nc33/MultiSpan_SQUAD huggingface dataset:
Royal_Dutch_Shell

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

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

Question: In what year did Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group announce an agreement?
Answer: 2007

Question: How many service stations did Royal Dutch Shell and Reitan Group agree to re-brand?
Answer: some 269

Question: Shell announced it was in the process of doing what in April 2010?
Answer: trying to find a potential buyer for all of its operations in Finland

Question: In October 2010, Shell sold what to St1?
Answer: gas stations and the heavy vehicle fuel supply networks in Finland and Sweden, along with a refinery located in Gothenburg, Sweden
Royal_Dutch_Shell

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

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

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

Question: Shell Oil Company historically had little direct involvement from what entity in the running of its American businesses?
Answer: the group's central offices

Question: In what year did Royal Dutch Shell make a bid to purchase approximately 30% of Shell Oil Company's shares?
Answer: 1984

Question: What did Royal Dutch Shell's bid to purchase Shell Oil Company's shares lead to?
Answer: a court case
Royal_Dutch_Shell

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

Question: The final investment decision for what was finalized by Royal Dutch Shell in May 2011?
Answer: the world's first floating liquefied natural gas (FLNG) facility

Question: The remote offshore Prelude field was discovered where?
Answer: off Australia's northwestern coast

Question: On what developments was FLNG technology based?
Answer: liquefied natural gas (LNG)

Question: The Prelude field was estimated to contain how many cubic feet of natural gas reserves?
Answer: 3 trillion

Question: FLNG technology faciliates what?
Answer: the exploitation of untapped natural gas reserves located in remote areas
Royal_Dutch_Shell

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

Question: What percent of its stake in Woodside Petroleum did Shell sell in June 2014?
Answer: 9.5%

Question: Shell became a major shareholder in Woodside after a takeover attempt was blocked in what year?
Answer: 2001

Question: Who blocked the takeover attempt?
Answer: then federal Treasurer Peter Costello

Question: What percentage of shareholders voted to approve the 2014 buy-back?
Answer: 72

Question: What percentage of shareholder votes was need to approve the 2014 buy-back?
Answer: 75
Royal_Dutch_Shell

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

Question: Shell purchased what in 2005?
Answer: an offshore lease

Question: What did Shell initate after its 2005 purchase?
Answer: its US$4.5 billion Arctic drilling program

Question: What executive initially led the Artic drilling project?
Answer: Pete Slaiby

Question: What caused the delay in drilling after Shell's 2008 purchase?
Answer: the refurbishment of rigs, permit delays from the relevant authorities and lawsuits

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

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

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

Question: What worsened the situation at the end of 2012?
Answer: the "Kulluk" incident

Question: What amount had Royal Dutch Shell invested in the project by the end of 2012?
Answer: nearly US$5 billion

Question: In what year did drilling in the Arctic region begin?
Answer: 2012
Royal_Dutch_Shell

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

Question: Why was the Kulluk oil rig being towed to Washington?
Answer: to be serviced in preparation for the 2013 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

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

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

Question: Larry McKinney explained that a two-month delay in drilling could do what?
Answer: wipe out the entire drilling season
Royal_Dutch_Shell

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

Question: Following what event was it uncertain if Shell would recommence drilling?
Answer: the "Kulluk" incident

Question: In February 2013, Shell Corporation announced that it would pause what?
Answer: its closely watched drilling project off the Alaskan coast

Question: Shell Corporation announced what in January 2014?
Answer: the extension of the suspension of its drilling program in the Arctic

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

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.
Royal_Dutch_Shell

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

Question: In 1996, multiple groups filed lawsuits to hold Shell accountable for what?
Answer: alleged human rights violations in Nigeria

Question: Shell was accused of participating in the execution of which southern Nigerian tribal leader?
Answer: Ken Saro-Wiwa

Question: In what year did Shell agree to settle the lawsuits filed in 1996?
Answer: 2009

Question: For what amount did Shell agree to settle the 1996 lawsuits?
Answer: $15.5m

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
Royal_Dutch_Shell

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

Question: A 2010 leaked communication revealed that Shell claimed to have inserted what into which entities?
Answer: staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government

Question: The same leaked communication revealed Shell claimed to know what?
Answer: "everything that was being done in those ministries"

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

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

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

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

Question: How many Greenpeace activists boarded Fennica and Nordica in March 2012?
Answer: 52

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

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

Question: Why were the Fennica and Nordica chartered?
Answer: to support Shell's drilling rigs near Alaska

Question: What was the main concern of Edward Itta?
Answer: an oil spill could destroy the Inupiat Eskimo's hunting-and-fishing culture
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. 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: routinely invoke legal and technological measures

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

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

Question: You wrote a song that was based on an original work, what is this called?
Answer: to make derivative works

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

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

Question: Who is protected by copyright laws?
Answer: work's creator

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

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

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

Question: How are disputes resolved for small scale infringement?
Answer: direct negotiation, a notice and take down process, or litigation in civil court

Question: Why has copyright infringement increased recently?
Answer: Shifting public expectations, advances in digital technology, and the increasing reach of the Internet

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

Question: What can happen to people who commit copyright infringement on a mass-scale?
Answer: sometimes prosecuted via the criminal justice system

Question: What are two examples of groups that allow you to make copies of protected works?
Answer: service providers and software distributors

Question: What are content creation industries focusing on doing to prevent infringement?
Answer: expanding copyright law

Question: What can happen to people who commit copyright infringement on a mass-scale?
Answer: prosecuted via the criminal justice system

Question: What are two examples of groups that allow you to obtain copies of protected works?
Answer: service providers and software distributors
Copyright_infringement

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

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

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

Question: What kind of property is copyright used for?
Answer: intellectual property

Question: What is the difference between robbery and piracy?
Answer: related only to tangible property

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

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

Question: What did the Royal Charter give to the Stationers' Company of London?
Answer: monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter

Question: How does Article 12 of the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works use the term piracy?
Answer: in relation to copyright infringement

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

Question: When was the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights enacted?
Answer: 1994

Question: Piracy has been more recently described online in relation to what?
Answer: peer-to-peer file sharing networks
Copyright_infringement

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

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

Question: What have courts said there is a difference between?
Answer: copyright infringement and theft

Question: In Dowling v. United States, what did bootleg records NOT constitute?
Answer: theft, conversion, or fraud

Question: What is the separate term of art to define misappropriation of copyright?
Answer: The Copyright Act

Question: What did the court say was invaded?
Answer: certain exclusive rights
Copyright_infringement

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

Question: What is a possible cause of copyright infringement?
Answer: partial compliance

Question: Who did Texas software company Apptricity write software for?
Answer: US Army

Question: How many users were paid for in 2004?
Answer: 500 users

Question: How much was the lawsuit settled for?
Answer: US$50 million

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