I once wrote a letter to the publisher of a scientific journal asking him why his information wasn't free. I was in Uni. at the time a bit idealistic and I spent a long time explaining how if it was free he'd get money from people 'in thanks'
The publisher was very generous and took the time to write a thoughtful, considered response to my letter in which he said something to the effect of
"Thanks Alex for your feedback, I respect your point of view and it would be a wonderful position to take, however - under your proposal, we sustain our business off the chance of public generosity. Wheras under the current model, we are guaranteed to get the revenue, which makes it a much safer bet"
He worded it much better than that, but the premise holds that sometimes the guarantee of a little money is better than the hope for a similar amount (or possibly more).
All respect to the anecdotal evidence of "I give it away and stay in business". But it's a heck of a gamble. I'm sure there's a lot of anecdotes out there of people saying "I gave it away and people took it. End of story"
Science journals are parasites. They don't pay for the research they publish -- nor do they pay for the refereeing (which is done by volunteers). Their costs amount to the administrative details of the journal, like emailing copies to referees, and the actual printing costs, such as they are.
They're able to maintain their position because of the prestige effect, as getting your paper into the Journal Nature is worth a hell of a lot more for the researcher than getting it published in No-Name Open Access Journal.
Journal publishers are aware that their position is a lot like that of the music industry. They're middle men between producers and consumers of science, and are becoming increasingly redundant. This has made them highly conservative, reactionary, and litigious as they try to maintain their white-knuckled grip on what they have.
The publisher was very generous and took the time to write a thoughtful, considered response to my letter in which he said something to the effect of
"Thanks Alex for your feedback, I respect your point of view and it would be a wonderful position to take, however - under your proposal, we sustain our business off the chance of public generosity. Wheras under the current model, we are guaranteed to get the revenue, which makes it a much safer bet"
He worded it much better than that, but the premise holds that sometimes the guarantee of a little money is better than the hope for a similar amount (or possibly more).
All respect to the anecdotal evidence of "I give it away and stay in business". But it's a heck of a gamble. I'm sure there's a lot of anecdotes out there of people saying "I gave it away and people took it. End of story"