We have a much bigger audience than Physical Review Letters anyway. From New Scientist:

Scientists who want to describe their work on Wikipedia should not be forced to give up the kudos of a respected journal. So says a group of physicists who are going head-to-head with a publisher because it will not allow them to post parts of their work to the online encyclopaedia, blogs and other forums. The physicists were upset after the American Physical Society withdrew its offer to publish two studies in Physical Review Letters because the authors had asked for a rights agreement compatible with Wikipedia. The APS asks scientists to transfer their copyright to the society before they can publish in an APS journal. This prevents scientists contributing illustrations or other "derivative works" of their papers to many websites without explicit permission.

APS gets to have whatever rules it wants and they certainly could never sell a magazine if the articles were available for free but I think that's an old model anyway. It's not like peer reviewers get paid. PLoS wants to charge for the privilege of publishing your work and APS wants exclusivity. Whichever way you choose ends up costing. These physicists want the best of both worlds; the legitimacy of a prestige peer-reviewed publication without any of the exclusivity that made it prestigious in the first place. I generally think that's a pointless debate. If they think it's easy and just their content makes a publication successful, they should start their own physics society and see how it goes. If they don't want that aggravation, publish it here for free. We'll even set up a peer-reviewed section. And they can keep the copyright or use Creative Commons or whatever they want.