[Beowulf] HP Moonshot also with AMD Kyoto
landman at scalableinformatics.com
Sun Apr 14 09:23:53 PDT 2013
On 04/14/2013 10:31 AM, Ellis H. Wilson III wrote:
> I wanted to add my data point to this discussion as I find it very
> interesting, but I want to simultaneously stress how important it is (to
> me at least) that we keep this civil. Both of you guys add a lot to
> this list and it would be a great loss to have one or both of you drop
> in activity because of a battle over ideology in reposts. Comments in-line:
> I think this is strongly dependent upon whether or not the audience of
> the list is already exposed to the media outlet the article is from.
Hmmm ... a natural extension of this argument, not requiring any reach
at all, is that posting other published digital copyrighted work online
in any forum that may not have exposure to that work is ok. Literally,
all we have to do is substitute "published digital copyrighted work" for
the word "article" and we arrive at the same point.
And that argument has been fairly well litigated, and the results are
fairly well known.
> Comparing posting a snippet to posting the whole article will
> undoubtedly favor the former in terms of aggregate traffic to the site,
> but I highly doubt that doing so is any more or less illegal. For
> instance, looking at their copyright-licensing page, I see that "No
> parts of any Incisive Media publication or Sites may be reproduced,
> stored in or introduced into any retrieval system, or transmitted, in
> any form or by any means..." So I think the case that snippets are ok
> but full reproductions are not is a difficult case to make. Perhaps
> there are laws that preempt this that discuss what percentage of a work
> can be reproduced without it infringing on copyright that I'm not aware of.
In the US there is a concept of "fair use" which allows some snipping.
The courts have been arguing over what fraction constitutes fair use.
Pretty much all of them are in agreement that 100% does not fair use
make. That has gone over rather poorly for those replicating 100% of
It generally has implications for those posting such things, and those
hosting the site for such posts. Even if your actions are not illegal
or in violation of others rights in your jurisdiction, they may be in
the jurisdiction where the servers are. And if thats the case, the
owners of the machines may simply choose to limit their risk by removing
the material, the posting, and the posters. This has happened, and does
happen, quite frequently here.
So claims that "its not illegal or in violation of others rights in the
EU" are irrelevant if the servers are in the US and it is illegal or in
violation of others rights here. The converse is true, that if
something in the US is clearly legal or not in violation of others
rights, yet illegal or in violation of others rights in the EU, this is
very much something that has to be addressed. Just look at all the EU
privacy cases against Google and others. Things that are fine here are
not in the EU. Should Google completely ignore the EU privacy laws?
> On etiquette -- I absolutely abhor advertisements, which is why I use
> AdBlock and FlashBlock on Firefox. This is a HIGHLY ideological
Etiquette is not about advertising. Etiquette is about not abusing a
resource, not blasting large messages which may be better read online
If you don't like advertisement, thats fine. You don't have to. You
don't have to click on it. The media that covers us, and pays Nicole's,
Doug E's, Rich B's and many other good folks salaries, are paid by
advertising. So, does depriving them the chance at getting revenue for
their hard work (writing articles) by replicating their postings in
their entirety bereft of adverts here for all to see ... help them
continue to cover and write about this market? That is, by doing so,
you have effectively deprived them of their ability to obtain
compensation for their work, in the form of advertising revenue. Is
this right for *you* to decide to do this to them? Would you feel
unhappy of *they* decided that you have to have your salary reduced by
some random amount, though you did the same work that usually results in
more salary for you?
No, it is not your right to make that decision for them (nor they for
you). Reproduction of the work in its entirety, bereft of the
advertising, for many others, deprives them of the potential for that
revenue. Posting a link and a small snippet provides them the
opportunity for that revenue.
You might argue, "hey, thats a limitation of their business model" and
you'd be right. One of the aspects of this business model is that once
it becomes unprofitable for most everyone in the market, they will leave
this market and cover others. Is the possibility of loss of coverage an
issue? Look at it this way. If you are trying to convince public
policy makers, and those with purse strings of the value of your work in
order to get them to give you more money for your research, would it not
be beneficial to be able to point to a set of media resources that in
fact cover the subject area in question, and support your viewpoint?
Sure, reproducing one article will not bring this whole construction
crashing down. Or two. But at what point in time do we say "hey, lets
actually not piss off those who write about our subject area"?
The etiquette on the part of the reader is one where we get to chose
where to spend our bandwidth, time, resources on reading or not reading
an article. The etiquette on the part of the authors and publishers is
whether or not by your actions you are directly negatively impacting
their business, beyond your own personal advertising filtering options
on your own machine.
Reproduction in full without permission is generally considered bad
etiquette on the part of the reproducer. If we feel the article is
interesting based upon the specific paragraph or quote, sure, we can
make that decision to click or not click. The stated "altruistic"
reason for violating this etiquette is ... well ... not even weak.
If the article has a creative commons license and specifically allows
reproduction, by all means, go for it. In this case, the article has
social media links, that directly go back to that page, chock for of
advertisements and the article, for the people to use.
There really isn't any gray area here. Its pretty much black and white.
The Inquirer, The Register, HPCWire, InsideHPC, ClusterMonkey all
depend upon people clicking those links for them to make money. Is it
your right to decide that they cannot make as much money by full
reproduction to a wide group of people? Or would you in fact do them a
favor by "driving traffic to them" which, once you start processing
this, you realize is silly. You've consumed an advert supported product
delivered to you without adverts, and now you are going to go to the
site to see adverts? Um ... no.
> conversation though, so I'd prefer to avoid it if possible. The
> take-away I'm intending to convey is that resting etiquette on one side
> or the other of that debate is itself a tricky thing to do, and likely
> not to result in all parties on this list being happy about it. My
> perspective is that we should avoid erecting any policies that take a
> side on that issue. I do see a place for policies that protect the list
> from copyright infringement, however, so perhaps the former perspective
> is a moot point.
The issue is if the Inquirer folks call up Penguin and say "guys, stop
this person from posting our articles without permission, and remove all
the old ones he's posted", what do you think is going to happen?
This list is a community resource sponsored and operated by a company
paying the bills for it. It should not involve any increase in risk for
them to do this.
> Just my 2c,
FWIW: I can't stand adverts, but I understand they are a necessary
evil. They pay for what it is we consume. They pay for the folks
building the Chromium browser, and the GMail system. They pay for many
of the things we use, seemingly gratis, but really not so much. I
browser level. I cannot fathom why anyone would think that autoplaying
a video after turning a volume up to the maximum is ever a good idea for
gaining interested eyeballs. You don't have to like advertising, you
don't have to watch it, or pay attention to it. But its not your call
to make to deprive those whom depend upon it, the opportunity to make
This is different in my mind than SEO which is, IMO, completely evil,
and only decreasing the value of search results as they attempt to learn
how to game the algorithms.
Joseph Landman, Ph.D
Founder and CEO
Scalable Informatics, Inc.
email: landman at scalableinformatics.com
web : http://scalableinformatics.com
phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
fax : +1 866 888 3112
cell : +1 734 612 4615
More information about the Beowulf