romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, rejected Netbula's arguments and ordered them to disable the robots.txt blockage temporarily in order to allow Chordiant to retrieve the archived pages that they sought.

Q1: Which judge presided over the Netbula v. Chordiant case?
A1: Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd
Q2: In what jurisdiction was the Netbula v. Chordiant case tried?
A2: Northern District of California, San Jose Division
Q3: Which party won its argument regarding Netbula's robots.txt file?
A3: Chordiant
In an October 2004 case, Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite, No. 02 C 3293, 65 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 673 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2004), a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time. Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates the Dish Network. Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the past content of Telewizja Polska's web site. Telewizja Polska brought a motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay and unauthenticated source, but Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys rejected Telewizja Polska's assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial. At the trial, however, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman, the trial judge, overruled Magistrate Keys' findings,[citation needed] and held that neither the affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages (i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence. Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported web page printouts were not self-authenticating.[citation needed]

Q1: What does Telewizja Polska operate?
A1: TVP Polonia
Q2: What is EchoStar's platform?
A2: the Dish Network
Q3: Which judge denied Telewizja Polska's attempt to block the use of Internet Archive contents as evidence?
A3: Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys
Q4: Which judge overturned Keys' ruling?
A4: district Court Judge Ronald Guzman
Provided some additional requirements are met (e.g. providing an authoritative statement of the archivist), the United States patent office and the European Patent Office will accept date stamps from the Internet Archive as evidence of when a given Web page was accessible to the public. These dates are used to determine if a Web page is available as prior art for instance in examining a patent application.

Q1: When are Internet Archive timestamps useful for patent offices?
A1: in examining a patent application
Q2: What is an example of a condition that must be met for the Internet Archive data to be considered acceptable for submission to patent offices in the US and Europe?
A2: authoritative statement of the archivist
There are technical limitations to archiving a web site, and as a consequence, it is possible for opposing parties in litigation to misuse the results provided by web site archives. This problem can be exacerbated by the practice of submitting screen shots of web pages in complaints, answers, or expert witness reports, when the underlying links are not exposed and therefore, can contain errors. For example, archives such as the Wayback Machine do not fill out forms and therefore, do not include the contents of non-RESTful e-commerce databases in their archives.

Q1: What kind of limitations exist in keeping copies of a website?
A1: technical
Q2: The omission of what element in screenshots can make them unreliable as evidence?
A2: underlying links
Q3: What elements of webpages are not used by Wayback Machine?
A3: forms
Q4: What kind of sites contain information that the Wayback Machine does not record?
A4: e-commerce
In Europe the Wayback Machine could be interpreted as violating copyright laws. Only the content creator can decide where their content is published or duplicated, so the Archive would have to delete pages from its system upon request of the creator. The exclusion policies for the Wayback Machine may be found in the FAQ section of the site. The Wayback Machine also retroactively respects robots.txt files, i.e., pages that currently are blocked to robots on the live web temporarily will be made unavailable from the archives as well.

Q1: What kinds of laws could the Wayback Machine be viewed as breaking in Europe?
A1: copyright laws
Q2: What would the Internet Archive have to do if requested by someone whose content is available on Wayback Machine?
A2: delete pages from its system
Q3: In what part of the website are Wayback Machine's rules regarding removing content?
A3: FAQ
In late 2002, the Internet Archive removed various sites that were critical of Scientology from the Wayback Machine. An error message stated that this was in response to a "request by the site owner." Later, it was clarified that lawyers from the Church of Scientology had demanded the removal and that the site owners did not want their material removed.

Q1: Web pages that contained content critical of what religous movement were taken off of the Internet Archive in 2002?
A1: Scientology
Q2: Who was mistakenly credited for having the sites with criticism of Scientology removed from the Internet Archive?
A2: the site owner
Q3: Who was the actual party that requested the critical sites be taken down?
A3: Church of Scientology
In 2003, Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey defended a client from a trademark dispute using the Archive's Wayback Machine. The attorneys were able to demonstrate that the claims made by the plaintiff were invalid, based on the content of their web site from several years prior. The plaintiff, Healthcare Advocates, then amended their complaint to include the Internet Archive, accusing the organization of copyright infringement as well as violations of the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Healthcare Advocates claimed that, since they had installed a robots.txt file on their web site, even if after the initial lawsuit was filed, the Archive should have removed all previous copies of the plaintiff web site from the Wayback Machine. The lawsuit was settled out of court.

Q1: Which law firm leveraged Wayback Machine to protect their client in 2003?
A1: Harding Earley Follmer & Frailey
Q2: Which company filed suit against Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey's client?
A2: Healthcare Advocates
Q3: Who did Healthcare advocates change their case to include as a defendant?
A3: Internet Archive
Q4: What laws did Healthcare Advocates accuse Internet Archive of having broken?
A4: the DMCA and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Robots.txt is used as part of the Robots Exclusion Standard, a voluntary protocol the Internet Archive respects that disallows bots from indexing certain pages delineated by its creator as off-limits. As a result, the Internet Archive has rendered unavailable a number of web sites that now are inaccessible through the Wayback Machine. Currently, the Internet Archive applies robots.txt rules retroactively; if a site blocks the Internet Archive, such as Healthcare Advocates, any previously archived pages from the domain are rendered unavailable as well. In cases of blocked sites, only the robots.txt file is archived.

Q1: What kind of protocol is the Robots Exclusion Standard?
A1: voluntary
Q2: What file is utilized to exercise the rights promoted by the Robots Exclusion Standard?
A2: Robots.txt
Q3: If a site prevents Internet Archive from recording it, what file is still saved?
A3: Robots.txt
The Internet Archive states, however, "Sometimes a website owner will contact us directly and ask us to stop crawling or archiving a site. We comply with these requests." In addition, the web site says: "The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not want their materials in the collection."

Q1: Who asserts that they will respond to direct contacts requesting material be removed from the archive?
A1: Internet Archive
In December 2005, activist Suzanne Shell filed suit demanding Internet Archive pay her US $100,000 for archiving her web site profane-justice.org between 1999 and 2004. Internet Archive filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 20, 2006, seeking a judicial determination that Internet Archive did not violate Shell's copyright. Shell responded and brought a countersuit against Internet Archive for archiving her site, which she alleges is in violation of her terms of service. On February 13, 2007, a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed all counterclaims except breach of contract. The Internet Archive did not move to dismiss copyright infringement claims Shell asserted arising out of its copying activities, which would also go forward.

Q1: Who sued Internet Archive in 2005?
A1: Suzanne Shell
Q2: What was the URL owned by Suzanne Shell?
A2: profane-justice.org
Q3: In what jurisdiction were Internet Archive's counterclaims filed?
A3: Northern District of California
Q4: In what jurisdiction where counterclaims nullified by the court?
A4: District of Colorado
On April 25, 2007, Internet Archive and Suzanne Shell jointly announced the settlement of their lawsuit. The Internet Archive said it "...has no interest in including materials in the Wayback Machine of persons who do not wish to have their Web content archived. We recognize that Ms. Shell has a valid and enforceable copyright in her Web site and we regret that the inclusion of her Web site in the Wayback Machine resulted in this litigation." Shell said, "I respect the historical value of Internet Archive's goal. I never intended to interfere with that goal nor cause it any harm."

Q1: When did Suzanne Shell's suit against Internet Archive come to an end?
A1: April 25, 2007
Q2: Who stated that they had no wish to violate individuals' copyrights?
A2: Internet Archive
Q3: Who stated that they did not want to cause damage to the Internet Archive?
A3: Suzanne Shell
In 2013–14 a pornographic actor was trying to remove archived images of himself, first by sending multiple DMCA requests to the Archive and then in the Federal Court of Canada.

Q1: What was the first method used by the actor in trying to get his images taken down?
A1: DMCA requests
Q2: What legal system did the actor use after filing DMCA petitions?
A2: Federal Court of Canada
The Dutch Republic, also known as the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden), Republic of the United Netherlands or Republic of the Seven United Provinces (Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Provinciën), was a republic in Europe existing from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795. It preceded the Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands. Alternative names include the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinciën), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata).

Q1: What are some other names the Dutch Republic is known by?
A1: the United Provinces (Verenigde Provinciën), Federated Dutch Provinces (Foederatae Belgii Provinciae), and Dutch Federation (Belgica Foederata)
Q2: The Dutch Republic was a republic of Europe during what time?
A2: from 1581, when part of the Netherlands separated from Spanish rule, until 1795
Q3: What republics did the Dutch Republic come before?
A3: Batavian Republic, the Kingdom of Holland, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and ultimately the modern Kingdom of the Netherlands
Until the 16th century, the Low Countries – corresponding roughly to the present-day Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg – consisted of a number of duchies, counties, and Prince-bishoprics, almost all of which were under the supremacy of the Holy Roman Empire, with the exception of the county of Flanders, which was under the Kingdom of France.

Q1: The Low Countries were made up of which present day countries?
A1: Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg
Q2: Which counties in the Low Countries were not ruled by the Holy Roman Empire?
A2: Flanders
Most of the Low Countries had come under the rule of the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg. In 1549 Holy Roman Emperor Charles V issued the Pragmatic Sanction, which further unified the Seventeen Provinces under his rule. Charles was succeeded by his son, King Philip II of Spain. In 1568 the Netherlands, led by William I of Orange, revolted against Philip II because of high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces. This was the start of the Eighty Years' War.

Q1: The majority of the Low Countries were ruled by which houses?
A1: the House of Burgundy and subsequently the House of Habsburg
Q2: Who issued the Pragmatic Sanction?
A2: Holy Roman Emperor Charles V
Q3: In what year did the Netherlands rise up against Philip II?
A3: 1568
Q4: Why did the people of the Netherlands rise up against Philip II?
A4: high taxes, persecution of Protestants by the government, and Philip's efforts to modernize and centralize the devolved-medieval government structures of the provinces
In 1579 a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries signed the Union of Utrecht, in which they promised to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army. This was followed in 1581 by the Act of Abjuration, the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II.

Q1: In what year was the Union of Utrecht signed?
A1: 1579
Q2: Who signed the Union of Utrecht?
A2: a number of the northern provinces of the Low Countries
Q3: What was the declaration of independence of the provinces from Philip II called?
A3: the Act of Abjuration
Q4: In what year was the Act of Abjuration signed?
A4: 1581
Q5: What was the purpose of the Union of Utrecht?
A5: to support each other in their defence against the Spanish army
In 1582 the United Provinces invited Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them; but after a failed attempt to take Antwerp in 1583, the duke left the Netherlands again. After the assassination of William of Orange (10 July 1584), both Henry III of France and Elizabeth I of England declined the offer of sovereignty. However, the latter agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England (Treaty of Nonsuch, 1585), and sent the Earl of Leicester as governor-general. This was unsuccessful and in 1588 the provinces became a confederacy. The Union of Utrecht is regarded as the foundation of the Republic of the Seven United Provinces, which was not recognized by the Spanish Empire until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Q1: In what year did the United Provinces invite Francis, Duke of Anjou to lead them?
A1: 1582
Q2: In what year did Francis, Duke of Anjou leave the Netherlands?
A2: 1583
Q3: When was William of Orange assassinated?
A3: 10 July 1584
Q4: Who agreed to turn the United Provinces into a protectorate of England?
A4: Elizabeth I
Q5: In what year did the United Provinces become a confederacy?
A5: 1588
The Republic of the United Provinces lasted until a series of republican revolutions in 1783–1795 created the Batavian Republic. During this period, republican forces took several major cities of the Netherlands. After initially fleeing, the monarchist forces came back with British, Austrian, and Prussian troops and retook the Netherlands. The republican forces fled to France, but then successfully re-invaded alongside the army of the French republic. After the French Republic became the French Empire under Napoleon, the Batavian Republic was replaced by the Napoleonic Kingdom of Holland.

Q1: What events created the Batavian Republic?
A1: a series of republican revolutions in 1783–1795
Q2: The republican forces fled to which country?
A2: France
Q3: The Napoleonic Kingdom of Holland replaced which republic?
A3: the Batavian Republic
The Netherlands regained independence from France in 1813. In the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814 the names "United Provinces of the Netherlands" and "United Netherlands" were used. In 1815 it was rejoined with the Austrian Netherlands, Luxembourg and Liège (the "Southern provinces") to become the Kingdom of the Netherlands, informally known as the Kingdom of the United Netherlands, to create a strong buffer state north of France. After Belgium and Luxembourg became independent, the state became unequivocally known as the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as it remains today.

Q1: In what year did the Netherlands gain independence from France?
A1: 1813
Q2: What names were used in the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814?
A2: "United Provinces of the Netherlands" and "United Netherlands"
Q3: The Kingdom of the Netherlands was formed by which countries?
A3: Austrian Netherlands, Luxembourg and Liège
During the Dutch Golden Age in the late 16th century onward, the Dutch Republic dominated world trade in the 17th century, conquering a vast colonial empire and operating the largest fleet of merchantmen of any nation. The County of Holland was the wealthiest and most urbanized region in the world.

Q1: The Dutch Republic dominated world trade during what time?
A1: the Dutch Golden Age
Q2: What was the wealthiest and most urbanized region in the world during the 17th century?
A2: The County of Holland
The free trade spirit of the time received a strong augmentation through the development of a modern, effective stock market in the Low Countries. The Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange in the world, founded in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. While Rotterdam has the oldest bourse in the Netherlands, the world's first stock exchange – that of the Dutch East-India Company – went public in six different cities. Later, a court ruled that the company had to reside legally in a single city, so Amsterdam is recognized as the oldest such institution based on modern trading principles. While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated by the well-connected English, stimulating English economic output.

Q1: When was the stock exchange founded in the Netherlands?
A1: 1602
Q2: Which city in the Netherlands has the oldest stock exchange?
A2: Rotterdam
Q3: The Dutch East-India Company inhabited how many cities?
A3: six
Q4: Which city did the Dutch East-India Company decide to reside in after a court decided they could legally only operate in one city?
A4: Amsterdam
Between 1590–1712 the Dutch also possessed one of the strongest and fastest navies in the world, allowing for their varied conquests including breaking the Portuguese sphere of influence on the Indian Ocean and in the Orient, as well as a lucrative slave trade from Africa and the Pacific.

Q1: The Dutch had one of the strongest and fastest navies in the world during what time?
A1: 1590–1712
Q2: The Dutch operated a slave trade from which locations?
A2: Africa and the Pacific
Q3: What was one of the conquests of the Dutch Navy?
A3: breaking the Portuguese sphere of influence on the Indian Ocean and in the Orient
The republic was a confederation of seven provinces, which had their own governments and were very independent, and a number of so-called Generality Lands. The latter were governed directly by the States General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government. The States General were seated in The Hague and consisted of representatives of each of the seven provinces. The provinces of the republic were, in official feudal order:

Q1: The Dutch Republic consisted of how many provinces?
A1: seven
Q2: Who were the Generality Lands governed by?
A2: the States General (Staten-Generaal in Dutch), the federal government
Q3: The States General was made up of what?
A3: representatives of each of the seven provinces
In fact, there was an eighth province, the County of Drenthe, but this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes and as a consequence was denied representation in the States General. Each province was governed by the Provincial States, the main executive official (though not the official head of state) was a raadspensionaris. In times of war, the stadtholder, who commanded the army, would have more power than the raadspensionaris.

Q1: What was the 8th province of the Dutch Republic?
A1: the County of Drenthe
Q2: Why was the County of Drenthe denied representation by the States General?
A2: this area was so poor it was exempt from paying federal taxes
Q3: The main executive official of the Provincial States was called what?
A3: raadspensionaris
Q4: Who had more power during times of war than the raadspensionaris?
A4: the stadtholder
Q5: Who commanded the army?
A5: the stadtholder
In theory, the stadtholders were freely appointed by and subordinate to the states of each province. However, in practice the princes of Orange of the House of Orange-Nassau, beginning with William the Silent, were always chosen as stadtholders of most of the provinces. Zeeland and usually Utrecht had the same stadtholder as Holland.

Q1: Who appointed the stadtholders?
A1: the states of each province
Q2: Who were always chosen as stadtholders of most of the provinces?
A2: the princes of Orange of the House of Orange-Nassau, beginning with William the Silent
Q3: Which states had the same stadtholder as Holland?
A3: Zeeland and usually Utrecht
There was a constant power struggle between the Orangists, who supported the stadtholders and specifically the princes of Orange, and the Republicans, who supported the States General and hoped to replace the semi-hereditary nature of the stadtholdership with a true republican structure.

Q1: What group of people supported the stadtholders, particularly the princes of Orange?
A1: Orangists
Q2: Who wanted to replace the stadtholders with a republican structure?
A2: Republicans
After the Peace of Westphalia, several border territories were assigned to the United Provinces. They were federally-governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden). They were Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Limburg (around Maastricht) and Staats-Oppergelre (around Venlo, after 1715).

Q1: Several border territories were designated to the United Provinces after what?
A1: the Peace of Westphalia
Q2: The border territories assigned to the United Provinces were known as what?
A2: federally-governed Generality Lands (Generaliteitslanden)
Q3: What were the names of the border territories assigned to the United Provinces?
A3: Staats-Brabant (present North Brabant), Staats-Vlaanderen (present Zeeuws-Vlaanderen), Staats-Limburg (around Maastricht) and Staats-Oppergelre (around Venlo, after 1715)
The States General of the United Provinces were in control of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the Dutch West India Company (WIC), but some shipping expeditions were initiated by some of the provinces, mostly Holland and/or Zeeland.

Q1: Who was in control of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the Dutch West India Company (WIC)?
A1: The States General of the United Provinces
Q2: Some shipping expeditions were mostly initiated by which provinces?
A2: Holland and/or Zeeland