romikgosai/squad_modified huggingface dataset:
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When you are accused theft as it relates to copyright law, you are exercising exclusive rights without what?
A: authorization', '
Q: What have courts said there is a difference between?
A: copyright infringement and theft', '
Q: In Dowling v. United States, what did bootleg records NOT constitute?
A: theft, conversion, or fraud', '
Q: What is the separate term of art to define misappropriation of copyright?
A: The Copyright Act', '
Q: What did the court say was invaded?
A: certain exclusive rights']
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.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is a possible cause of copyright infringement?
A: partial compliance', '
Q: Who did Texas software company Apptricity write software for?
A: US Army', '
Q: How many users were paid for in 2004?
A: 500 users', '
Q: How much was the lawsuit settled for?
A: US$50 million', '
Q: Who is an example of a major anti-piracy organization?
A: the BSA']
Cara Cusumano, director of the Tribeca Film Festival, stated in April 2014: "Piracy is less about people not wanting to pay and more about just wanting the immediacy – people saying, 'I want to watch Spiderman right now' and downloading it". The statement occurred during the third year that the festival used the Internet to present its content, while it was the first year that it featured a showcase of content producers who work exclusively online. Cusumano further explained that downloading behavior is not merely conducted by people who merely want to obtain content for free:

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What did Cara Cusumano say about piracy in 2014 that people want?
A: immediacy', '
Q: What had the festival done for the past three years when the statement by Cara Cusumano was made?
A: used the Internet to present its content', '
Q: It was the first year of Tribeca featuring a showcase of producers who do what?
A: work exclusively online', '
Q: What behavior is not just done by people who want content for free?
A: downloading']
In response to Cusumano's perspective, Screen Producers Australia executive director Matt Deaner clarified the motivation of the film industry: "Distributors are usually wanting to encourage cinema-going as part of this process [monetizing through returns] and restrict the immediate access to online so as to encourage the maximum number of people to go to the cinema." Deaner further explained the matter in terms of the Australian film industry, stating: "there are currently restrictions on quantities of tax support that a film can receive unless the film has a traditional cinema release."

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who made clear the motivations of the filmmakers?
A: Matt Deaner', '
Q: Who encourages watching movies at a theater as making money from the film?
A: Distributors', '
Q: What is restricted to ensure the largest number of people see a movie at the theater?
A: immediate access to online', '
Q: What is restricted unless the film has a traditional theater release?
A: tax support that a film can receive']
In a study published in the Journal of Behavioural and Experimental Economics, and reported on in early May 2014, researchers from the University of Portsmouth in the UK discussed findings from examining the illegal downloading behavior of 6,000 Finnish people, aged seven to 84. The list of reasons for downloading given by the study respondents included money saving; the ability to access material not on general release, or before it was released; and assisting artists to avoid involvement with record companies and movie studios.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What researchers conducted a study in the early part of May 2014?
A: University of Portsmouth', '
Q: How many people were part of the study?
A: 6,000', '
Q: What was the age range of people studied?
A: seven to 84', '
Q: Who did downloaders want to help by avoiding studios and record companies?
A: artists']
According to the same study, even though digital piracy inflicts additional costs on the production side of media, it also offers the main access to media goods in developing countries. The strong tradeoffs that favor using digital piracy in developing economies dictate the current neglected law enforcements toward digital piracy. In China, the issue of digital infringement is not merely legal, but social – originating from the high demand for cheap and affordable goods as well as the governmental connections of the businesses which produce such goods.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Even though piracy adds costs to production, what else is offered to developing countries?
A: main access to media goods', '
Q: What do the tradeoffs of digital piracy support?
A: current neglected law enforcements', '
Q: In what country is the issue of digital infringement social?
A: China', '
Q: What is in high demand in this country?
A: cheap and affordable goods', '
Q: What does the government of this country provide to businesses that produce content?
A: connections']
There have been instances where a country's government bans a movie, resulting in the spread of copied videos and DVDs. Romanian-born documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu wrote a New York Times article telling the story of Irina Margareta Nistor, a narrator for state TV under Nicolae Ceauşescu's regime. A visitor from the west gave her bootlegged copies of American movies, which she dubbed for secret viewings through Romania. According to the article, she dubbed more than 3,000 movies and became the country's second-most famous voice after Ceauşescu, even though no one knew her name until many years later.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What happens when a country bans a movie?
A: the spread of copied videos and DVDs', '
Q: Who did documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu write an article for?
A: New York Times', "
Q: What was Irina Margareta Nistor's job in Romania?
A: a narrator for state TV", '
Q: What did a visitor give to Nistor?
A: bootlegged copies of American movies', '
Q: How many movies did Nistor dub for secret viewings in Romania?
A: 3,000']
In the U.S., copyright infringement is sometimes confronted via lawsuits in civil court, against alleged infringers directly, or against providers of services and software that support unauthorized copying. For example, major motion-picture corporation MGM Studios filed suit against P2P file-sharing services Grokster and Streamcast for their contributory role in copyright infringement. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of MGM, holding that such services could be held liable for copyright infringement since they functioned and, indeed, willfully marketed themselves as venues for acquiring copyrighted movies. The MGM v. Grokster case did not overturn the earlier Sony decision, but rather clouded the legal waters; future designers of software capable of being used for copyright infringement were warned.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: In the U.S., where is copyright infringement contested?
A: civil court', '
Q: Who did MGM studios file a lawsuit against?
A: Grokster and Streamcast', '
Q: In 2005, who did the Supreme Court rule in favor of?
A: MGM', '
Q: What did P2P file sharing services market themselves as?
A: venues for acquiring copyrighted movies', "
Q: What studio's case decision was NOT overturned?
A: Sony"]
In some jurisdictions, copyright or the right to enforce it can be contractually assigned to a third party which did not have a role in producing the work. When this outsourced litigator appears to have no intention of taking any copyright infringement cases to trial, but rather only takes them just far enough through the legal system to identify and exact settlements from suspected infringers, critics commonly refer to the party as a "copyright troll." Such practices have had mixed results in the U.S.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who can be assigned a contract to enforce a copyright in some jurisdictions?
A: third party', '
Q: What do outside lawyers take infringers to court for?
A: to identify and exact settlements', '
Q: What do critics usually call these lawyers?
A: copyright troll', '
Q: What do these lawsuits have in the U.S.?
A: mixed results']
The first criminal provision in U.S. copyright law was added in 1897, which established a misdemeanor penalty for "unlawful performances and representations of copyrighted dramatic and musical compositions" if the violation had been "willful and for profit." Criminal copyright infringement requires that the infringer acted "for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain." 17 U.S.C. § 506. To establish criminal liability, the prosecutor must first show the basic elements of copyright infringement: ownership of a valid copyright, and the violation of one or more of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. The government must then establish that defendant willfully infringed or, in other words, possessed the necessary mens rea. Misdemeanor infringement has a very low threshold in terms of number of copies and the value of the infringed works.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When was the first criminal part of copyright law in the U.S. added?
A: 1897', '
Q: What type of penalty was made for unlawful performances that are willful and for profit?
A: misdemeanor', '
Q: What did a criminal infringer do to be prosecuted?
A: for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain', '
Q: What must a prosecuter show after the basic elements of infringement?
A: that defendant willfully infringed', '
Q: What is the threshold of the number of copies and the value of the works?
A: very low threshold']
United States v. LaMacchia 871 F.Supp. 535 (1994) was a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts which ruled that, under the copyright and cybercrime laws effective at the time, committing copyright infringement for non-commercial motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law. The ruling gave rise to what became known as the "LaMacchia Loophole," wherein criminal charges of fraud or copyright infringement would be dismissed under current legal standards, so long as there was no profit motive involved.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: When was United States v. LaMacchia contested?
A: 1994', '
Q: At the time, what infringement could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law?
A: non-commercial motives', '
Q: What loophole did the ruling give rise to?
A: LaMacchia Loophole', '
Q: If there is no profit involved, what would happen to criminal charges of fraud?
A: dismissed']
The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, in response to LaMacchia, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement under certain circumstances, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%. The court's ruling explicitly drew attention to the shortcomings of current law that allowed people to facilitate mass copyright infringement while being immune to prosecution under the Copyright Act.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What federal law did the United States pass in 1997, in response to the LaMacchia Loophole?
A: No Electronic Theft Act', '
Q: What is the maximum prison time for infringement under the new law?
A: five years in prison', '
Q: What is the maximum monetary fine under the new law?
A: $250,000', '
Q: How much were statutory damages raised by?
A: 50%', '
Q: What was the law called that let people be immune to prosecution?
A: Copyright Act']
The personal copying exemption in the copyright law of EU member states stems from the EU Copyright Directive of 2001, which is generally devised to allow EU members to enact laws sanctioning making copies without authorization, as long as they are for personal, noncommerical use. The Copyright Directive was not intended to legitimize file-sharing, but rather the common practice of space shifting copyright-protected content from a legally purchased CD (for example) to certain kinds of devices and media, provided rights holders are compensated and no copy protection measures are circumvented. Rights-holder compensation takes various forms, depending on the country, but is generally either a levy on "recording" devices and media, or a tax on the content itself. In some countries, such as Canada, the applicability of such laws to copying onto general-purpose storage devices like computer hard drives, portable media players, and phones, for which no levies are collected, has been the subject of debate and further efforts to reform copyright law.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What directive in 2001 let European Union countries to enact laws that allowed making copies for personal use?
A: EU Copyright Directive of 2001', '
Q: What was the directive NOT intended for?
A: legitimize file-sharing', '
Q: Compensation to the rights-holder is generally a levy or what else?
A: a tax on the content itself', '
Q: What is an example of a country that has no levies collected?
A: Canada', '
Q: What are examples of general purpose storage devices?
A: computer hard drives, portable media players, and phones']
In some countries, the personal copying exemption explicitly requires that the content being copied was obtained legitimately – i.e., from authorized sources, not file-sharing networks. Other countries, such as the Netherlands, make no such distinction; the exemption there had been assumed, even by the government, to apply to any such copying, even from file-sharing networks. However, in April 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that "national legislation which makes no distinction between private copies made from lawful sources and those made from counterfeited or pirated sources cannot be tolerated." Thus, in the Netherlands, for example, downloading from file-sharing networks is no longer legal.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What does the personal copying exemption explicitly need?
A: was obtained legitimately', '
Q: What is an example of a country that the exemption was assumed?
A: Netherlands', '
Q: When did the Court of Justice of the EU make a ruling about distinction?
A: April 2014', '
Q: In which country is downloading from a file-sharing network no longer legal?
A: Netherlands']
Title I of the U.S. DMCA, the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act has provisions that prevent persons from "circumvent[ing] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work". Thus if a distributor of copyrighted works has some kind of software, dongle or password access device installed in instances of the work, any attempt to bypass such a copy protection scheme may be actionable – though the US Copyright Office is currently reviewing anticircumvention rulemaking under DMCA – anticircumvention exemptions that have been in place under the DMCA include those in software designed to filter websites that are generally seen to be inefficient (child safety and public library website filtering software) and the circumvention of copy protection mechanisms that have malfunctioned, have caused the instance of the work to become inoperable or which are no longer supported by their manufacturers.

Questions and answers:
["
Q: What is the U.S. law that uses the WIPO Copyright as it's Title I?
A: DMCA", '
Q: What is it called when someone intentionally breaks encryption on a movie or game?
A: "circumvent[ing] a technological measure', '
Q: Anticircumvention exemptions are generally seen to be be what?
A: inefficient', '
Q: What are child safety and public library software used to filter?
A: website']
In addition, intermediaries are now also generally understood to include Internet portals, software and games providers, those providing virtual information such as interactive forums and comment facilities with or without a moderation system, aggregators of various kinds, such as news aggregators, universities, libraries and archives, web search engines, chat rooms, web blogs, mailing lists, and any website which provides access to third party content through, for example, hyperlinks, a crucial element of the World Wide Web.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What includes Internet portals, software and games?
A: intermediaries', '
Q: What examples provide virtual information?
A: interactive forums and comment facilities', '
Q: News, universities and libraries and archives are examples of what?
A: aggregators', '
Q: What is an important element of the World Wide Web?
A: hyperlinks']
Early court cases focused on the liability of Internet service providers (ISPs) for hosting, transmitting or publishing user-supplied content that could be actioned under civil or criminal law, such as libel, defamation, or pornography. As different content was considered in different legal systems, and in the absence of common definitions for "ISPs," "bulletin boards" or "online publishers," early law on online intermediaries' liability varied widely from country to country. The first laws on online intermediaries' liability were passed from the mid-1990s onwards.[citation needed]

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Who did early court cases focus on?
A: Internet service providers', '
Q: What could be sued for under civil or criminal law?
A: libel, defamation, or pornography', '
Q: What was the result of early law on online liability?
A: varied widely from country to country', '
Q: When were the first laws of liability passed?
A: mid-1990s']
The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998) and the European E-Commerce Directive (2000) provide online intermediaries with limited statutory immunity from liability for copyright infringement. Online intermediaries hosting content that infringes copyright are not liable, so long as they do not know about it and take actions once the infringing content is brought to their attention. In U.S. law this is characterized as "safe harbor" provisions. Under European law, the governing principles for Internet Service Providers are "mere conduit", meaning that they are neutral 'pipes' with no knowledge of what they are carrying; and 'no obligation to monitor' meaning that they cannot be given a general mandate by governments to monitor content. These two principles are a barrier for certain forms of online copyright enforcement and they were the reason behind an attempt to amend the European Telecoms Package in 2009 to support new measures against copyright infringement.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What law enacted in the U.S. in 1998 gave online intermediaries limited statutory immunity?
A: Digital Millennium Copyright Act', '
Q: How is this law characterized in the U.S.?
A: safe harbor', "
Q: In the E.U., what are the governing principles for ISP's?
A: mere conduit", '
Q: What is it called when intermediaries cannot be given an order by governments to monitor what happens on their services?
A: no obligation to monitor', '
Q: What was attempted to be amended in 2009 to support new ways to prevent copyright infringement?
A: European Telecoms Package']
These types of intermediaries do not host or transmit infringing content, themselves, but may be regarded in some courts as encouraging, enabling or facilitating infringement by users. These intermediaries may include the author, publishers and marketers of peer-to-peer networking software, and the websites that allow users to download such software. In the case of the BitTorrent protocol, intermediaries may include the torrent tracker and any websites or search engines which facilitate access to torrent files. Torrent files don't contain copyrighted content, but they may make reference to files that do, and they may point to trackers which coordinate the sharing of those files. Some torrent indexing and search sites, such as The Pirate Bay, now encourage the use of magnet links, instead of direct links to torrent files, creating another layer of indirection; using such links, torrent files are obtained from other peers, rather than from a particular website.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What do certain type of intermediaries NOT do?
A: host or transmit infringing content', '
Q: What protocol do intermediaries use that include a torrent tracker?
A: BitTorrent', '
Q: What do Torrent files NOT contain?
A: copyrighted content', '
Q: What is a torrent site that uses magnet links to share peer-to-peer?
A: The Pirate Bay']
Nevertheless, whether and to what degree any of these types of intermediaries have secondary liability is the subject of ongoing litigation. The decentralised structure of peer-to-peer networks, in particular, does not sit easily with existing laws on online intermediaries' liability. The BitTorrent protocol established an entirely decentralised network architecture in order to distribute large files effectively. Recent developments in peer-to-peer technology towards more complex network configurations are said to have been driven by a desire to avoid liability as intermediaries under existing laws.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is the legal status of secondary liability?
A: subject of ongoing litigation', '
Q: What makes peer-to-peer networks different than other online providers?
A: decentralised structure', '
Q: What was the initial purpose of the BitTorrent protocol?
A: distribute large files effectively', '
Q: What are the reasons for more complex network configurations in peer-to-peer software development?
A: to avoid liability as intermediaries']
Article 10 of the Berne Convention mandates that national laws provide for limitations to copyright, so that copyright protection does not extend to certain kinds of uses that fall under what the treaty calls "fair practice," including but not limited to minimal quotations used in journalism and education. The laws implementing these limitations and exceptions for uses that would otherwise be infringing broadly fall into the categories of either fair use or fair dealing. In common law systems, these fair practice statutes typically enshrine principles underlying many earlier judicial precedents, and are considered essential to freedom of speech.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What does Article 10 of the Berne Convention call certain uses that limit copyright?
A: fair practice', '
Q: Where are minimal quotations commonly used?
A: journalism and education', '
Q: What categories do works that would normally be considered infringing fall into?
A: fair use or fair dealing', '
Q: What do these statutes represent?
A: principles underlying many earlier judicial precedents', '
Q: What are these statutes essential to?
A: freedom of speech']