+1 for Option 1.
On 22 November 2013 20:42, Joe Landman <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks: > > We are seeing a return to the posting of multiple full articles > again. We've asked several times that this not occur. It appears to be > a strong consensus from many I spoke with at SC13 this year, that there > is little (actually no) support for the full article postings. As we > had noted in the case of HPCwire, InsideHPC, etc. posting the full > article deprives the authors and publishers of clicks, which deprives > them of potential revenue. > > Since our requests have again been ignored, we are generally faced > with a few options on what to do if anything. > > Option 1: Do nothing. Nothing will change, and we will have someone > continue to abuse the resources, the authors and the publications. > > Option 2: Personal filtering. This particular individual actually > threatened me in another group, and I generally simply ignore anything > he posts. I haven't gone as far as active filters for him, but have for > some of the more egregious tin foil hat wearers of that other group. > > Option 3: Enforce some of our basic etiquette. If you aren't willing > to abide by the house rules, you won't be allowed into the house to > violate the rules. In this case, I see more than two strikes, so I am > not all that inclined to be terribly forgiving of these breaches. > > It is obvious option 1 will do nothing. Option 2 is unsatisfactory, > as the behavior will continue, and be in the permanent list archive. > Option 3 seems to be the right approach. > > I am not a lawyer, though its not hard to note that reproduction of > work without permission could wind someone up in court ... this has been > the basis for the file sharing lawsuits when content owners get pissed > off enough. It doesn't matter if the owner of the list or the hardware > the list is on didn't put it there. What matters is that they didn't > remove it. > > Rather than have to deal with the battle above, I'd ask the powers > that be to decide whether or not they wish to continue to tolerate the > astounding breach of etiquette, and the risks that it opens up > (copyright and redistribution of copyrighted work). > > Note that we've had this conversation before, and been assured by the > poster that it wouldn't happen again. As I see it, I've got a number of > his longer posts going into my SPAM filter, which means I have to > actively clean it lest google start categorizing all mail from Beowulf > as spam. > > I am just not seeing an upside to option 1 or option 2, though option > 2 provides local filtration. > > Anyone else have an opinion? > > -- > Joseph Landman, Ph.D > Founder and CEO > Scalable Informatics, Inc. > email: [email protected] > web : http://scalableinformatics.com > twtr : @scalableinfo > phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121 > cell : +1 734 612 4615 > _______________________________________________ > Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] sponsored by Penguin Computing > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit > http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, [email protected] sponsored by Penguin Computing To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
