gem_id stringlengths 20 25 | id stringlengths 24 24 | title stringlengths 3 59 | context stringlengths 151 3.71k | question stringlengths 1 270 | target stringlengths 1 270 | references list | answers dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
gem-squad_v2-train-7900 | 5726d1bdf1498d1400e8ec3e | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What researchers conducted a study in the early part of May 2014? | What researchers conducted a study in the early part of May 2014? | [
"What researchers conducted a study in the early part of May 2014?"
] | {
"text": [
"University of Portsmouth"
],
"answer_start": [
135
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7901 | 5726d1bdf1498d1400e8ec3f | Copyright_infringement | 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. | How many people were part of the study? | How many people were part of the study? | [
"How many people were part of the study?"
] | {
"text": [
"6,000"
],
"answer_start": [
240
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7902 | 5726d1bdf1498d1400e8ec40 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What was the age range of people studied? | What was the age range of people studied? | [
"What was the age range of people studied?"
] | {
"text": [
"seven to 84"
],
"answer_start": [
267
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7903 | 5726d1bdf1498d1400e8ec41 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Who did downloaders want to help by avoiding studios and record companies? | Who did downloaders want to help by avoiding studios and record companies? | [
"Who did downloaders want to help by avoiding studios and record companies?"
] | {
"text": [
"artists"
],
"answer_start": [
466
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7904 | 5acfcea677cf76001a6860f8 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What researchers conducted a study in the later part of May 2014? | What researchers conducted a study in the later part of May 2014? | [
"What researchers conducted a study in the later part of May 2014?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7905 | 5acfcea677cf76001a6860f9 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | How many people weren't part of the study? | How many people weren't part of the study? | [
"How many people weren't part of the study?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7906 | 5acfcea677cf76001a6860fa | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What was the age range of dogs studied? | What was the age range of dogs studied? | [
"What was the age range of dogs studied?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7907 | 5acfcea677cf76001a6860fb | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Who did uploaders want to help by avoiding studios and record companies? | Who did uploaders want to help by avoiding studios and record companies? | [
"Who did uploaders want to help by avoiding studios and record companies?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7908 | 5acfcea677cf76001a6860fc | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Who did downloaders want to hurt by avoiding studios and record companies? | Who did downloaders want to hurt by avoiding studios and record companies? | [
"Who did downloaders want to hurt by avoiding studios and record companies?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7909 | 5726d229708984140094d253 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Even though piracy adds costs to production, what else is offered to developing countries? | Even though piracy adds costs to production, what else is offered to developing countries? | [
"Even though piracy adds costs to production, what else is offered to developing countries?"
] | {
"text": [
"main access to media goods"
],
"answer_start": [
134
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7910 | 5726d229708984140094d254 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What do the tradeoffs of digital piracy support? | What do the tradeoffs of digital piracy support? | [
"What do the tradeoffs of digital piracy support?"
] | {
"text": [
"current neglected law enforcements"
],
"answer_start": [
275
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7911 | 5726d229708984140094d255 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | In what country is the issue of digital infringement social? | In what country is the issue of digital infringement social? | [
"In what country is the issue of digital infringement social?"
] | {
"text": [
"China"
],
"answer_start": [
336
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7912 | 5726d229708984140094d256 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is in high demand in this country? | What is in high demand in this country? | [
"What is in high demand in this country?"
] | {
"text": [
"cheap and affordable goods"
],
"answer_start": [
448
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7913 | 5726d229708984140094d257 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What does the government of this country provide to businesses that produce content? | What does the government of this country provide to businesses that produce content? | [
"What does the government of this country provide to businesses that produce content?"
] | {
"text": [
"connections"
],
"answer_start": [
503
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7914 | 5acfcf2777cf76001a68611c | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Even though piracy adds costs to production, what else is offered to established countries? | Even though piracy adds costs to production, what else is offered to established countries? | [
"Even though piracy adds costs to production, what else is offered to established countries?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7915 | 5acfcf2777cf76001a68611d | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What don't the tradeoffs of digital piracy support? | What don't the tradeoffs of digital piracy support? | [
"What don't the tradeoffs of digital piracy support?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7916 | 5acfcf2777cf76001a68611e | Copyright_infringement | 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. | In what country is the issue of digital infringement anti-social? | In what country is the issue of digital infringement anti-social? | [
"In what country is the issue of digital infringement anti-social?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7917 | 5acfcf2777cf76001a68611f | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is in low demand in this country? | What is in low demand in this country? | [
"What is in low demand in this country?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7918 | 5acfcf2777cf76001a686120 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What does the government of this country provide to non-businesses that produce content? | What does the government of this country provide to non-businesses that produce content? | [
"What does the government of this country provide to non-businesses that produce content?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7919 | 5726d370dd62a815002e918a | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What happens when a country bans a movie? | What happens when a country bans a movie? | [
"What happens when a country bans a movie?"
] | {
"text": [
"the spread of copied videos and DVDs"
],
"answer_start": [
82
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7920 | 5726d370dd62a815002e918b | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Who did documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu write an article for? | Who did documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu write an article for? | [
"Who did documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu write an article for?"
] | {
"text": [
"New York Times"
],
"answer_start": [
179
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7921 | 5726d370dd62a815002e918c | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What was Irina Margareta Nistor's job in Romania? | What was Irina Margareta Nistor's job in Romania? | [
"What was Irina Margareta Nistor's job in Romania?"
] | {
"text": [
"a narrator for state TV"
],
"answer_start": [
247
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7922 | 5726d370dd62a815002e918d | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What did a visitor give to Nistor? | What did a visitor give to Nistor? | [
"What did a visitor give to Nistor?"
] | {
"text": [
"bootlegged copies of American movies"
],
"answer_start": [
338
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7923 | 5726d370dd62a815002e918e | Copyright_infringement | 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. | How many movies did Nistor dub for secret viewings in Romania? | How many movies did Nistor dub for secret viewings in Romania? | [
"How many movies did Nistor dub for secret viewings in Romania?"
] | {
"text": [
"3,000"
],
"answer_start": [
477
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7924 | 5acfcfaa77cf76001a686138 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What happens when a country accepts a movie? | What happens when a country accepts a movie? | [
"What happens when a country accepts a movie?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7925 | 5acfcfaa77cf76001a686139 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Who did documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu draw a picture for? | Who did documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu draw a picture for? | [
"Who did documentary maker Ilinca Calugareanu draw a picture for?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7926 | 5acfcfaa77cf76001a68613a | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What was Irina Margareta Nistor's job in Bulgaria? | What was Irina Margareta Nistor's job in Bulgaria? | [
"What was Irina Margareta Nistor's job in Bulgaria?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7927 | 5acfcfaa77cf76001a68613b | Copyright_infringement | 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. | How many movies did Nistor dub for public viewings in Romania? | How many movies did Nistor dub for public viewings in Romania? | [
"How many movies did Nistor dub for public viewings in Romania?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7928 | 5acfcfaa77cf76001a68613c | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What did a visitor take from Nistor? | What did a visitor take from Nistor? | [
"What did a visitor take from Nistor?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7929 | 5726d3d3f1498d1400e8ec78 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | In the U.S., where is copyright infringement contested? | In the U.S., where is copyright infringement contested? | [
"In the U.S., where is copyright infringement contested?"
] | {
"text": [
"civil court"
],
"answer_start": [
76
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7930 | 5726d3d3f1498d1400e8ec79 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Who did MGM studios file a lawsuit against? | Who did MGM studios file a lawsuit against? | [
"Who did MGM studios file a lawsuit against?"
] | {
"text": [
"Grokster and Streamcast"
],
"answer_start": [
310
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7931 | 5726d3d3f1498d1400e8ec7a | Copyright_infringement | 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. | In 2005, who did the Supreme Court rule in favor of? | In 2005, who did the Supreme Court rule in favor of? | [
"In 2005, who did the Supreme Court rule in favor of?"
] | {
"text": [
"MGM"
],
"answer_start": [
434
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7932 | 5726d3d3f1498d1400e8ec7b | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What did P2P file sharing services market themselves as? | What did P2P file sharing services market themselves as? | [
"What did P2P file sharing services market themselves as?"
] | {
"text": [
"venues for acquiring copyrighted movies"
],
"answer_start": [
582
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7933 | 5726d3d3f1498d1400e8ec7c | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What studio's case decision was NOT overturned? | What studio's case decision was NOT overturned? | [
"What studio's case decision was NOT overturned?"
] | {
"text": [
"Sony"
],
"answer_start": [
677
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7934 | 5acfd13e77cf76001a68618e | Copyright_infringement | 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. | In the U.S., where is copyright infringement uncontested? | In the U.S., where is copyright infringement uncontested? | [
"In the U.S., where is copyright infringement uncontested?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7935 | 5acfd13e77cf76001a68618f | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Who did MGM studios not file a lawsuit against? | Who did MGM studios not file a lawsuit against? | [
"Who did MGM studios not file a lawsuit against?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7936 | 5acfd13e77cf76001a686190 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | In 2015, who did the Supreme Court rule in favor of? | In 2015, who did the Supreme Court rule in favor of? | [
"In 2015, who did the Supreme Court rule in favor of?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7937 | 5acfd13e77cf76001a686191 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What did P2P file sharing services not market themselves as? | What did P2P file sharing services not market themselves as? | [
"What did P2P file sharing services not market themselves as?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7938 | 5acfd13e77cf76001a686192 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What studio's case decision was overturned? | What studio's case decision was overturned? | [
"What studio's case decision was overturned?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7939 | 5726d425f1498d1400e8ec82 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Who can be assigned a contract to enforce a copyright in some jurisdictions? | Who can be assigned a contract to enforce a copyright in some jurisdictions? | [
"Who can be assigned a contract to enforce a copyright in some jurisdictions?"
] | {
"text": [
"third party"
],
"answer_start": [
95
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7940 | 5726d425f1498d1400e8ec83 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What do outside lawyers take infringers to court for? | What do outside lawyers take infringers to court for? | [
"What do outside lawyers take infringers to court for?"
] | {
"text": [
"to identify and exact settlements"
],
"answer_start": [
337
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7941 | 5726d425f1498d1400e8ec84 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What do critics usually call these lawyers? | What do critics usually call these lawyers? | [
"What do critics usually call these lawyers?"
] | {
"text": [
"copyright troll"
],
"answer_start": [
440
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7942 | 5726d425f1498d1400e8ec85 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What do these lawsuits have in the U.S.? | What do these lawsuits have in the U.S.? | [
"What do these lawsuits have in the U.S.?"
] | {
"text": [
"mixed results"
],
"answer_start": [
482
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7943 | 5acfd1b877cf76001a6861b4 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Who can't be assigned a contract to enforce a copyright in some jurisdictions? | Who can't be assigned a contract to enforce a copyright in some jurisdictions? | [
"Who can't be assigned a contract to enforce a copyright in some jurisdictions?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7944 | 5acfd1b877cf76001a6861b5 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Who can be assigned a contract to enforce a copyright in all jurisdictions? | Who can be assigned a contract to enforce a copyright in all jurisdictions? | [
"Who can be assigned a contract to enforce a copyright in all jurisdictions?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7945 | 5acfd1b877cf76001a6861b6 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What do inside lawyers take infringers to court for? | What do inside lawyers take infringers to court for? | [
"What do inside lawyers take infringers to court for?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7946 | 5acfd1b877cf76001a6861b7 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What do critics never call these lawyers? | What do critics never call these lawyers? | [
"What do critics never call these lawyers?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7947 | 5acfd1b877cf76001a6861b8 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What don't these lawsuits have in the U.S.? | What don't these lawsuits have in the U.S.? | [
"What don't these lawsuits have in the U.S.?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7948 | 5726d4d1708984140094d2ab | Copyright_infringement | 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. | When was the first criminal part of copyright law in the U.S. added? | When was the first criminal part of copyright law in the U.S. added? | [
"When was the first criminal part of copyright law in the U.S. added?"
] | {
"text": [
"1897"
],
"answer_start": [
64
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7949 | 5726d4d1708984140094d2ac | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What type of penalty was made for unlawful performances that are willful and for profit? | What type of penalty was made for unlawful performances that are willful and for profit? | [
"What type of penalty was made for unlawful performances that are willful and for profit?"
] | {
"text": [
"misdemeanor"
],
"answer_start": [
90
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7950 | 5726d4d1708984140094d2ad | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What did a criminal infringer do to be prosecuted? | What did a criminal infringer do to be prosecuted? | [
"What did a criminal infringer do to be prosecuted?"
] | {
"text": [
"for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain"
],
"answer_start": [
326
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7951 | 5726d4d1708984140094d2ae | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What must a prosecuter show after the basic elements of infringement? | What must a prosecuter show after the basic elements of infringement? | [
"What must a prosecuter show after the basic elements of infringement?"
] | {
"text": [
"that defendant willfully infringed"
],
"answer_start": [
665
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7952 | 5726d4d1708984140094d2af | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is the threshold of the number of copies and the value of the works? | What is the threshold of the number of copies and the value of the works? | [
"What is the threshold of the number of copies and the value of the works?"
] | {
"text": [
"very low threshold"
],
"answer_start": [
785
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7953 | 5acfd2e577cf76001a6861ee | Copyright_infringement | 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. | When was the last criminal part of copyright law in the U.S. added? | When was the last criminal part of copyright law in the U.S. added? | [
"When was the last criminal part of copyright law in the U.S. added?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7954 | 5acfd2e577cf76001a6861ef | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What type of penalty was made for lawful performances that are willful and for profit? | What type of penalty was made for lawful performances that are willful and for profit? | [
"What type of penalty was made for lawful performances that are willful and for profit?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7955 | 5acfd2e577cf76001a6861f0 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What did a criminal infringer not do to be prosecuted? | What did a criminal infringer not do to be prosecuted? | [
"What did a criminal infringer not do to be prosecuted?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7956 | 5acfd2e577cf76001a6861f1 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What mustn't a prosecuter show after the basic elements of infringement? | What mustn't a prosecuter show after the basic elements of infringement? | [
"What mustn't a prosecuter show after the basic elements of infringement?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7957 | 5acfd2e577cf76001a6861f2 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What isn't the threshold of the number of copies and the value of the works? | What isn't the threshold of the number of copies and the value of the works? | [
"What isn't the threshold of the number of copies and the value of the works?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7958 | 5726d529dd62a815002e91a4 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | When was United States v. LaMacchia contested? | When was United States v. LaMacchia contested? | [
"When was United States v. LaMacchia contested?"
] | {
"text": [
"1994"
],
"answer_start": [
44
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7959 | 5726d529dd62a815002e91a5 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | At the time, what infringement could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law? | At the time, what infringement could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law? | [
"At the time, what infringement could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law?"
] | {
"text": [
"non-commercial motives"
],
"answer_start": [
258
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7960 | 5726d529dd62a815002e91a6 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What loophole did the ruling give rise to? | What loophole did the ruling give rise to? | [
"What loophole did the ruling give rise to?"
] | {
"text": [
"LaMacchia Loophole"
],
"answer_start": [
385
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7961 | 5726d529dd62a815002e91a7 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | If there is no profit involved, what would happen to criminal charges of fraud? | If there is no profit involved, what would happen to criminal charges of fraud? | [
"If there is no profit involved, what would happen to criminal charges of fraud?"
] | {
"text": [
"dismissed"
],
"answer_start": [
475
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7962 | 5acfdc7e77cf76001a686326 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | When was United States v. LaMacchia not contested? | When was United States v. LaMacchia not contested? | [
"When was United States v. LaMacchia not contested?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7963 | 5acfdc7e77cf76001a686327 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | At the time, what infringement could be prosecuted under criminal copyright law? | At the time, what infringement could be prosecuted under criminal copyright law? | [
"At the time, what infringement could be prosecuted under criminal copyright law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7964 | 5acfdc7e77cf76001a686328 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What loophole didn't the ruling give rise to? | What loophole didn't the ruling give rise to? | [
"What loophole didn't the ruling give rise to?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7965 | 5acfdc7e77cf76001a686329 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What loophole did the ruling kill? | What loophole did the ruling kill? | [
"What loophole did the ruling kill?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7966 | 5acfdc7e77cf76001a68632a | Copyright_infringement | 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. | If there is profit involved, what would happen to criminal charges of fraud? | If there is profit involved, what would happen to criminal charges of fraud? | [
"If there is profit involved, what would happen to criminal charges of fraud?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7967 | 5726d598708984140094d2c9 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What federal law did the United States pass in 1997, in response to the LaMacchia Loophole? | What federal law did the United States pass in 1997, in response to the LaMacchia Loophole? | [
"What federal law did the United States pass in 1997, in response to the LaMacchia Loophole?"
] | {
"text": [
"No Electronic Theft Act"
],
"answer_start": [
18
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7968 | 5726d598708984140094d2ca | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is the maximum prison time for infringement under the new law? | What is the maximum prison time for infringement under the new law? | [
"What is the maximum prison time for infringement under the new law?"
] | {
"text": [
"five years in prison"
],
"answer_start": [
332
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7969 | 5726d598708984140094d2cb | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is the maximum monetary fine under the new law? | What is the maximum monetary fine under the new law? | [
"What is the maximum monetary fine under the new law?"
] | {
"text": [
"$250,000"
],
"answer_start": [
363
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7970 | 5726d598708984140094d2cc | Copyright_infringement | 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. | How much were statutory damages raised by? | How much were statutory damages raised by? | [
"How much were statutory damages raised by?"
] | {
"text": [
"50%"
],
"answer_start": [
427
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7971 | 5726d598708984140094d2cd | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What was the law called that let people be immune to prosecution? | What was the law called that let people be immune to prosecution? | [
"What was the law called that let people be immune to prosecution?"
] | {
"text": [
"Copyright Act"
],
"answer_start": [
618
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7972 | 5acfdcfa77cf76001a686330 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What federal law did the United States pass in 1999, in response to the LaMacchia Loophole? | What federal law did the United States pass in 1999, in response to the LaMacchia Loophole? | [
"What federal law did the United States pass in 1999, in response to the LaMacchia Loophole?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7973 | 5acfdcfa77cf76001a686331 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is the minimum prison time for infringement under the new law? | What is the minimum prison time for infringement under the new law? | [
"What is the minimum prison time for infringement under the new law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7974 | 5acfdcfa77cf76001a686332 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is the minimum monetary fine under the new law? | What is the minimum monetary fine under the new law? | [
"What is the minimum monetary fine under the new law?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7975 | 5acfdcfa77cf76001a686333 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | How much were statutory damages lowered by? | How much were statutory damages lowered by? | [
"How much were statutory damages lowered by?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7976 | 5acfdcfa77cf76001a686334 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What was the law called that let people be immune to persecution? | What was the law called that let people be immune to persecution? | [
"What was the law called that let people be immune to persecution?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7977 | 5726d602dd62a815002e91d2 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What directive in 2001 let European Union countries to enact laws that allowed making copies for personal use? | What directive in 2001 let European Union countries to enact laws that allowed making copies for personal use? | [
"What directive in 2001 let European Union countries to enact laws that allowed making copies for personal use?"
] | {
"text": [
"EU Copyright Directive of 2001"
],
"answer_start": [
87
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7978 | 5726d602dd62a815002e91d3 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What was the directive NOT intended for? | What was the directive NOT intended for? | [
"What was the directive NOT intended for?"
] | {
"text": [
"legitimize file-sharing"
],
"answer_start": [
326
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7979 | 5726d602dd62a815002e91d4 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Compensation to the rights-holder is generally a levy or what else? | Compensation to the rights-holder is generally a levy or what else? | [
"Compensation to the rights-holder is generally a levy or what else?"
] | {
"text": [
"a tax on the content itself"
],
"answer_start": [
741
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7980 | 5726d602dd62a815002e91d5 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is an example of a country that has no levies collected? | What is an example of a country that has no levies collected? | [
"What is an example of a country that has no levies collected?"
] | {
"text": [
"Canada"
],
"answer_start": [
797
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7981 | 5726d602dd62a815002e91d6 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What are examples of general purpose storage devices? | What are examples of general purpose storage devices? | [
"What are examples of general purpose storage devices?"
] | {
"text": [
"computer hard drives, portable media players, and phones"
],
"answer_start": [
889
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7982 | 5ad00e0477cf76001a686816 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What directive in 2010 let European Union countries to enact laws that allowed making copies for personal use? | What directive in 2010 let European Union countries to enact laws that allowed making copies for personal use? | [
"What directive in 2010 let European Union countries to enact laws that allowed making copies for personal use?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7983 | 5ad00e0477cf76001a686817 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What was the directive intended for? | What was the directive intended for? | [
"What was the directive intended for?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7984 | 5ad00e0477cf76001a686818 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Compensation to the rights-holder is never a levy or what else? | Compensation to the rights-holder is never a levy or what else? | [
"Compensation to the rights-holder is never a levy or what else?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7985 | 5ad00e0477cf76001a686819 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is an example of a country that has all levies collected? | What is an example of a country that has all levies collected? | [
"What is an example of a country that has all levies collected?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7986 | 5ad00e0477cf76001a68681a | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What are examples of specific purpose storage devices? | What are examples of specific purpose storage devices? | [
"What are examples of specific purpose storage devices?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7987 | 5726d65cdd62a815002e91e6 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What does the personal copying exemption explicitly need? | What does the personal copying exemption explicitly need? | [
"What does the personal copying exemption explicitly need?"
] | {
"text": [
"was obtained legitimately"
],
"answer_start": [
100
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7988 | 5726d65cdd62a815002e91e7 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is an example of a country that the exemption was assumed? | What is an example of a country that the exemption was assumed? | [
"What is an example of a country that the exemption was assumed?"
] | {
"text": [
"Netherlands"
],
"answer_start": [
215
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7989 | 5726d65cdd62a815002e91e8 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | When did the Court of Justice of the EU make a ruling about distinction? | When did the Court of Justice of the EU make a ruling about distinction? | [
"When did the Court of Justice of the EU make a ruling about distinction?"
] | {
"text": [
"April 2014"
],
"answer_start": [
391
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7990 | 5726d65cdd62a815002e91e9 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | In which country is downloading from a file-sharing network no longer legal? | In which country is downloading from a file-sharing network no longer legal? | [
"In which country is downloading from a file-sharing network no longer legal?"
] | {
"text": [
"Netherlands"
],
"answer_start": [
642
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7991 | 5ad00efa77cf76001a68682a | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What does the personal copying exemption explicitly not need? | What does the personal copying exemption explicitly not need? | [
"What does the personal copying exemption explicitly not need?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7992 | 5ad00efa77cf76001a68682b | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is an example of a country that the exemption wasn't assumed? | What is an example of a country that the exemption wasn't assumed? | [
"What is an example of a country that the exemption wasn't assumed?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7993 | 5ad00efa77cf76001a68682c | Copyright_infringement | 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. | When didn't the Court of Justice of the EU make a ruling about distinction? | When didn't the Court of Justice of the EU make a ruling about distinction? | [
"When didn't the Court of Justice of the EU make a ruling about distinction?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7994 | 5ad00efa77cf76001a68682d | Copyright_infringement | 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. | In which country is uploading from a file-sharing network no longer legal? | In which country is uploading from a file-sharing network no longer legal? | [
"In which country is uploading from a file-sharing network no longer legal?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7995 | 5ad00efa77cf76001a68682e | Copyright_infringement | 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. | In which country is downloading from a file-sharing network always legal? | In which country is downloading from a file-sharing network always legal? | [
"In which country is downloading from a file-sharing network always legal?"
] | {
"text": [],
"answer_start": []
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7996 | 5726d6bcdd62a815002e91f6 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is the U.S. law that uses the WIPO Copyright as it's Title I? | What is the U.S. law that uses the WIPO Copyright as it's Title I? | [
"What is the U.S. law that uses the WIPO Copyright as it's Title I?"
] | {
"text": [
"DMCA"
],
"answer_start": [
20
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7997 | 5726d6bcdd62a815002e91f7 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What is it called when someone intentionally breaks encryption on a movie or game? | What is it called when someone intentionally breaks encryption on a movie or game? | [
"What is it called when someone intentionally breaks encryption on a movie or game?"
] | {
"text": [
"\"circumvent[ing] a technological measure"
],
"answer_start": [
146
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7998 | 5726d6bcdd62a815002e91f8 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | Anticircumvention exemptions are generally seen to be be what? | Anticircumvention exemptions are generally seen to be be what? | [
"Anticircumvention exemptions are generally seen to be be what?"
] | {
"text": [
"inefficient"
],
"answer_start": [
691
]
} |
gem-squad_v2-train-7999 | 5726d6bcdd62a815002e91f9 | Copyright_infringement | 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. | What are child safety and public library software used to filter? | What are child safety and public library software used to filter? | [
"What are child safety and public library software used to filter?"
] | {
"text": [
"website"
],
"answer_start": [
736
]
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.