Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix 'Q:' followed by the answer prefix 'A:', and the follow-up question has a prefix 'FOLLOWUP_Q:'.

Q: CONTEXT: It's simply a way to be able to search the full movie title without them [quite, though I'd check with a lawyer] breaking copyright. As these days most people use internet searches rather than physically browsing disks on a shelf, it gives them better chance of a hit. It's also a way of saving them having to think up anything vaguely clever or amusing. In the old days, they used to have to come up with vaguely similar titles that would be recognisable to their intended audience.. Jurassic Poke Saving Ryan's Privates Flesh Gordon Sex Family Robinson ...I think you get the idea. <sep> Q: What is the significance of "This Isn't" in porn parody titles? A: It's simply a way to be able to search the full movie title without them Q: Is that legal for them to do? A: copyright <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: is there a way to tell the difference between a porn parody and the real movies?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon. <sep> Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong? A: where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong? A: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What are the grounds to reopen a military case?

A: Yes
****
Q: CONTEXT: I'm afraid you completely misunderstood a lot of the movie. At the start of the movie, Hal is already dead (killed himself in prison). Those scenes with Hal (mostly in New York) were all flashbacks. The present is with sister in San Francisco. Jasmine meets Dwight at a party in San Francisco. This is long after Hal killed himself. But to your question: "Why did Jasmine arrest Hal?" It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing. Hal had just told Jasmine that he was in love with this French girl and was going to leave her. And almost immediately, Jasmine calls the FBI (or rather calls someone to get the FBI's number). <sep> Q: Why did Jasmine arrest Hal? A: It was purely a spur of the moment, revenge thing Q: Who did Jasmine sleep with? A: Dwight <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did she come to Hal?

A:
No
****