So, a few comments regarding this. A good amount of the money can come from most of the articles published summarizing and critiquing the records that they are

So, a few comments regarding this. A good amount of the money can come from most of the articles published summarizing and critiquing the records that they are publishing, and the investigations they did related to the records at question. I was really more focused on the source records themselves being available for download and viewing after all the articles about them were written. I wasn't really sure how much retrieving the documents and hosting them would cost considering that smaller organizations like Wikileaks are able to publish much larger numbers of documents as a nonprofit and governmental agencies like archive.gov do keep documents like the Pentagon Papers hosted for free access. Although, granted, the Times must have put a lot more effort in evaluating and verifying the records and coming up with ideal ways to present them before publishing them. It's not exactly that I myself don't want to subscribe, but my thought was that people who chose not to subscribe to the Times but other newspapers like Washington Post or USA Today and also journalism in general would probably benefit with non-paywalled access to the source records, even though this doesn't fully equate to a moral dimension, as a commenter below said. That's mostly what was going on in my mind when posting my comment.