>From a neutral perspective, the decision is difficult in either direction.
On the one hand existing articles were ostensibly written for all to share.
>From what I've seen, the individual authors hold the copyright for their works
but the site holds the copyright for the entire body of work. ( The body of
work law protects the site from being copied wholesale ) Restricting access of
individual works to exclude paying members would seem to violate the rights
of the authors. ( There is however "Fair Use" where parts of a work can be
On the other hand, did the site have any statement that copyrights to
individual works are forfeited once they are posted on the site? In order for
to survive it takes money. Somehow by advertising, dues or the benevolence
of the site owner ( of the list we are typing on, team . net ) someone must
pay for the computers and connections. We take a lot of this for granted, pay
our AOL fee and get most any info for free.
Here is a site that has the vital message areas restricted to paying members
but general info flows freely.
In any event, a site must have added value to give someone incentive to pay
The solution? Any course of action will expend work, time and money.
If the restricted areas are open to all, there isn't a incentive to pay dues
and the site will probably continue downwards.
If the areas stay restricted, to avoid copyright issues the authors need to
be given a choice to pull their work or let it benefit someone.
Harold No legal research or schooling here, just a view point.