Thank you for this cogent analysis. It sounds valid as they probably notify their subscribers that they forbid document release to the wild and use technical means to measure it. The only hope is the usual request to the authors, who have traditionally sent papers to all requests, of course the profs can also pay 'blotgelt', and as long as the fees are small enough or the prof can afford, file it as an open paper. I am encouraged that the open paper concept is gaining traction - in the days when Nobel was alive, his Nobel Prize was in fact created on this basis of open papers freely sent to others - sadly, had he known, he may well have included the open paper concept into his legacy to prevent the blatant rent seeking empires we now see. That said, curation and acceptance/publication of papers is a service of value and it is needed, at a lower cost as the journals do a job of work to keep totally crappy AI/idiot created papers that get into the totally open journals who are unable to deal with the blizzard of papers they face - the bad get through. There are also the fake fee based online journals where a distressingly small fee gets you online for citation by your coterie of anti vaxxers, nutrition gurus, etc etc. - essentially insoluble, save by intelligent readers who often shed this burden to avoid the waste of time. Fortunately the 'contents **' publications winnow most of these out.