of technical and financial direction for the upstream came from what entity?


Answer: "exploration and production"

Question: What types of companies existed in a few major oil and gas production centers?


Answer: chemicals

Context: Downstream operations, which now also includes the chemicals business, generates a third of Shell's profits worldwide and is known for its global network of more than 40,000 petrol stations and its 47 oil refineries. The downstream business, which in some countries also included oil refining, generally included a retail petrol station network, lubricants manufacture and marketing, industrial fuel and lubricants sales and a host of other product/market sectors such as LPG and bitumen. The practice in Shell was that these businesses were essentially local and that they were best managed by local "operating companies" – often with middle and senior management reinforced by expatriates. In the 1990s, this paradigm began to change, and the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced. Today, virtually all of Shell's operations in various businesses are much more directly managed from London and The Hague. The autonomy of "operating companies" has been largely removed, as more "global businesses" have been created.

Question: Downstream operations currently includes what type of business?


Answer: a third

Question: Downstream operations produces what percent of Shell's profits worldwide?


Answer: more than 40,000

Question: How many petrol stationsare included in Shell's downstream operations global network?


Answer: local

Question: Prior to the 1990s, Shell's downstream businesses were essentially considered what kind of businesses?


Answer: the independence of operating companies around the world was gradually reduced

Question: In what way did the business paradigm of Shell's downstream operations begin to change?


Answer: its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios"

Context: In April 2010, Shell announced its intention to divest from downstream business of all African countries except South Africa and Egypt to Vitol and "Helios". In several countries such as Tunisia, protests and strikes broke out. Shell denied rumours of the sellout. Shell continues however upstream activities/extracting crude oil in the oil-rich Niger Delta as well as downstream/commercial activities in South Africa. In June 2013, the company announced a strategic review of its operations in Nigeria, hinting that assets could be divested. In August 2014, the company disclosed it was in the process of finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.

Question: What did Shell announce in April 2010?


Answer: protests and strikes broke out

Question: What happened in several countries in response to Shell's April 2010 announcement?


Answer: Nigeria

Question: In June 2013, Shell announced a review of its operations in which country?


Answer: finalizing the sale of its interests in four Nigerian oil fields.

Question: In August 2014, Shell announced it was in the process of doing what?


Answer: assets could be divested

Question: What did Shell indicate was a reason for the strategic review of operations in Nigeria?


Answer: Reitan Group

Context: On 27 August 2007, Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group, the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia, announced an agreement to re-brand some 269 service stations across Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, subject to obtaining regulatory approvals under the different competition laws in each country. On April 2010 Shell announced that the corporation is in process of trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland and is doing similar market research concerning Swedish operations. On October 2010 Shell's gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden were sold to St1, a Finnish energy company, more precisely to its major shareholding parent company Keele Oy. Shell branded gas stations will be rebranded within maximum of five years from the acquisition and the number of gas stations is likely to be reduced. Until then the stations will operate under Shell brand licence.

Question: What company was the owner of the 7-Eleven brand in Scandinavia?


Answer: 2007

Question: In what year did Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group announce an agreement?


Answer: some 269

Question: How many service stations did Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group agree to re-brand?


Answer: trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland

Question: Shell announced it was in the process of doing what in April 2010?


Answer: gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden

Question: In October 2010, Shell sold what to St1?


Answer: substantially independent

Context: Through most of Shell's early history, the Shell Oil Company business in the United States was substantially independent with its stock being traded on the NYSE and with little direct involvement from the group's central offices in the running of the American business. However, in 1984, Royal Dutch Shell made a bid to purchase those shares of Shell Oil Company it did not own (around 30%) and despite opposition from some minority shareholders, which led to a court case, Shell completed the buyout for a sum of $5.7 billion.

Question: Shell Oil Company's United States business throughout its early history is described as what?


Answer: the NYSE

Question: On which exchange was Shell Oil Company's U.S. stock historically traded?


Answer: the group's central offices

Question: Shell Oil Company historically had little direct involvement from what entity in the running of its American businesses?


Answer: 1984

Question: In what year did Royal Dutch Shell make a bid to purchase approximately 30% of Shell Oil Company's shares?


Answer: a court case

Question: What did Royal Dutch Shell's bid to purchase Shell Oil Company's shares lead to?


Answer: the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility

Context: On 20 May 2011, Royal Dutch Shell's final investment decision for the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility was finalized following the discovery of the remote offshore Prelude field—located off Australia's northwestern coast and estimated to contain about 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalent reserves—in 2007. FLNG technology is based on liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments that were pioneered in the mid-20th century and facilitates the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas, often too small to extract any other way.

Question: The final investment decision for what was finalized by Royal Dutch Shell in May 2011?


Answer: off Australia's northwestern coast

Question: The remote offshore Prelude field was discovered where?


Answer: liquefied natural gas (LNG)

Question: On what developments was FLNG technology based?


Answer: 3 trillion

Question: The Prelude field was estimated to contain how many cubic feet of natural gas reserves?


Answer: the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas

Question: FLNG technology faciliates what?


Answer: 9.5%

Context: Shell sold 9.5% of its 23.1% stake in Woodside Petroleum in June 2014 and advised that it had reached an agreement for Woodside to buy back 9.5% of its shares at a later stage. Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a 2001 takeover attempt was blocked by then federal Treasurer Peter Costello and the corporation has been open about its intention to sell its stake in Woodside as part of its target to shed assets. At a general body meeting, held on 1 August 2014, 72 percent of shareholders voted to approve the buy-back, short of the 75 percent vote that was required for approval. A statement from Shell read: "Royal Dutch Shell acknowledges the outcome of Woodside Petroleum Limited's shareholders' negative vote on the selective buy-back proposal. Shell is reviewing its options in relation to its remaining 13.6 percent holding."

Question: What percent of its stake in Woodside Petroleum did Shell sell in June 2014?


Answer: 2001

Question: Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a takeover attempt was blocked in what year?


Answer: then federal Treasurer Peter Costello

Question: Who blocked the takeover attempt?


Answer: 72

Question: What percentage of shareholders voted to approve the 2014 buy-back?


Answer: 75

Question: What percentage of shareholder votes was need to approve the 2014 buy-back?


Answer: an offshore lease

Context: Following the purchase of an offshore lease in 2005, Shell initiated its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program in 2006, after the corporation purchased the "Kulluk" oil rig and leased the Noble Discoverer drillship. At inception, the project was led by Pete Slaiby, a Shell executive who had previously worked in the North Sea. However, after the purchase of a second offshore lease in 2008, Shell only commenced drilling work in 2012, due to the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits. The plans to drill in the Arctic led to protests from environmental groups, particularly Greenpeace; furthermore, analysts in the energy field, as well as related industries, also expressed skepticism due to perceptions that drilling in the region is "too dangerous because of harsh conditions and remote locations".

Question: Shell purchased what in 2005?


Answer: its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program

Question: What did Shell initate after its 2005 purchase?


Answer: Pete Slaiby

Question: What executive initially led the Artic drilling project?


Answer: the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits

Question: What caused the delay in drilling after Shell's 2008 purchase?


Answer: Greenpeace

Question: Shell's plans to drill in the Artic led to protests from which particular environmental group?


Answer: difficult weather

Context: Further problems hampered the Arctic project after the commencement of drilling in 2012, as Shell dealt with a series of issues that involved air permits, Coast Guard certification of a marine vessel and severe damage to essential oil-spill equipment. Additionally, difficult weather conditions resulted in the delay of drilling during mid-2012 and the already dire situation was exacerbated by the "Kulluk" incident at the end of the year. Royal Dutch Shell had invested nearly US$5 billion by this stage of the project.

Question: What conditions caused the delay of drilling in mid-2012?


Answer: the "Kulluk" incident

Question: What worsened the situation at the end of 2012?


Answer: nearly US$5 billion

Question: What amount had Royal Dutch Shell invested in the project by the end of 2012?


Answer: 2012

Question: In what year did drilling in the Arctic region begin?


Answer: to be serviced in preparation for the 2013 drilling season

Context: As the Kulluk oil rig was being towed to the American state of Washington to be serviced in preparation for the 2013 drilling season, a winter storm on 27 December 2012 caused the towing crews, as well as the rescue service, to lose control of the situation. As of 1 January 2013, the Kulluk was grounded off the coast Sitkalidak Island, near the eastern end of Kodiak Island. Following the accident, a Fortune magazine contacted Larry McKinney, the executive director at the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies at Texas A&M, and he explained that "A two-month delay in the Arctic is not a two-month delay ... A two-month delay could wipe out the entire drilling season."

Question: Why was the Kulluk oil rig being towed to Washington?


Answer: a winter storm

Question: What caused towing crews and rescue service to lose control while the Kulluk rig was in transport to Washington?


Answer: Sitkalidak

Question: On January 1, 2013, the Kulluk was grounded off the coast of which island?


Answer: Fortune

Question: Following the incident, which magazine contacted Larry McKinney?


Answer: wipe out the entire drilling season

Question: Larry McKinney explained that a two-month delay in drilling could do what?


Answer: the "Kulluk" incident

Context: It was unclear if Shell would recommence drilling in mid-2013, following the "Kulluk" incident and, in February 2013, the corporation stated that it would "pause" its closely watched drilling project off the Alaskan coast in 2013, and will instead prepare for future exploration. In January 2014, the corporation announced the extension of the suspension of its drilling program in the Arctic, with chief executive van Beurden explaining that the project is "under review" due to both market and internal issues.

Question: Following what event was it uncertain if Shell would recommence drilling?


Answer: its closely watched drilling project off the Alaskan coast

Question: In February 2013, Shell Corporation announced that it would pause what?


Answer: the extension of the suspension of its drilling program in the Arctic

Question: Shell Corporation announced what in January 2014?


Answer: van Beurden

Question: Which Shell Corporation executive explained the reason for the January 2014 announcement?


Answer: the project is "under review" due to both market and internal issues.

Question: What reason did the executive give for Shell's January 2014 announcement?


Answer: the possible pollution caused by the proposed disposal of the Brent Spar platform into the North Sea

Context: In the 1990s, protesters criticised the company's environmental record, particularly the possible pollution caused by the proposed disposal of the Brent Spar platform into the North Sea. Despite support from the UK government, Shell reversed the decision under public pressure but maintained that sinking the platform would have been environmentally better. Shell subsequently published an unequivocal commitment to sustainable development, supported by executive speeches reinforcing this commitment.

Question: For what particular reason did protesters criticize the company's environmental record in the 1990s?


Answer: the UK government

Question: What entity supported Shell during the 1990s protests?


Answer: an unequivocal commitment to sustainable development

Question: Following the reversal of its decision, Shell published what?


Answer: alleged human rights violations in Nigeria

Context: In the beginning of 1996, several human rights groups brought cases to hold Shell accountable for alleged human rights violations in Nigeria, including summary execution, crimes against humanity, torture, inhumane treatment and arbitrary arrest and detention. In particular, Shell stood accused of collaborating in the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other leaders of the Ogoni tribe of southern Nigeria, who were hanged in 1995 by Nigeria's then military rulers. The lawsuits were brought against Royal Dutch Shell and Brian Anderson, the head of its Nigerian operation. In 2009, Shell agreed to pay $15.5m in a legal settlement. Shell has not accepted any liability over the allegations against it.

Question: In 1996, multiple groups filed lawsuits to hold Shell accountable for what?


Answer: Ken Saro-Wiwa

Question: Shell was accused of participating in the execution of which southern Nigerian tribal leader?


Answer: 2009

Question: In what year did Shell agree to settle the lawsuits filed in 1996?


Answer: $15.5m

Question: For what amount did Shell agree to settle the 1996 lawsuits?


Answer: accepted any liability over the allegations against it

Question: In contrast to its agreement to settle the 1996 lawsuits, Shell refused to do what?


Answer: staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government

Context: In 2010, a leaked cable revealed that Shell claims to have inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government and know "everything that was being done in those ministries", according to Shell's top executive in Nigeria. The same executive also boasted that the Nigerian government had forgotten about the extent of Shell's infiltration. Documents released in 2009 (but not used in the court case) reveal that Shell regularly made payments to the Nigerian military in order to prevent protests.

Question: A 2010 leaked communication revealed that Shell claimed to have inserted what into which entities?


Answer: "everything that was being done in those ministries"

Question: The same leaked communication revealed Shell claimed to know what?


Answer: the Nigerian government had forgotten about the extent of Shell's infiltration

Question: About what did the Shell executive boast in relation to the leaked communication?


Answer: the Nigerian military

Question: Documents released in 2009 showed that Shell made regular payments to which entity?


Answer: to prevent protests

Question: For what purpose did Shell make regular payments to the entity cited in the documents released in 2009?


Answer: 52

Context: On 16 March 2012, 52 Greenpeace activists from five different countries boarded Fennica and Nordica, multipurpose icebreakers chartered to support Shell's drilling rigs near Alaska. Around the same time period, a reporter for Fortune magazine spoke with Edward Itta, an Inupiat Eskimo leader and the former mayor of the North Slope Borough, who expressed that he was conflicted about Shell's plans in the Arctic, as he was very concerned that an oil spill could destroy the Inupiat Eskimo's hunting-and-fishing culture, but his borough also received major tax revenue from oil and gas production; additionally, further revenue from energy activity was considered crucial to the future of the living standard in Itta's community.

Question: How many Greenpeace activists boarded Fennica and Nordica in March 2012?


Answer: five

Question: How many countries did the group of Greenpeace activists represent?


Answer: multipurpose icebreakers

Question: What types of vehicles were the Fennica and Nordica?


Answer: to support Shell's drilling rigs near Alaska

Question: Why were the Fennica and Nordica chartered?


Answer: an oil spill could destroy the Inupiat Eskimo's hunting-and-fishing culture

Question: What was the main concern of Edward Itta?


Answer: to seek injunctions from possible protests

Context: In response, Shell filed lawsuits to seek injunctions from possible protests, and Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP and Radford argued that the legal action was "trampling American's rights." According to Greenpeace, Shell lodged a request with Google to ban video footage of a Greenpeace protest action that occurred at the Shell-sponsored Formula One (F1) Belgian Grand Prix on 25 August 2013, in which "SaveTheArctic.org" banners appear at the winners' podium ceremony. In the video, the banners rise up automatically—activists controlled their appearance with the use of four radio car antennas—revealing the website URL, alongside an image that consists of half of a polar bear's head and half of the Shell logo.

Question: Why did Shell file lawsuits?


Answer: "trampling American's rights."

Question: Jealous and Radford asserted that the legal action taken by Shell was what?


Answer: video footage of a Greenpeace protest action that occurred at the Shell-sponsored Formula One (F1) Belgian Grand Prix

Question: Greenpeace claimed that Shell requested Google to ban what?


Answer: "SaveTheArctic.org"

Question: What banners appeared on the winners' podium at the August 2013 ceremony?


Answer: the use of four radio car antennas

Question: At the 2013 ceremony, activitsts controlled their appearance with what?


Answer: routinely invoke legal and technological measures

Context: Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission, infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

Question: How do creators of content protect their work from infringement?


Answer: right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works

Question: What are the rights of a content creator that has their work protected?


Answer: The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned

Question: Who is protected by copyright laws?


Answer: to make derivative works

Question: You wrote a song that was based on an original work, what is this called?


Answer: Copyright infringement

Question: What is it called when someone uploads a video to YouTube without the creators permission?


Answer: copyright law

Question: How do creators of content protect their work from infringement?


Answer: work's creator

Question: Who is protected by copyright laws?


Answer: copyright infringement

Question: What is it called when someone uploads a video to YouTube without the creators permission?


Answer: derivative works

Question: You wrote a song that was based on an original work, what is this called?


Answer: direct negotiation, a notice and take down process, or litigation in civil court

Context: Copyright infringement disputes are usually resolved through direct negotiation, a notice and take down process, or litigation in civil court. Egregious or large-scale commercial infringement, especially when it involves counterfeiting, is sometimes prosecuted via the criminal justice system. Shifting public expectations, advances in digital technology, and the increasing reach of the Internet have led to such widespread, anonymous infringement that copyright-dependent industries now focus less on pursuing individuals who seek and share copyright-protected content online, and more on expanding copyright law to recognize and penalize – as "indirect" infringers – the service providers and software distributors which are said to facilitate and encourage individual acts of infringement by others.

Question: How are disputes resolved for small scale infringement?


Answer: Shifting public expectations, advances in digital technology, and the increasing reach of the Internet

Question: Why has copyright infringement increased recently?


Answer: expanding copyright law to recognize and penalize – as "indirect" infringers – the service providers and software distributors

Question: What are content creation industries focusing on doing to prevent infringement?


Answer: sometimes prosecuted via the criminal justice system

Question: What can happen to people who commit copyright infringement on a mass-scale?


Answer: service providers and software distributors

Question: What are two examples of groups that allow you to make copies of protected works?


Answer: expanding copyright law

Question: What are content creation industries focusing on doing to prevent infringement?


Answer: prosecuted via the criminal justice system

Question: What can happen to people who commit copyright infringement on a mass-scale?


Answer: service providers and software distributors

Question: What are two examples of groups that allow you to obtain copies of protected works?


Answer: piracy and theft

Context: The terms piracy and theft are often associated with copyright infringement. The original meaning of piracy is "robbery or illegal violence at sea", but the term has been in use for centuries as a synonym for acts of copyright infringement. Theft, meanwhile, emphasizes the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders. However, copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offenses related only to tangible property. Not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that infringement does not easily equate with theft.

Question: What terms are often linked to people who illegally use or distribute content that is not their own?


Answer: piracy

Question: What means the same as robbery or illegal violence at sea?


Answer: intellectual property

Question: What kind of property is copyright used for?


Answer: related only to tangible property

Question: What is the difference between robbery and piracy?


Answer: theft

Question: In the 1980's, the Supreme Court ruled that infringement does not equal what?


Answer: monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter

Context: The practice of labelling the infringement of exclusive rights in creative works as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne in 1710, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557, received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labelled pirates as early as 1603. The term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorized copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright. Article 12 of the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works uses the term "piracy" in relation to copyright infringement, stating "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection." Article 61 of the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires criminal procedures and penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale." Piracy traditionally refers to acts of copyright infringement intentionally committed for financial gain, though more recently, copyright holders have described online copyright infringement, particularly in relation to peer-to-peer file sharing networks, as "piracy."

Question: What did the Royal Charter give to the Stationers' Company of London?


Answer: in relation to copyright infringement

Question: How does Article 12 of the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works use the term piracy?


Answer: seized on importation

Question: What would happen if you imported a copyrighted work into a country where the original is protected by copyright law?


Answer: 1994

Question: When was the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights enacted?


Answer: peer-to-peer file sharing networks

Question: Piracy has been more recently described online in relation to what?


Answer: authorization

Context: Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization. Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft. For instance, the United States Supreme Court held in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. Instead, "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'" The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law – certain exclusive rights – is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.

Question: When you are accused theft as it relates to copyright law, you are exercising exclusive rights without what?


Answer: copyright infringement and theft

Question: What have courts said there is a difference between?


Answer: theft, conversion, or fraud

Question: In Dowling v. United States, what did bootleg records NOT constitute?


Answer: The Copyright Act

Question: What is the separate term of art to define misappropriation of copyright?


Answer: certain exclusive rights

Question: What did the court say was invaded?


Answer: partial compliance

Context: Sometimes only partial compliance with license agreements is the cause. For example, in 2013, the US Army settled a lawsuit with Texas-based company Apptricity, which makes software that allows the army to track their soldiers in real time. In 2004, the US Army paid US$4.5 million for a license of 500 users, while allegedly installing the software for more than 9000 users; the case was settled for US$50 million. Major anti-piracy organizations, like the BSA, conduct software licensing audits regularly to ensure full compliance.

Question: What is a possible cause of copyright infringement?


Answer: US Army

Question: Who did Texas software company Apptricity write software for?


Answer: 500 users

Question: How many users were paid for in 2004?


Answer: US$50 million

Question: How much was the lawsuit settled for?


Answer: the BSA

Question: Who is an example of a major anti-piracy organization?


Answer: immediacy

Context: Cara Cusumano, director of the Tribeca Film Festival, stated in April 2014: "Piracy is less about people not wanting to pay and more about just wanting the immediacy – people saying, 'I want to watch Spiderman right now' and downloading it". The statement occurred during the third year that the festival used the Internet to present its content, while it was the first year that it featured a showcase of content producers who work exclusively online. Cusumano further explained that downloading behavior is not merely conducted by people who merely want to obtain content for free:

Question: What did Cara Cusumano say about piracy in 2014 that people want?


Answer: used the Internet to present its content

Question: What had the festival done for the past three years when the statement by Cara Cusumano was made?


Answer: work exclusively online

Question: It was the first year of Tribeca featuring a showcase of producers who do what?


Answer: downloading

Question: What behavior is not just done by people who want content for free?


Answer: Matt Deaner

Context: In response to Cusumano's perspective, Screen Producers Australia executive director Matt Deaner clarified the motivation of the film industry: "Distributors are usually wanting to encourage cinema-going as part of this process [monetizing through returns] and restrict the immediate access to online so as to encourage the maximum number of people to go to the cinema." Deaner further explained the matter in terms of the Australian film industry, stating: "there are currently restrictions on quantities of tax support that a film can receive unless the film has a traditional cinema release."

Question: Who made clear the motivations of the filmmakers?


Answer: Distributors

Question: Who encourages watching movies at a theater as making money from the film?


Answer: immediate access to online

Question: What is restricted to ensure the largest number of people see a movie at the theater?


Answer: tax support that a film can receive

Question: What is restricted unless the film has a traditional theater release?


Answer: University of Portsmouth

Context: In a study published in the Journal of Behavioural and Experimental Economics, and reported on in early May 2014, researchers from the University of Portsmouth in the UK discussed findings from examining the illegal downloading behavior of 6,000 Finnish people, aged seven to 84. The list of reasons for downloading given by the study respondents included money saving; the ability to access material not on general release, or before it was released; and assisting artists to avoid involvement with record companies and movie studios.

Question: What researchers conducted a study in the early part of May 2014?


Answer: 6,000

Question: How many people were part of the study?


Answer: seven to 84

Question: What was the age range of people studied?


Answer: artists

Question: Who did downloaders want to help by avoiding studios and record companies?


Answer: main access to media goods

Context: According to the same study, even though digital piracy inflicts additional costs on the production side of media, it also offers the main access to media goods in developing countries. The strong tradeoffs that favor using digital piracy in developing economies dictate the current neglected law enforcements toward digital piracy. In China, the issue of digital infringement is not merely legal, but social – originating from the high demand for cheap and affordable goods as well as the governmental connections of the businesses which produce such goods.

Question: Even though piracy adds costs to production, what else is offered to developing countries?


Answer: current neglected law enforcements

Question: What do the tradeoffs of digital piracy support?


Answer: China

Question: In what country is the issue of digital infringement social?


Answer: cheap and affordable goods

Question: What is in high demand in this country?


Answer: connections

Question: What does the government of this country provide to businesses that produce content?


Answer: the spread of copied videos and DVDs

Context: There have been instances where a country's government bans a movie, resulting in the spread of copied videos and DVDs. Romanian-born documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu wrote a New York Times article telling the story of Irina Margareta Nistor, a narrator for state TV under Nicolae Ceauşescu's regime. A visitor from the west gave her bootlegged copies of American movies, which she dubbed for secret viewings through Romania. According to the article, she dubbed more than 3,000 movies and became the country's second-most famous voice after Ceauşescu, even though no one knew her name until many years later.

Question: What happens when a country bans a movie?


Answer: New York Times

Question: Who did documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu write an article for?


Answer: a narrator for state TV

Question: What was Irina Margareta Nistor's job in Romania?


Answer: bootlegged copies of American movies

Question: What did a visitor give to Nistor?


Answer: 3,000

Question: How many movies did Nistor dub for secret viewings in Romania?


Answer: civil court

Context: In the U.S., copyright infringement is sometimes confronted via lawsuits in civil court, against alleged infringers directly, or against providers of services and software that support unauthorized copying. For example, major motion-picture corporation MGM Studios filed suit against P2P file-sharing services Grokster and Streamcast for their contributory role in copyright infringement. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of MGM, holding that such services could be held liable for copyright infringement since they functioned and, indeed, willfully marketed themselves as venues for acquiring copyrighted movies. The MGM v. Grokster case did not overturn the earlier Sony decision, but rather clouded the legal waters; future designers of software capable of being used for copyright infringement were warned.

Question: In the U.S., where is copyright infringement contested?


Answer: Grokster and Streamcast

Question: Who did MGM studios file a lawsuit against?


Answer: MGM

Question: In 2005, who did the Supreme Court rule in favor of?


Answer: venues for acquiring copyrighted movies

Question: What did P2P file sharing services market themselves as?


Answer: Sony

Question: What studio's case decision was NOT overturned?


Answer: third party

Context: In some jurisdictions, copyright or the right to enforce it can be contractually assigned to a third party which did not have a role in producing the work. When this outsourced litigator appears to have no intention of taking any copyright infringement cases to trial, but rather only takes them just far enough through the legal system to identify and exact settlements from suspected infringers, critics commonly refer to the party as a "copyright troll." Such practices have had mixed results in the U.S.

Question: Who can be assigned a contract to enforce a copyright in some jurisdictions?


Answer: to identify and exact settlements

Question: What do outside lawyers take infringers to court for?


Answer: copyright troll

Question: What do critics usually call these lawyers?


Answer: mixed results

Question: What do these lawsuits have in the U.S.?


Answer: 1897

Context: The first criminal provision in U.S. copyright law was added in 1897, which established a misdemeanor penalty for "unlawful performances and representations of copyrighted dramatic and musical compositions" if the violation had been "willful and for profit." Criminal copyright infringement requires that the infringer acted "for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain." 17 U.S.C. § 506. To establish criminal liability, the prosecutor must first show the basic elements of copyright infringement: ownership of a valid copyright, and the violation of one or more of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. The government must then establish that defendant willfully infringed or, in other words, possessed the necessary mens rea. Misdemeanor infringement has a very low threshold in terms of number of copies and the value of the infringed works.

Question: When was the first criminal part of copyright law in the U.S. added?


Answer: misdemeanor

Question: What type of penalty was made for unlawful performances that are willful and for profit?


Answer: for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain

Question: What did a criminal infringer do to be prosecuted?


Answer: that defendant willfully infringed

Question: What must a prosecuter show after the basic elements of infringement?


Answer: very low threshold

Question: What is the threshold of the number of copies and the value of the works?


Answer: 1994

Context: United States v. LaMacchia 871 F.Supp. 535 (1994) was a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts which ruled that, under the copyright and cybercrime laws effective at the time, committing copyright infringement for non-commercial motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law. The ruling gave rise to what became known as the "LaMacchia Loophole," wherein criminal charges of fraud or copyright infringement would be dismissed under current legal standards, so long as there was no profit motive involved.

Question: When was United States v. LaMacchia contested?


Answer: non-commercial motives

Question: At the time, what infringement could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law?


Answer: LaMacchia Loophole

Question: What loophole did the ruling give rise to?


Answer: dismissed

Question: If there is no profit involved, what would happen to criminal charges of fraud?


Answer: No Electronic Theft Act

Context: The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, in response to LaMacchia, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement under certain circumstances, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%. The court's ruling explicitly drew attention to the shortcomings of current law that allowed people to facilitate mass copyright infringement while being immune to prosecution under the Copyright Act.

Question: What federal law did the United States pass in 1997, in response to the LaMacchia Loophole?


Answer: five years in prison

Question: What is the maximum prison time for infringement under the new law?


Answer: $250,000

Question: What is the maximum monetary fine under the new law?


Answer: 50%

Question: How much were statutory damages raised by?


Answer: Copyright Act

Question: What was the law called that let people be immune to prosecution?


Answer: EU Copyright Directive of 2001

Context: The personal copying exemption in the copyright law of EU member states stems from the EU Copyright Directive of 2001, which is generally devised to allow EU members to enact laws sanctioning making copies without authorization, as long as they are for personal, noncommerical use. The Copyright Directive was not intended to legitimize file-sharing, but rather the common practice of space shifting copyright-protected content from a legally purchased CD (for example) to certain kinds of devices and media, provided rights holders are compensated and no copy protection measures are circumvented. Rights-holder compensation takes various forms, depending on the country, but is generally either a levy on "recording" devices and media, or a tax on the content itself. In some countries, such as Canada, the applicability of such laws to copying onto general-purpose storage devices like computer hard drives, portable media players, and phones, for which no levies are collected, has been the subject of debate and further efforts to reform copyright law.

Question: What directive in 2001 let European Union countries to enact laws that allowed making copies for personal use?


Answer: legitimize file-sharing

Question: What was the directive NOT intended for?


Answer: a tax on the content itself

Question: Compensation to the rights-holder is generally a levy or what else?


Answer: Canada

Question: What is an example of a country that has no levies collected?


Answer: computer hard drives, portable media players, and phones

Question: What are examples of general purpose storage devices?


Answer: was obtained legitimately

Context: In some countries, the personal copying exemption explicitly requires that the content being copied was obtained legitimately – i.e., from authorized sources, not file-sharing networks. Other countries, such as the Netherlands, make no such distinction; the exemption there had been assumed, even by the government, to apply to any such copying, even from file-sharing networks. However, in April 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that "national legislation which makes no distinction between private copies made from lawful sources and those made from counterfeited or pirated sources cannot be tolerated." Thus, in the Netherlands, for example, downloading from file-sharing networks is no longer legal.

Question: What does the personal copying exemption explicitly need?


Answer: Netherlands

Question: What is an example of a country that the exemption was assumed?


Answer: April 2014

Question: When did the Court of Justice of the EU make a ruling about distinction?


Answer: Netherlands

Question: In which country is downloading from a file-sharing network no longer legal?


Answer: DMCA

Context: Title I of the U.S. DMCA, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act has provisions that prevent persons from "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work". Thus if a distributor of copyrighted works has some kind of software, dongle or password access device installed in instances of the work, any attempt to bypass such a copy protection scheme may be actionable – though the US Copyright Office is currently reviewing anticircumvention rulemaking under DMCA – anticircumvention exemptions that have been in place under the DMCA include those in software designed to filter websites that are generally seen to be inefficient (child safety and public library website filtering software) and the circumvention of copy protection mechanisms that have malfunctioned, have caused the instance of the work to become inoperable or which are no longer supported by their manufacturers.

Question: What is the U.S. law that uses the WIPO Copyright as it's Title I?


Answer: "circumvent[ing] a technological measure

Question: What is it called when someone intentionally breaks encryption on a movie or game?


Answer: inefficient

Question: Anticircumvention exemptions are generally seen to be be what?


Answer: website

Question: What are child safety and public library software used to filter?


Answer: intermediaries

Context: In addition, intermediaries are now also generally understood to include Internet portals, software and games providers, those providing virtual information such as interactive forums and comment facilities with or without a moderation system, aggregators of various kinds, such as news aggregators, universities, libraries and archives, web search engines, chat rooms, web blogs, mailing lists, and any website which provides access to third party content through, for example, hyperlinks, a crucial element of the World Wide Web.

Question: What includes Internet portals, software and games?


Answer: interactive forums and comment facilities

Question: What examples provide virtual information?


Answer: aggregators

Question: News, universities and libraries and archives are examples of what?


Answer: hyperlinks

Question: What is an important element of the World Wide Web?


Answer: Internet service providers

Context: Early court cases focused on the liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) for hosting, transmitting or publishing user-supplied content that could be actioned under civil or criminal law, such as libel, defamation, or pornography. As different content was considered in different legal systems, and in the absence of common definitions for "ISPs," "bulletin boards" or "online publishers," early law on online intermediaries' liability varied widely from country to country. The first laws on online intermediaries' liability were passed from the mid-1990s onwards.[citation needed]

Question: Who did early court cases focus on?


Answer: libel, defamation, or pornography

Question: What could be sued for under civil or criminal law?


Answer: varied widely from country to country

Question: What was the result of early law on online liability?


Answer: mid-1990s

Question: When were the first laws of liability passed?


Answer: Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Context: The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998) and the European E-Commerce Directive (2000) provide online intermediaries with limited statutory immunity from liability for copyright infringement. Online intermediaries hosting content that infringes copyright are not liable, so long as they do not know about it and take actions once the infringing content is brought to their attention. In U.S. law this is characterized as "safe harbor" provisions. Under European law, the governing principles for Internet Service Providers are "mere conduit", meaning that they are neutral 'pipes' with no knowledge of what they are carrying; and 'no obligation to monitor' meaning that they cannot be given a general mandate by governments to monitor content. These two principles are a barrier for certain forms of online copyright enforcement and they were the reason behind an attempt to amend the European Telecoms Package in 2009 to support new measures against copyright infringement.

Question: What law enacted in the U.S. in 1998 gave online intermediaries limited statutory immunity?


Answer: safe harbor

Question: How is this law characterized in the U.S.?


Answer: mere conduit

Question: In the E.U., what are the governing principles for ISP's?


Answer: no obligation to monitor

Question: What is it called when intermediaries cannot be given an order by governments to monitor what happens on their services?


Answer: European Telecoms Package

Question: What was attempted to be amended in 2009 to support new ways to prevent copyright infringement?


Answer: host or transmit infringing content

Context: These types of intermediaries do not host or transmit infringing content, themselves, but may be regarded in some courts as encouraging, enabling or facilitating infringement by users. These intermediaries may include the author, publishers and marketers of peer-to-peer networking software, and the websites that allow users to download such software. In the case of the BitTorrent protocol, intermediaries may include the torrent tracker and any websites or search engines which facilitate access to torrent files. Torrent files don't contain copyrighted content, but they may make reference to files that do, and they may point to trackers which coordinate the sharing of those files. Some torrent indexing and search sites, such as The Pirate Bay, now encourage the use of magnet links, instead of direct links to torrent files, creating another layer of indirection; using such links, torrent files are obtained from other peers, rather than from a particular website.

Question: What do certain type of intermediaries NOT do?


Answer: BitTorrent

Question: What protocol do intermediaries use that include a torrent tracker?


Answer: copyrighted content

Question: What do Torrent files NOT contain?


Answer: The Pirate Bay

Question: What is a torrent site that uses magnet links to share peer-to-peer?


Answer: subject of ongoing litigation

Context: Nevertheless, whether and to what degree any of these types of intermediaries have secondary liability is the subject of ongoing litigation. The decentralised structure of peer-to-peer networks, in particular, does not sit easily with existing laws on online intermediaries' liability. The BitTorrent protocol established an entirely decentralised network architecture in order to distribute large files effectively. Recent developments in peer-to-peer technology towards more complex network configurations are said to have been driven by a desire to avoid liability as intermediaries under existing laws.

Question: What is the legal status of secondary liability?


Answer: decentralised structure

Question: What makes peer-to-peer networks different than other online providers?


Answer: distribute large files effectively

Question: What was the initial purpose of the BitTorrent protocol?


Answer: to avoid liability as intermediaries

Question: What are the reasons for more complex network configurations in peer-to-peer software development?


Answer: fair practice

Context: Article 10 of the Berne Convention mandates that national laws provide for limitations to copyright, so that copyright protection does not extend to certain kinds of uses that fall under what the treaty calls "fair practice," including but not limited to minimal quotations used in journalism and education. The laws implementing these limitations and exceptions for uses that would otherwise be infringing broadly fall into the categories of either fair use or fair dealing. In common law systems, these fair practice statutes typically enshrine principles underlying many earlier judicial precedents, and are considered essential to freedom of speech.

Question: What does Article 10 of the Berne Convention call certain uses that limit copyright?


Answer: journalism and education

Question: Where are minimal quotations commonly used?


Answer: fair use or fair dealing

Question: What categories do works that would normally be considered infringing fall into?


Answer: principles underlying many earlier judicial precedents

Question: What do these statutes represent?


Answer: freedom of speech

Question: What are these statutes essential to?


Answer: compulsory licensing

Context: Another example is the practice of compulsory licensing, which is where the law forbids copyright owners from denying a license for certain uses of certain kinds of works, such as compilations and live performances of music. Compulsory licensing laws generally say that for certain uses of certain works, no infringement occurs as long as a royalty, at a rate determined by law rather than private negotiation, is paid to the copyright owner or representative copyright collective. Some fair dealing laws, such as Canada's, include similar royalty requirements.

Question: What is it called when a law disallows copyright owners from denying a license for certain uses?


Answer: compilations and live performances of music

Question: What are two examples of this licensing?


Answer: no infringement occurs

Question: What happens if a royalty is paid to the copyright owner or representative?


Answer: Canada

Question: What country has fair dealing laws?