So you agree, then, that this is just a business situation and has nothing to do with Stallmanesque ideology or Swartz-ish liberation of information, despite the superficial similarity to the latter (universities and journals are involved). You may not agree with the boycotters' perceptions of the situation, but that doesn't change the fact that they are acting in their own perceived self-interest.
Your comment that opened the thread is therefore off the mark. (For the record, I agree with your replies to 'clicks. I just don't think the argument you're having with him/her is relevant to this boycott.)
This is mostly right. This is certainly not about the boycotters believing all information (or even all academic publications) should be free, as the other branch of rayiner's thread assumes. And if Elsevier was more reasonable in their rates, this issue might never have come up or gained momentum.
However, as academics look around and see that the costs of publishing and hosting have become negligible compared to the value of their volunteer contributions, most of them feel that their own works should be freely available online or even that other academics ought to make their works freely available in accordance with culture of academia.
This is perfectly reasonable (of course it is -- look at the people involved) and I agree with you that rayiner is off the mark on this one.
Your comment that opened the thread is therefore off the mark. (For the record, I agree with your replies to 'clicks. I just don't think the argument you're having with him/her is relevant to this boycott.)