romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
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.

Q1: What researchers conducted a study in the early part of May 2014?
A1: University of Portsmouth
Q2: How many people were part of the study?
A2: 6,000
Q3: What was the age range of people studied?
A3: seven to 84
Q4: Who did downloaders want to help by avoiding studios and record companies?
A4: 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.

Q1: Even though piracy adds costs to production, what else is offered to developing countries?
A1: main access to media goods
Q2: What do the tradeoffs of digital piracy support?
A2: current neglected law enforcements
Q3: In what country is the issue of digital infringement social?
A3: China
Q4: What is in high demand in this country?
A4: cheap and affordable goods
Q5: What does the government of this country provide to businesses that produce content?
A5: 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.

Q1: What happens when a country bans a movie?
A1: the spread of copied videos and DVDs
Q2: Who did documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu write an article for?
A2: New York Times
Q3: What was Irina Margareta Nistor's job in Romania?
A3: a narrator for state TV
Q4: What did a visitor give to Nistor?
A4: bootlegged copies of American movies
Q5: How many movies did Nistor dub for secret viewings in Romania?
A5: 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.

Q1: In the U.S., where is copyright infringement contested?
A1: civil court
Q2: Who did MGM studios file a lawsuit against?
A2: Grokster and Streamcast
Q3: In 2005, who did the Supreme Court rule in favor of?
A3: MGM
Q4: What did P2P file sharing services market themselves as?
A4: venues for acquiring copyrighted movies
Q5: What studio's case decision was NOT overturned?
A5: 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.

Q1: Who can be assigned a contract to enforce a copyright in some jurisdictions?
A1: third party
Q2: What do outside lawyers take infringers to court for?
A2: to identify and exact settlements
Q3: What do critics usually call these lawyers?
A3: copyright troll
Q4: What do these lawsuits have in the U.S.?
A4: 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.

Q1: When was the first criminal part of copyright law in the U.S. added?
A1: 1897
Q2: What type of penalty was made for unlawful performances that are willful and for profit?
A2: misdemeanor
Q3: What did a criminal infringer do to be prosecuted?
A3: for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain
Q4: What must a prosecuter show after the basic elements of infringement?
A4: that defendant willfully infringed
Q5: What is the threshold of the number of copies and the value of the works?
A5: 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.

Q1: When was United States v. LaMacchia contested?
A1: 1994
Q2: At the time, what infringement could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law?
A2: non-commercial motives
Q3: What loophole did the ruling give rise to?
A3: LaMacchia Loophole
Q4: If there is no profit involved, what would happen to criminal charges of fraud?
A4: 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.

Q1: What federal law did the United States pass in 1997, in response to the LaMacchia Loophole?
A1: No Electronic Theft Act
Q2: What is the maximum prison time for infringement under the new law?
A2: five years in prison
Q3: What is the maximum monetary fine under the new law?
A3: $250,000
Q4: How much were statutory damages raised by?
A4: 50%
Q5: What was the law called that let people be immune to prosecution?
A5: 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.

Q1: What directive in 2001 let European Union countries to enact laws that allowed making copies for personal use?
A1: EU Copyright Directive of 2001
Q2: What was the directive NOT intended for?
A2: legitimize file-sharing
Q3: Compensation to the rights-holder is generally a levy or what else?
A3: a tax on the content itself
Q4: What is an example of a country that has no levies collected?
A4: Canada
Q5: What are examples of general purpose storage devices?
A5: 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.

Q1: What does the personal copying exemption explicitly need?
A1: was obtained legitimately
Q2: What is an example of a country that the exemption was assumed?
A2: Netherlands
Q3: When did the Court of Justice of the EU make a ruling about distinction?
A3: April 2014
Q4: In which country is downloading from a file-sharing network no longer legal?
A4: 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.

Q1: What is the U.S. law that uses the WIPO Copyright as it's Title I?
A1: DMCA
Q2: What is it called when someone intentionally breaks encryption on a movie or game?
A2: "circumvent[ing] a technological measure
Q3: Anticircumvention exemptions are generally seen to be be what?
A3: inefficient
Q4: What are child safety and public library software used to filter?
A4: 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.

Q1: What includes Internet portals, software and games?
A1: intermediaries
Q2: What examples provide virtual information?
A2: interactive forums and comment facilities
Q3: News, universities and libraries and archives are examples of what?
A3: aggregators
Q4: What is an important element of the World Wide Web?
A4: 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]

Q1: Who did early court cases focus on?
A1: Internet service providers
Q2: What could be sued for under civil or criminal law?
A2: libel, defamation, or pornography
Q3: What was the result of early law on online liability?
A3: varied widely from country to country
Q4: When were the first laws of liability passed?
A4: 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.

Q1: What law enacted in the U.S. in 1998 gave online intermediaries limited statutory immunity?
A1: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Q2: How is this law characterized in the U.S.?
A2: safe harbor
Q3: In the E.U., what are the governing principles for ISP's?
A3: mere conduit
Q4: What is it called when intermediaries cannot be given an order by governments to monitor what happens on their services?
A4: no obligation to monitor
Q5: What was attempted to be amended in 2009 to support new ways to prevent copyright infringement?
A5: 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.

Q1: What do certain type of intermediaries NOT do?
A1: host or transmit infringing content
Q2: What protocol do intermediaries use that include a torrent tracker?
A2: BitTorrent
Q3: What do Torrent files NOT contain?
A3: copyrighted content
Q4: What is a torrent site that uses magnet links to share peer-to-peer?
A4: 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.

Q1: What is the legal status of secondary liability?
A1: subject of ongoing litigation
Q2: What makes peer-to-peer networks different than other online providers?
A2: decentralised structure
Q3: What was the initial purpose of the BitTorrent protocol?
A3: distribute large files effectively
Q4: What are the reasons for more complex network configurations in peer-to-peer software development?
A4: 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.

Q1: What does Article 10 of the Berne Convention call certain uses that limit copyright?
A1: fair practice
Q2: Where are minimal quotations commonly used?
A2: journalism and education
Q3: What categories do works that would normally be considered infringing fall into?
A3: fair use or fair dealing
Q4: What do these statutes represent?
A4: principles underlying many earlier judicial precedents
Q5: What are these statutes essential to?
A5: freedom of speech
Another example is the practice of compulsory licensing, which is where the law forbids copyright owners from denying a license for certain uses of certain kinds of works, such as compilations and live performances of music. Compulsory licensing laws generally say that for certain uses of certain works, no infringement occurs as long as a royalty, at a rate determined by law rather than private negotiation, is paid to the copyright owner or representative copyright collective. Some fair dealing laws, such as Canada's, include similar royalty requirements.

Q1: What is it called when a law disallows copyright owners from denying a license for certain uses?
A1: compulsory licensing
Q2: What are two examples of this licensing?
A2: compilations and live performances of music
Q3: What happens if a royalty is paid to the copyright owner or representative?
A3: no infringement occurs
Q4: What country has fair dealing laws?
A4: Canada
In Europe, the copyright infringement case Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd had two prongs; one concerned whether a news aggregator service infringed the copyright of the news generators; the other concerned whether the temporary web cache created by the web browser of a consumer of the aggregator's service, also infringed the copyright of the news generators. The first prong was decided in favor of the news generators; in June 2014 the second prong was decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which ruled that the temporary web cache of consumers of the aggregator did not infringe the copyright of the news generators.

Q1: Where was the Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd case contested?
A1: Europe
Q2: Whose copyright were news aggregators infringing on?
A2: news generators
Q3: When was the second part of the case decided?
A3: June 2014
Q4: What did the courts rule was NOT infringement?
A4: temporary web cache of consumers
In order to qualify for protection, a work must be an expression with a degree of originality, and it must be in a fixed medium, such as written down on paper or recorded digitally. The idea itself is not protected. That is, a copy of someone else's original idea is not infringing unless it copies that person's unique, tangible expression of the idea. Some of these limitations, especially regarding what qualifies as original, are embodied only in case law (judicial precedent), rather than in statutes.

Q1: If a work must include a degree of originality, what else must it contain to be protected?
A1: in a fixed medium
Q2: What is NOT protected?
A2: The idea itself
Q3: What makes a copy of an original idea infringing?
A3: it copies that person's unique, tangible expression of the idea
Q4: What limitation is only embodied in case law, rather than statues?
A4: what qualifies as original
In the U.S., for example, copyright case law contains a substantial similarity requirement to determine whether the work was copied. Likewise, courts may require computer software to pass an Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test (AFC Test) to determine if it is too abstract to qualify for protection, or too dissimilar to an original work to be considered infringing. Software-related case law has also clarified that the amount of R&D, effort and expense put into a work's creation doesn't affect copyright protection.

Q1: Which country needs a similarity requirement to determine if the work was copied?
A1: U.S.
Q2: What test might courts require software to pass to determine if it is protected or infringing?
A2: Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test
Q3: What has software case law determined about R&D, effort and expense put into creation?
A3: doesn't affect copyright protection
Corporations and legislatures take different types of preventative measures to deter copyright infringement, with much of the focus since the early 1990s being on preventing or reducing digital methods of infringement. Strategies include education, civil & criminal legislation, and international agreements, as well as publicizing anti-piracy litigation successes and imposing forms of digital media copy protection, such as controversial DRM technology and anti-circumvention laws, which limit the amount of control consumers have over the use of products and content they have purchased.

Q1: Who takes different steps to prevent infringement?
A1: Corporations and legislatures
Q2: What is the major focus of these steps?
A2: preventing or reducing digital methods of infringement
Q3: What kinds of legislation are a strategy for preventing infringement?
A3: civil & criminal
Q4: What does DRM and anti-circumvention laws do?
A4: limit the amount of control consumers have