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

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

<hl> 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. <hl> 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."

As the Kulluk oil rig was being towed to the American state of Washington <hl> to be serviced in preparation for the 2013 drilling season <hl>, 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."

As the Kulluk oil rig was being towed to the American state of Washington <hl> to be serviced in preparation for the 2013 drilling season <hl> , a winter storm on 27 December 2012 caused the towing crews, as well as the rescue service, to lose control of the situation.

question: Why was the Kulluk oil rig being towed to Washington?, 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: What caused towing crews and rescue service to lose control while the Kulluk rig was in transport to Washington?

Answer: a winter storm

<hl> 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. <hl> 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."

As the Kulluk oil rig was being towed to the American state of Washington to be serviced in preparation for the 2013 drilling season, <hl> a winter storm <hl> 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: What caused towing crews and rescue service to lose control while the Kulluk rig was in transport to Washington?, 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: On January 1, 2013, the Kulluk was grounded off the coast of which island?

Answer: Sitkalidak

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. <hl> As of 1 January 2013, the Kulluk was grounded off the coast Sitkalidak Island, near the eastern end of Kodiak Island. <hl> 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."

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 <hl> Sitkalidak <hl> 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: On January 1, 2013, the Kulluk was grounded off the coast of which island?, 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: Following the incident, which magazine contacted Larry McKinney?

Answer: Fortune

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. <hl> 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 ... <hl> A two-month delay could wipe out the entire drilling season."

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 <hl> Fortune <hl> 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: Following the incident, which magazine contacted Larry McKinney?, 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: Larry McKinney explained that a two-month delay in drilling could do what?

Answer: wipe out the entire drilling season

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 ... <hl> A two-month delay could wipe out the entire drilling season ." <hl>

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 <hl> wipe out the entire drilling season <hl>."

A two-month delay could <hl> wipe out the entire drilling season <hl> ."

question: Larry McKinney explained that a two-month delay in drilling could do what?, 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: Following what event was it uncertain if Shell would recommence drilling?

Answer: the "Kulluk" incident

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

It was unclear if Shell would recommence drilling in mid-2013, following <hl> the "Kulluk" incident <hl> 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?, 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: In February 2013, Shell Corporation announced that it would pause what?

Answer: its closely watched drilling project off the Alaskan coast

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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" <hl> its closely watched drilling project off the Alaskan coast <hl> 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: In February 2013, Shell Corporation announced that it would pause what?, 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: Shell Corporation announced what in January 2014?

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

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> the extension of the suspension of its drilling program in the Arctic <hl>, with chief executive van Beurden explaining that the project is "under review" due to both market and internal issues.

In January 2014, the corporation announced <hl> the extension of the suspension of its drilling program in the Arctic <hl> , with chief executive van Beurden explaining that the project is "under review" due to both market and internal issues.

question: Shell Corporation announced what in January 2014?, 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: Which Shell Corporation executive explained the reason for the January 2014 announcement?

Answer: van Beurden

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> van Beurden <hl> explaining that the project is "under review" due to both market and internal issues.

question: Which Shell Corporation executive explained the reason for the January 2014 announcement?, 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: What reason did the executive give for Shell's January 2014 announcement?

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

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> the project is "under review" due to both market and internal issues. <hl>

question: What reason did the executive give for Shell's January 2014 announcement?, 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: For what particular reason did protesters criticize the company's environmental record in the 1990s?

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

<hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

In the 1990s, protesters criticised the company's environmental record, particularly <hl> the possible pollution caused by the proposed disposal of the Brent Spar platform into the North Sea <hl>. 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.

In the 1990s, protesters criticised the company's environmental record, particularly <hl> the possible pollution caused by the proposed disposal of the Brent Spar platform into the North Sea <hl> .

question: For what particular reason did protesters criticize the company's environmental record in the 1990s?, 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: What entity supported Shell during the 1990s protests?

Answer: the UK government

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. <hl> Despite support from the UK government , Shell reversed the decision under public pressure but maintained that sinking the platform would have been environmentally better. <hl> Shell subsequently published an unequivocal commitment to sustainable development, supported by executive speeches reinforcing this commitment.

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 <hl> the UK government <hl>, 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.

Despite support from <hl> the UK government <hl> , Shell reversed the decision under public pressure but maintained that sinking the platform would have been environmentally better.

question: What entity supported Shell during the 1990s protests?, 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: Following the reversal of its decision, Shell published what?

Answer: an unequivocal commitment to sustainable development

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. <hl> Shell subsequently published an unequivocal commitment to sustainable development , supported by executive speeches reinforcing this commitment. <hl>

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 <hl> an unequivocal commitment to sustainable development <hl>, supported by executive speeches reinforcing this commitment.

Shell subsequently published <hl> an unequivocal commitment to sustainable development <hl> , supported by executive speeches reinforcing this commitment.

question: Following the reversal of its decision, Shell published what?, 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: In 1996, multiple groups filed lawsuits to hold Shell accountable for what?

Answer: alleged human rights violations in Nigeria

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

In the beginning of 1996, several human rights groups brought cases to hold Shell accountable for <hl> alleged human rights violations in Nigeria <hl>, 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.

In the beginning of 1996, several human rights groups brought cases to hold Shell accountable for <hl> alleged human rights violations in Nigeria <hl> , including summary execution, crimes against humanity, torture, inhumane treatment and arbitrary arrest and detention.

question: In 1996, multiple groups filed lawsuits to hold Shell accountable for what?, 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: Shell was accused of participating in the execution of which southern Nigerian tribal leader?

Answer: Ken Saro-Wiwa

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. <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> Ken Saro-Wiwa <hl> 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: Shell was accused of participating in the execution of which southern Nigerian tribal leader?, 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 what year did Shell agree to settle the lawsuits filed in 1996?

Answer: 2009

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. <hl> In 2009 , Shell agreed to pay $15.5m in a legal settlement. <hl> Shell has not accepted any liability over the allegations against it.

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 <hl> 2009 <hl>, Shell agreed to pay $15.5m in a legal settlement. Shell has not accepted any liability over the allegations against it.

In <hl> 2009 <hl> , Shell agreed to pay $15.5m in a legal settlement.

question: In what year did Shell agree to settle the lawsuits filed in 1996?, 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: For what amount did Shell agree to settle the 1996 lawsuits?

Answer: $15.5m

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. <hl> In 2009, Shell agreed to pay $15.5m in a legal settlement. <hl> Shell has not accepted any liability over the allegations against it.

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 <hl> $15.5m <hl> in a legal settlement. Shell has not accepted any liability over the allegations against it.

question: For what amount did Shell agree to settle the 1996 lawsuits?, 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 contrast to its agreement to settle the 1996 lawsuits, Shell refused to do what?

Answer: accepted any liability over the allegations against it

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. <hl> Shell has not accepted any liability over the allegations against it . <hl>

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 <hl> accepted any liability over the allegations against it <hl>.

Shell has not <hl> accepted any liability over the allegations against it <hl> .

question: In contrast to its agreement to settle the 1996 lawsuits, Shell refused to do what?, 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: A 2010 leaked communication revealed that Shell claimed to have inserted what into which entities?

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

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

In 2010, a leaked cable revealed that Shell claims to have inserted <hl> staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government <hl> 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?, 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: The same leaked communication revealed Shell claimed to know what?

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

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

In 2010, a leaked cable revealed that Shell claims to have inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government and know <hl> "everything that was being done in those ministries" <hl>, 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.

In 2010, a leaked cable revealed that Shell claims to have inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government and know <hl> "everything that was being done in those ministries" <hl> , according to Shell's top executive in Nigeria.

question: The same leaked communication revealed Shell claimed to know what?, 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: About what did the Shell executive boast in relation to the leaked communication?

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

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. <hl> The same executive also boasted that the Nigerian government had forgotten about the extent of Shell's infiltration . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> the Nigerian government had forgotten about the extent of Shell's infiltration <hl>. 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.

The same executive also boasted that <hl> the Nigerian government had forgotten about the extent of Shell's infiltration <hl> .

question: About what did the Shell executive boast in relation to the leaked communication?, 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: Documents released in 2009 showed that Shell made regular payments to which entity?

Answer: the Nigerian military

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> the Nigerian military <hl> in order to prevent protests.

question: Documents released in 2009 showed that Shell made regular payments to which entity?, 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: For what purpose did Shell make regular payments to the entity cited in the documents released in 2009?

Answer: to prevent protests

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. <hl> 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 . <hl>

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 <hl> to prevent protests <hl>.

Documents released in 2009 (but not used in the court case) reveal that Shell regularly made payments to the Nigerian military in order <hl> to prevent protests <hl> .

question: For what purpose did Shell make regular payments to the entity cited in the documents released in 2009?, 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: How many Greenpeace activists boarded Fennica and Nordica in March 2012?

Answer: 52

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

On 16 March 2012, <hl> 52 <hl> 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?, 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 countries did the group of Greenpeace activists represent?

Answer: five

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

On 16 March 2012, 52 Greenpeace activists from <hl> five <hl> 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 countries did the group of Greenpeace activists represent?, 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: What types of vehicles were the Fennica and Nordica?

Answer: multipurpose icebreakers

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

On 16 March 2012, 52 Greenpeace activists from five different countries boarded Fennica and Nordica, <hl> multipurpose icebreakers <hl> 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: What types of vehicles were the Fennica and Nordica?, 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: Why were the Fennica and Nordica chartered?

Answer: to support Shell's drilling rigs near Alaska

<hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

On 16 March 2012, 52 Greenpeace activists from five different countries boarded Fennica and Nordica, multipurpose icebreakers chartered <hl> to support Shell's drilling rigs near Alaska <hl>. 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.

On 16 March 2012, 52 Greenpeace activists from five different countries boarded Fennica and Nordica, multipurpose icebreakers chartered <hl> to support Shell's drilling rigs near Alaska <hl> .

question: Why were the Fennica and Nordica chartered?, 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: What was the main concern of Edward Itta?

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

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> an oil spill could destroy the Inupiat Eskimo's hunting-and-fishing culture <hl>, 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.

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 <hl> an oil spill could destroy the Inupiat Eskimo's hunting-and-fishing culture <hl> , 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: What was the main concern of Edward Itta?, 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: Why did Shell file lawsuits?

Answer: to seek injunctions from possible protests

<hl> In response, Shell filed lawsuits to seek injunctions from possible protests , <hl> 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.

In response, Shell filed lawsuits <hl> to seek injunctions from possible protests <hl>, 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.

In response, Shell filed lawsuits <hl> to seek injunctions from possible protests <hl> ,

question: Why did Shell file lawsuits?, 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: Jealous and Radford asserted that the legal action taken by Shell was what?

Answer: "trampling American's rights."

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> "trampling American's rights." <hl> 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: Jealous and Radford asserted that the legal action taken by Shell was what?, 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: Greenpeace claimed that Shell requested Google to ban what?

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

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." <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> video footage of a Greenpeace protest action that occurred at the Shell-sponsored Formula One (F1) Belgian Grand Prix <hl> 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: Greenpeace claimed that Shell requested Google to ban what?, 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: What banners appeared on the winners' podium at the August 2013 ceremony?

Answer: "SaveTheArctic.org"

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." <hl> 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. <hl> 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.

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 <hl> "SaveTheArctic.org" <hl> 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: What banners appeared on the winners' podium at the August 2013 ceremony?, 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: At the 2013 ceremony, activitsts controlled their appearance with what?

Answer: the use of four radio car antennas

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> the use of four radio car antennas <hl>—revealing the website URL, alongside an image that consists of half of a polar bear's head and half of the Shell logo.

In the video, the banners rise up automatically—activists controlled their appearance with <hl> the use of four radio car antennas <hl> —revealing the website URL, alongside an image that consists of half of a polar bear's head and half of the Shell logo.

question: At the 2013 ceremony, activitsts controlled their appearance with what?, 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: How do creators of content protect their work from infringement?

Answer: routinely invoke legal and technological measures

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. <hl> Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement. <hl>

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 <hl> routinely invoke legal and technological measures <hl> to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

question: How do creators of content protect their work from infringement?, 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: What are the rights of a content creator that has their work protected?

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

<hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works <hl>. 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.

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 <hl> right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works <hl> .

question: What are the rights of a content creator that has their work protected?, 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: Who is protected by copyright laws?

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

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. <hl> The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned . <hl> Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

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. <hl> The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned <hl>. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

<hl> The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned <hl> .

question: Who is protected by copyright laws?, 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: You wrote a song that was based on an original work, what is this called?

Answer: to make derivative works

<hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> to make derivative works <hl>. 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.

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 <hl> to make derivative works <hl> .

question: You wrote a song that was based on an original work, what is this called?, 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: What is it called when someone uploads a video to YouTube without the creators permission?

Answer: Copyright infringement

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

<hl> Copyright infringement <hl> 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: What is it called when someone uploads a video to YouTube without the creators permission?, 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: copyright law

<hl> 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. <hl> 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.

Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by <hl> copyright law <hl> 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?, 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: Who is protected by copyright laws?

Answer: work's creator

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. <hl> The copyright holder is typically the work's creator , or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. <hl> Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

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 <hl> work's creator <hl>, 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.

The copyright holder is typically the <hl> work's creator <hl> , or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned.

question: Who is protected by copyright laws?, 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: What is it called when someone uploads a video to YouTube without the creators permission?

Answer: copyright infringement

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. <hl> Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement . <hl>

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 <hl> copyright infringement <hl>.

Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize <hl> copyright infringement <hl> .

question: What is it called when someone uploads a video to YouTube without the creators permission?, 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: You wrote a song that was based on an original work, what is this called?

Answer: derivative works

<hl> 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 . <hl> 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.

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 <hl> derivative works <hl>. 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.

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 <hl> derivative works <hl> .

question: You wrote a song that was based on an original work, what is this called?, 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 are disputes resolved for small scale infringement?

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

<hl> Copyright infringement disputes are usually resolved through direct negotiation, a notice and take down process, or litigation in civil court . <hl> 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.

Copyright infringement disputes are usually resolved through <hl> direct negotiation, a notice and take down process, or litigation in civil court <hl>. 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.

Copyright infringement disputes are usually resolved through <hl> direct negotiation, a notice and take down process, or litigation in civil court <hl> .

question: How are disputes resolved for small scale infringement?, 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: Why has copyright infringement increased recently?

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

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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. <hl> Shifting public expectations, advances in digital technology, and the increasing reach of the Internet <hl> 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: Why has copyright infringement increased recently?, 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: What are content creation industries focusing on doing to prevent infringement?

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

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. <hl> 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. <hl>

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 <hl> expanding copyright law to recognize and penalize – as "indirect" infringers – the service providers and software distributors <hl> which are said to facilitate and encourage individual acts of infringement by others.

question: What are content creation industries focusing on doing to prevent infringement?, 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.