1 files changed, 144 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_19.html b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_19.html
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..2091a788
--- /dev/null
+++ b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_19.html
@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/loose.dtd">
+<html><!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.
+
+Free Software Foundation
+
+51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
+
+Boston, MA 02110-1335
+Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted
+worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is
+preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations
+of this book from the original English into another language provided
+the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and
+the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all
+copies.
+
+ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9
+Cover design by Rob Myers.
+
+Cover photograph by Peter Hinely.
+ --><!-- Created on February 18, 2016 by texi2html 1.82
+texi2html was written by: 
+            Lionel Cons <Lionel.Cons@cern.ch> (original author)
+            Karl Berry  <karl@freefriends.org>
+            Olaf Bachmann <obachman@mathematik.uni-kl.de>
+            and many others.
+Maintained by: Many creative people.
+Send bugs and suggestions to <texi2html-bug@nongnu.org>
+--><head><title>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 19. Science Must Push Copyright Aside</title><meta name="description" content="This is the second edition of Richard Stallman's collection of essays."><meta name="keywords" content="Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 19. Science Must Push Copyright Aside"><meta name="resource-type" content="document"><meta name="distribution" content="global"><meta name="Generator" content="texi2html 1.82"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><style type="text/css">
+<!--
+a.summary-letter {text-decoration: none}
+blockquote.smallquotation {font-size: smaller}
+pre.display {font-family: serif}
+pre.format {font-family: serif}
+pre.menu-comment {font-family: serif}
+pre.menu-preformatted {font-family: serif}
+pre.smalldisplay {font-family: serif; font-size: smaller}
+pre.smallexample {font-size: smaller}
+pre.smallformat {font-family: serif; font-size: smaller}
+pre.smalllisp {font-size: smaller}
+span.roman {font-family:serif; font-weight:normal;}
+span.sansserif {font-family:sans-serif; font-weight:normal;}
+ul.toc {list-style: none}
+-->
+</style><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../style.css"></head><body lang="en" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#800080" alink="#FF0000">
+
+<a name="Push-Cop-Aside"></a>
+<header><div id="logo"><a href="/"><img src="../gnu.svg" height="100" width="100"></a></div><h1>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.</h1></header><section id="main"><a name="Science-Must-Push-Copyright-Aside"></a>
+<h1 class="chapter"> 19. Science Must Push Copyright Aside </h1>
+
+<a name="index-libraries_002c-access-fees-and"></a>
+<p>It should be a truism that the scientific literature exists to
+disseminate scientific knowledge, and that scientific journals exist
+to facilitate the process. It therefore follows that rules for use of
+the scientific literature should be designed to help achieve that
+goal.
+</p>
+<p>The rules we have now, known as copyright, were established in the
+age of the printing press, an inherently centralized method of
+mass-production copying. In a print environment, copyright on journal
+articles restricted only journal publishers—requiring them to
+obtain permission to publish an article—and would-be
+plagiarists. It helped journals to operate and disseminate knowledge,
+without interfering with the useful work of scientists or students,
+either as writers or readers of articles. These rules fit that system
+well.
+</p>
+<p>The modern technology for scientific publishing, however, is the
+World Wide Web. What rules would best ensure the maximum
+dissemination of scientific articles, and knowledge, on the web?
+Articles should be distributed in nonproprietary formats, with open
+access for all. And everyone should have the right to
+“mirror” articles—that is, to republish them verbatim
+with proper attribution.
+</p>
+<p>These rules should apply to past as well as future articles, when
+they are distributed in electronic form. But there is no crucial need
+to change the present copyright system as it applies to paper
+publication of journals because the problem is not in that domain.
+</p>
+<p>Unfortunately, it seems that not everyone agrees with the truisms
+that began this article. Many journal publishers appear to believe
+that the purpose of scientific literature is to enable them to publish
+journals so as to collect subscriptions from scientists and
+students. Such thinking is known as “confusion of the means with
+the ends.”
+</p>
+<p>Their approach has been to restrict access even to read the
+scientific literature to those who can and will pay for it. They use
+copyright law, which is still in force despite its inappropriateness
+for computer networks, as an excuse to stop scientists from choosing
+new rules.
+</p>
+<p>For the sake of scientific cooperation and humanity’s future, we
+must reject that approach at its root—not merely the
+obstructive systems that have been instituted, but the mistaken
+priorities that inspired them.
+</p>
+<p>Journal publishers sometimes claim that online access requires
+expensive high-powered server machines, and that they must charge
+access fees to pay for these servers. This “problem” is a
+consequence of its own “solution.” Give everyone the
+freedom to mirror, and libraries around the world will set up mirror
+sites to meet the demand. This decentralized solution will reduce
+network bandwidth needs and provide faster access, all the while
+protecting the scholarly record against accidental loss.
+</p>
+<p>Publishers also argue that paying the editors requires charging for
+access. Let us accept the assumption that editors must be paid; this
+tail need not wag the dog. The cost of editing for a typical paper is
+between 1 percent and 3 percent of the cost of funding the research to produce
+it. Such a small percentage of the cost can hardly justify obstructing
+the use of the results.
+</p>
+<a name="index-universities-3"></a>
+<p>Instead, the cost of editing could be recovered, for example,
+through page charges to the authors, who can pass these on to the
+research sponsors. The sponsors should not mind, given that they
+currently pay for publication in a more cumbersome way, through
+overhead fees for the university library’s subscription to the
+journal. By changing the economic model to charge editing costs to the
+research sponsors, we can eliminate the apparent need to restrict
+access. The occasional author who is not affiliated with an
+institution or company, and who has no research sponsor, could be
+exempted from page charges, with costs levied on institution-based
+authors.
+</p>
+<p>Another justification for access fees to online publications is to
+fund conversion of the print archives of a journal into online
+form. That work needs to be done, but we should seek alternative ways
+of funding it that do not involve obstructing access to the
+result. The work itself will not be any more difficult, or cost any
+more. It is self-defeating to digitize the archives and waste the
+results by restricting access.
+</p>
+<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-defend-progress-of-science-from-copyright"></a>
+<p>The 
+<a name="index-Constitution_002c-copyright-and-US-2"></a>
+US Constitution says that copyright exists “to promote
+the Progress of Science.” When copyright impedes the progress of
+science, science must push copyright out of the way.
+<a name="index-libraries_002c-access-fees-and-1"></a>
+</p><hr size="2"></section></body></html>